Slashdot Mirror

So again, show me a reactor that's cheaper to run safely. Oh, and one that's either in active use or can be built. Nothing experimental or "just a few years away". Something that can be built today. Until then the extra cost for solar is worth it.

There's something like 450+ nuclear power plants operating on the planet today, with probably another 50+ under construction. You want an example? Pick one. Chances are with those kinds of odds that if you pick any currently operating power plant you will find one that is exceedingly safe, currently making a profit, and doing so with technology that's been proven itself with decades of quietly keeping the lights on for the world.

I've never heard of a solar power plant turning a city into a dead zone.

Yet. Anytime there's people playing with megawatts of power there's ample opportunity for death and destruction. We just started with solar power, we still don't know where all the gremlins are.

Also, we don't need a city turned into a dead zone for the bodies to pile up. Nuclear power is already safer than solar power.
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...

Why do we need nuclear? What is wrong with existing renewable and storage technology?

The problem is we can't build it fast enough. Wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal take too much material. We don't have enough capacity to create sufficient amounts of steel, concrete, and other materials to build enough renewable energy to displace coal.

Here's an article that gives just a taste of the problem:
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...

A very comprehensive analysis was done here:
http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co...

And here:
https://www.withouthotair.com/

If you want to tell me that we can wait until we have the infrastructure to build enough cement kilns and steel mills to keep up with the closing of current coal and nuclear, as well as increased needs for these materials not just for energy generation but also other construction, then I have to wonder just how urgent this need is to hold off global warming.

Even with over-building capacity it's still much cheaper than nuclear, and one of the primary objections to doing anything about climate change is the cost.

Nuclear is as cheap as wind and solar wish they could be. Some of the math is here: http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co...

We need to do this quick, and it has to make economic sense or it won't happen, and renewables offer massive opportunities for jobs and growth.

I agree, we must be quick. That's why we need to build wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, AND nuclear. If nuclear is not included then the world will fail to meet any CO2 reduction goals declared by the United Nations. Nuclear power makes economic sense. Any problems of costs for nuclear power are NOT in engineering, materials, or labor. The only costs associated with nuclear power that might make it uneconomical is political and regulatory. China figured out how to make nuclear power economical. One thing they do to keep costs down is shoot any protestors that hold up construction. I'm not saying we should do that in the USA but we can keep them from filing frivolous lawsuits and imprison them for their dangerous antics that interfere with solving this problem.

I saw in another thread someone claiming (jokingly I assume) that Greenpeace is causing global warming. Well, that's not far from the truth. The science shows that nuclear power would allow for a significant reduction in CO2 production, but Greenpeace opposes this. The science shows that cutting down trees for lumber, and planting new trees in their place, would create a considerable carbon sink for the CO2 we already produced, but Greenpeace opposes this.

Science tells us we need nuclear power or we will fail to reduce our CO2 in any meaningful time frame. That's why we need nuclear power. We need to include nuclear power in our solution to reduce CO2 or we will see CO2 output grow with all the global warming that comes with.

IT'S SCIENCE!! Are you a science denier?

You sick fuck. Read this and stew in your hate.

"Africa was the world’s fastest-growing continent at 5.6% a year, and GDP is expected to rise by an average of over 6% a year between 2013 and 2023.[3][8] In 2017, the African Development Bank reported Africa to be the world’s second-fastest growing economy, and estimates that average growth will rebound to 3.4% in 2017, while growth is expected to increase by 4.3% in 2018. Growth has been present throughout the continent, with over one-third of Sub-Saharan Africa countries posting 6% or higher growth rates, and another 40% growing between 4% to 6% per year.[3] Several international business observers have also named Africa as the future economic growth engine of the world"

What that article conveniently leaves out: taken as a whole bloc (that is, averaging all the nations), about HALF of sub-Saharan Africa's GDP comes from foreign aid. Note that at least half a dozen nations' GDP is more than 75% foreign aid. Did you ever see a white nation run itself this way? Sub-Saharan Africa is immensely rich in terms of natural resources. It's pure mismanagement.

I came across that info while reading a blog detailing the ways people like Tony Blair, Bob Geldof and other powerful progressives are trying to effectively re-colonize Africa after issuing a "Report on Africa" detailing a large number of ways they feel Africans are unable to govern themselves. That's what is really happening in Africa and it's nothing new.

Were you ignorant about the facts yourself? Or were you counting on the ignorance of the rest of us? Like I said, maybe it is you who needs some Tough Love.

For what it's worth the HBD movement is not a bunch of backwoods redneck racists. It's well informed people who are drawing conclusions from facts. The more you research it yourself the more obvious those facts are and the more the whole "equality" deal shows itself for what it is, an article of religious faith that has never panned out. Meanwhile it costs us dearly in terms of money, social capital, and crime. I don't want to abuse blacks, oppress them, enslave them, or anything of the sort. I want to live apart from them.

Mental illness is something Americans made up, because they fucked up running a society.

Just as "racism" was something American liberals made up, because they fucked up recognizing that What follows is the "shock" that those who want to be successful don't want to associate with those who would drag them down. Melanin has nothing to do with it.

"Black lives matter? "Up and coming" black rapper in 70% black Baltimore, who advocated nonviolence, murdered by black male"

If black people want their lives to matter to whites they first need to act like they matter to each other. Blacks account for 53.1% of all solved murders in 2017 (FBI crime stats) and primarily it's black males murdering other black males. Although it may "comfort" you to know that black people murder whites about twelve times more often than white people murder blacks. They're a violent people, plain and simple.

That is incorrect. "Their" is plural of his/her/its. We know his sex. Their is NOTHING wrong with using the correct pronoun that corresponds with his known nature - It is the suppression of doing so that is becoming the insane norm.

