Blackwater Lunchbreak (02-24-2021)
It addresses the same issue, just from a different perspective. Be it Gorebal Warming, or poverty, or whatever, immigration and movement of population isn't an answer. The math shows that and the guy with the gumballs demonstrates it quite graphically. Countries don't have to be on "the receiving end of climate migration" either. To date, this hasn't been an issue for mass movement of population in any case even as the so-called "experts" have claimed repeatedly that by today it would be a major problem.
Again, how many times can the "experts" be wrong on something before you stop believing them?
No, it's not. In fact everything you state about nuclear power is wrong. For example, take Ivanpah solar v. Palo Verde nuclear. The later cost about five times what Ivanpah did in constant 2016 dollars to build. But Palo Verde produces 32 times more energy than Ivanpah, so the cost is far lower both in constructed generation and operation.Actually, current nuclear is more expensive because of the regulation hurdles. It has a nasty habit of melting down, causing massive unlivable zones, killing thousands. And there is a tough problem with storage of the spent fuel. And the mining and transpo of the fuel contributes to CO2. Just try to get insurance for a new nuclear project. Good luck.
There have been three serious accidents with nuclear power: Three Mile Island. Nobody died in that accident. It has been cleaned up entirely now. Fukushima. Nobody died as a direct cause of the meltdowns there. The number of people that might get cancer in years to come as a result is small. It is being cleaned up.
Then there's Chernobyl. This is what happens when you have a Leftist, authoritarian, government that has no public accountability. Chernobyl was a graphite moderated, fast fission reactor design that is used nowhere in the Western world for commercial power generation. The reasons for this is the design is inherently far less safe than designs used elsewhere, it produces as a biproduct of operation weapons grade plutonium, and it is a nightmare to dismantle at end of service life. But it is much cheaper and easier to produce to begin with...
The problems that caused the accident there was the reactor was being operated in an unsafe and experimental manner by a high ranked government bureaucrat. The operators told the guy that it was unsafe but had no authority to overrule him. Because of the inherently bad design characteristics of that type of reactor it resulted in a horrific nuclear accident that cannot and will not happen using standard commercial reactor designs the West uses like BWR and PWR reactors.
Mining of uranium or thorium for fuel, along with the processing and manufacture of it, is far more environmentally friendly than recovery of rare earth metals used in solar panels. Spent fuel can be safely stored in facilities like Yucca mountain. The only thing holding nuclear power back is an irrational fear of it due to scientific and engineering illiteracy such as you show here. That's it.
There are many inherently safe reactor designs out now. The only thing holding us back is, as I said fear brought on by people with no knowledge of how things nuclear work.I would like to see us set up a new regulatory system to look at Traveling Wave Reactor technology. That system uses the spent fuel of old tech reactors, thus solving two problems simultaneously. And it is inherently safer because it can't melt down. I'm not sure if I see a downside there. The new reactors could be built at the sites of old reactors where the spent fuel is stored. Seems like a no-brainer.
Yes but isn’t that better for an eventual perpetual one party Democrat state ? Then all will be well. A true utopian socialist society. Open borders, free healthcare for all, UBI, oil production eliminated , resulting in a mild year round temperate climate and no more hurricanes? The list of positives is almost endless.
Hello T. A. Gardner,
The OP doesn't claim it is. The OP does not propose that migration is the answer to poverty OR global warming.
The essence of the OP is being totally missed in your post.
We face an either / or situation.
Either we do (a) OR we will get (b).
There is no discussion about whether we should allow immigration. That is not the point.
The point is if we don't do something about climate change now, we will face increased immigration in a few decades.
OK, finally I see your point. You think there is no problem and there will be no problem. And to back this up you submit that experts have been wrong in the past at times so they should never be believed. Very absurd. I presume there are times when you do listen to experts. This just isn't one of them.
You're simply denying that we face this either-or situation in the first place.
I gotcha.
