Alfa Romeo Forums banner

2841 - 2860 of 3127 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
Personally, I'm all for nuclear, as are many people advocating for climate change activists. You paint with far too broad a brush. New reactor designs are quite safe compared to the 1950s-70s designs that caused the newsworthy nuclear incidents. Plus, people tend to be quite irrational about radiation.

The thing that hobbles nuclear right now is economics. It looses out to wind/solar every time a new plant is considered. However, nuclear could be a useful tool to provide steady state power when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow- essentially the role the coal/gas play in the current power generation matrix.

THE reason the economics of nuclear lose out is because the tree huggers have made it so expensive as to not even consider it, like you. The industry is regulated by at least 3 different federal agencies all with an eye on keeping their jobs. No regulations no jobs. Drop all the nonsense regulatory crap and the expense would diminish exponentially. And please do a youtube search for "The climate fix" and learn exactly what it would take to replace fossil fuels with Big Wind and Solar. It's laughable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,041 Posts
Personally, I'm all for nuclear, as are many people advocating for climate change activists. You paint with far too broad a brush. New reactor designs are quite safe compared to the 1950s-70s designs that caused the newsworthy nuclear incidents. Plus, people tend to be quite irrational about radiation.

The thing that hobbles nuclear right now is economics. It looses out to wind/solar every time a new plant is considered. However, nuclear could be a useful tool to provide steady state power when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow- essentially the role the coal/gas play in the current power generation matrix.

THE reason the economics of nuclear lose out is because the tree huggers have made it so expensive as to not even consider it, like you. The industry is regulated by at least 3 different federal agencies all with an eye on keeping their jobs. No regulations no jobs. Drop all the nonsense regulatory crap and the expense would diminish exponentially. And please do a youtube search for "The climate fix" and learn exactly what it would take to replace fossil fuels with Big Wind and Solar. It's laughable.
Who says I’m a tree hugger? If I were that, I wouldn’t work in the oil industry. I’m just someone willing to consider the facts objectively.

As for nuclear: If it were only a regulatory issue l, then countries line China and Pakistan would be 100% nuclear. And it makes no sense for people to hold down nuclear because they want some crappy government regulatory job. If there were more plants, they would actually have a much bigger/important job or opportunities in the private sector doing nuclear work.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
Good overview webpage from NASA for those of you who are interested in climate science, as opposed to myths and superstition. There is a list of references cited to back up all the information and if you want to dig deeper.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
The link says "evidence", but it is an attractive layout of NASA propaganda.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
Who says I’m a tree hugger? If I were that, I wouldn’t work in the oil industry. I’m just someone willing to consider the facts objectively.

As for nuclear: If it were only a regulatory issue l, then countries line China and Pakistan would be 100% nuclear. And it makes no sense for people to hold down nuclear because they want some crappy government regulatory job. If there were more plants, they would actually have a much bigger/important job or opportunities in the private sector doing nuclear work.
China and Pakistan use coal because that's a lot easier and plentiful than anything else available and they don't give a rat's butt about CO2 emissions. They don't need nuclear they want to build their economies now and I don't know that either country could build a high quality safe nuclear plant anyway. If you listen to pretty much all of the environmentalists with all of their talking points nuclear is the one alternative they are against. They don't even list it in their alternative energy list. And there is no way in hell that you can replace the energy needs of our country with wind and solar alone. The laws of physics apply even if you don't like it. And believe me when you have a pretty cushy gov. job with great benefits it is very difficult to give that up and try your hand in the real world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
681 Posts
Regarding that YouTube video, the Heartland Institute has a long and shameful history of promoting junk science with generous funding from corporations that benefit from the resulting confusion. In the past, their “experts” have argued, among other things, that ddt is not only harmless but a overall public health benefit, cigarettes aren’t unhealthy, and now climate change is an overblown hoax. This work was directed and funded by pesticide manufacturers, tobacco companies, and now fossil fuel interests. The book Merchants of Doubt provides details on this organization and its history.

There is plenty of scientifically sound and readily available information out there reflecting the work and findings of tens of thousands of scientists, statisticians and engineers on climate change. Claiming that its all propaganda because a small number of fringe people disagree is pretty weak.

This forum is starting to resemble desperate cancer victims embracing shamans and herbal treatments because they don’t want to hear the bad news that every cancer expert they’ve seen has given them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,669 Posts
That is UNCOMMON sense !
And we can see the usual dismissal of facts based on lumping eveyone into the 'for profit' side so that they can ignore the argument.

What facts about the makeup of gasses in the atmosphere is incorrect??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
598 Posts
you know the nice thing here.. all these post will last a few hundred years.. most likely.. so if the side that said climate change is not real and not caused by us... it will be in the nets perm. record.. love to see what you children and grand kids will say to you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
209 Posts
you know the nice thing here.. all these post will last a few hundred years.. most likely.. so if the side that said climate change is not real and not caused by us... it will be in the nets perm. record.. love to see what you children and grand kids will say to you.
VERY, VERY TRUE!...up through "...will last a few hundred years".
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
This is profound.
Can you cite some peer review?
Also, at what concentration of CO2, do you have to re-jet the Webers?
I'm still worried about CO2 and Weber jetting.
There must be someone on the BB with the skills to figure it out.
I'm not concerned about recent cars with FI, which government-pleasing corporations would be on to.
Just Webers.

This was Post #2756, July 26.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,669 Posts
In a couple hundred years, we will most likely still be waiting for ANY of the computer models to be correct........"just 20 more years and it will happen"....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
209 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by bianchi2 View Post

you know the nice thing here.. all these post will last a few hundred years.. most likely.. so if the side that said climate change is not real and not caused by us... it will be in the nets perm. record.. love to see what you children and grand kids will say to you.


VERY, VERY TRUE!...up through "...will last a few hundred years".


__________________
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
462 Posts
I wish someone who understands "the science" had stopped the Obamas before they made this horrible mistake! Clearly, despite his frequent assertions that "the science is settled," our former president must not understand that settled science. Or maybe he intends to build a gate system like that of Venice for Martha's Vineyard. Al Gore can help with the engineering. Sure he's not a civil engineer, but he invented the internet, after all, without being a EE or computer scientist. Don't underestimate His Largeness! (Talk about carbon footprints; can one get that large without a healthy dose of Double Quarter Pounders?)

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/274723/obama-ocean-mansion-3-10-feet-above-sea-level-daniel-greenfield
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
462 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by bianchi2 View Post

you know the nice thing here.. all these post will last a few hundred years.. most likely.. so if the side that said climate change is not real and not caused by us... it will be in the nets perm. record.. love to see what you children and grand kids will say to you.


VERY, VERY TRUE!...up through "...will last a few hundred years".

https://youtu.be/B2L1-TgfKb4

__________________
I'll go on record for my kids and grandkids saying that if climate change is really being driven by human activity, and it really is a threat, then the only way to address it is by converting every coal plant to nuclear. If we don't go nuclear, and things go to sh*t, it's not my fault, it's all the anti-nuke people (talk about anti-science). Germany's pumped over half a trillion dollars into alternative energy that doesn't include nuclear (in fact they've been moving away from nuclear) and as a result they've not reduced their carbon footprint at all since that effort began. Because often the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow and they have to fire up those nasty coal plants as a result. You'd almost think progressives don't reason things through!
 
2841 - 2860 of 3127 Posts
Top