OK, that makes sense that you would take that position.
You don't have to deal with a problem if there is no problem, so you simply deny that the problem exists. Easy peazy. I only wish that was an effective solution.
Well, you are entitled to any position you like, but climate change is not dependent upon whether or not you believe in it. The climate is going to just keep on changing unless we change.
And we can change. We are constantly changing. We haven't been very good at forcing change because we face a global catastrophe, but we are going to have to learn how to do it. That would be a big enough challenge if we had everybody working towards the solution, It becomes even bigger if we have to work around a bunch of deniers who simply refuse to coordinate with the rest of the planet. No matter. We will continue to work towards a solution whether you help or not. We'd really like to have your help with this but if we can't have it we will have to do what we can without you. We really don't have another choice. If we did we would be glad to not face this looming crisis, but we have to accept the reality of it. There is no planet B.
Cherry-picked examples of each type of power specifically chosen to support a narrative. Palo Verde first came online in 1986. No matter what the cost back then was, the cost to build a similar plant today would be more than the inflation-adjusted cost back then. Regulation has become more expensive. Ivanpah, which is not PV, and uses mirrors to heat boilers for steam, was a step in the right direction, but that design is no longer cost-effective. All plans to build anything new like it have been scrapped due to the reduction in the cost of PV panels. But nice job of using what you had to make your point. Select one of the most cost-effective nuke plants and compare it to an outdated not-cost-efective solar plant. Such trickery makes a nice post, but it doesn't make a good basis for policy. Also, thanks for the challenge to learn. I was not previously familiar with either plant. Didn't take me long to bone up and find out why your argument was flawed.
Pathetic ad hominem attack noted. You've tried a red herring, didn't work, now you're on to an ad hominem. No big surprise. If you don't have a good enough argument for it to stand on it's own merit it becomes appealing to try such distractions to try to throw the reader off. It's not appreciated. But what else can you do? You have a losing argument in the first place. A losing argument is a losing argument no matter how it is presented.
If only it were that simple.
Last edited by PoliTalker; 02-25-2021 at 06:19 AM.
Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.
One of the problems causing low efficiency with the Ivanpah style of solar power generation comes from the start-up each morning.
This design uses mirrors to focus and concentrate the energy of the sun onto boilers which produce steam, which is used to run turbines to generate electricity. That's all fine and well after it's up and running, but each night the boilers cool. Every morning, in order to get the plant up and running quicker, natural gas is used to get the boilers up to temperature in order to be ready to switch over to the energy of the sun, thus maximizing the number of hours of solar power generation per day.
I wonder if they considered insulation.
Perhaps the efficiency of the plant could be improved if movable insulation surrounding the boilers could be shifted into place at the end of each day while the boilers are still hot. This would act to prevent heat loss during the night. Then, each morning, the insulation would be removed when there is enough sunlight to resume warming.
Probably not practical, and it seems such a straightforward idea that they must have considered it and run analysis.
Hopefully!
Last edited by PoliTalker; 02-25-2021 at 07:03 AM.
Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.
Isaiah 6:5
“Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”
Isaiah 6:5
“Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”
"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
A lie doesn't become the truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good just because it is accepted by a majority.
Author: Booker T. Washington
Overpopulation; aother moronic leftist meme lacking in facts and common sense.
29% of Earth is land mass. Of that 29% humans occupy less than 2 to 3% of that area. Of the remaining land mass, about 40% is pure wilderness. 14% is true desert and 15% has desert like characteristics. 9% is Antarctica. Most of the remaining 22% are agricultural areas.
The notion that man is causing the planet to heat up based on CO2 that amounts to 0.0314% of the gas in oxygen can only be believed by morons.
"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
A lie doesn't become the truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good just because it is accepted by a majority.
Author: Booker T. Washington
"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
A lie doesn't become the truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good just because it is accepted by a majority.
Author: Booker T. Washington
Bookmarks