First of all, singular they has a long history within the English language dating back at least as far the Bishops (1568) and King James (1611) Bibles, Shakespeare, Emily Dickinson, Jane Austen and many other notable authors.

Or, as Language Log put it:

By all means, avoid using they with singular antecedents in your own writing and speaking if you feel you cannot bear it. Language Log is not here to tell you how to write or speak. But don't try to tell us that it's grammatically incorrect. Because when a construction is clearly present several times in Shakespeare's rightly admired plays and poems, and occurs in the carefully prepared published work of just about all major writers down the centuries, and is systematically present in the unreflecting conversational usage of just about everyone including Sean Lennon, then the claim that it is ungrammatical begins to look utterly unsustainable to us here at Language Log Plaza. This use of they isn't ungrammatical, it isn't a mistake, it's a feature of ordinary English syntax that for some reason attracts the ire of particularly puristic pusillanimous pontificators, and we don't buy what they're selling.

Second, the sneering and incorrect hyper-grammar-policing of a historically acceptable construction is bad enough, but did you really have to do it in a post mistaking "there" and "their" in the second sentence? Because that's not some marginal or debatable rule of grammar, that's actually two different words with totally different meanings. Even Safari's god-awful grammar checker flags that one as questionable . . .

From your source I find this:

Under the current conditions the specific CO2 emission of nuclear power is roughly 80-130 gram CO2/kWh.

https://www.stormsmith.nl/i05....

Compare that to the CO2 emissions from here: http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...
While the source you gave shows more CO2 from nuclear then from Dr. Malhotra it still shows nuclear power having lower CO2 emissions than hydro and solar, about on par with biomass, and less than double that of the very low CO2 from wind. Dr. Malhotra shows data with nuclear lower than all the above but your source doesn't change the primary point I make, that nuclear power is a very low CO2 emitter and therefore it would be wise to make it part of the solution to lowering our carbon footprint.

I accept the facts you provided on CO2 emissions, despite your claim otherwise. I accept them wholeheartedly because they prove the very point I was making.

I'd address your sources' claims on the safety of nuclear power if they made any. All I got from them is that nuclear power has not been proven safe, which is very different than proving nuclear power unsafe. This is an obvious lie because safety studies have been done and Dr. Malhotra had cited them on his website, which is shown on the link I provided. Given that nuclear power has been shown to be quite safe, and again a very low CO2 emitter, then it would be wise to use as much of it as we can while continuing to develop solar, wind, nuclear, or whatever else shows to be promising.

To claim I refuse any facts given me first requires that someone provide facts. I cannot refuse what was not offered. I accept your data on CO2 because it shows nothing I didn't already know, that nuclear power has CO2 that is as low as any other energy source that has been called "zero carbon". Of course nuclear power is not truly zero carbon but then neither is solar or wind, I only claim that if "zero carbon" applies to solar then it also applies to nuclear.

Compare the kinda sorta communist Cuba to the capitalist Haiti. Which of the two has the higher standards of living?

Haiti was prosperous and had things like sanitation back when it was run by the French. Now Haiti is the same result you see anytime blacks run things. All majority black areas that are not run by whites/asians work out this way. If you want an example closer to home see how Atlanta got even worse when the majority black residents elected black officials to run things.

If you wanna cry "RACISS!!" and plug up your ears you can do that. If you want a well researched writeup with facts and references you can find one here explaining their tendencies.

Remember 20+ years ago when we bemoaned all the elderly and/or stupid people who couldn't seem to learn how to use an email client despite everyone's best efforts to educate them? Well guess what, Zombie Granny clawed her way out of her grave, got a job developing for Apple, and is pushing us all hard down the path to Idiocracy.

Anecdotally, this summer has been the coolest and wettest I can remember in at least 60 years or more. The average first frost date is November 4th. We had a hard freeze of 27F three weeks early, which followed a 5" snow on Oct 14th. Elephants and Giraffe in Africa are wading through 10" of a late spring snow. While claiming such snow falls are common the news media are still making a big deal of it, so it must not be as common as some claim. How many times in the past have you seen photos of elephants in Africa wading through deep snow?
https://www.msn.com/en-za/trav...

And, why would he pay of the "winner" had the advantage of being supported by fudged data?

https://realclimatescience.com...

https://science.house.gov/news...

https://climatecenter.fsu.edu/...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...

AGW is all about dialectical materialism: the transfer of wealth from the West to Marxist countries via "Carbon Credits", which made Al Gore a millionaire.
http://variable-variability.bl...

... But one must explicitly say: We de facto redistribute the world’s wealth due to climate politics. That the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic about this is obvious. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate politics is environmental politics . This has almost nothing to do any more with environmental politics, ...

IOW, Climate Change is used by Globalists to justify their push toward Marxist "solutions" to all problems. They have their "Arm and Hammer" and they see every problem as a nail requiring hits from their hammer.

Link: https://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-violent-crime/. This one is more honest than the FBI crime stats because it recognizes that Hispanics are culturally (if not racially) different from Whites.

From the article:

"This table can be used for a number of interesting calculations. First, we find that during the 2012/2013 period, blacks committed an average of 560,600 violent crimes against whites, whereas whites committed only 99,403 such crimes against blacks. This means blacks were the attackers in 84.9 percent of the violent crimes involving blacks and whites. This figure is consistent with reports from 2008, the last year DOJ released similar statistics. Perhaps not coincidentally, that was the year Mr. Obama was elected president.

Interestingly, we find that violent interracial crime involving blacks and Hispanics occurs in almost exactly the same proportions as black/white crime: Blacks are the attackers 82.5 percent of the time, while Hispanics are attackers only 17.5 percent of the time.

Some observers argue that what causes the overwhelming preponderance of black-on-white over white-on-black violence is “chance of encounter,” due to the fact that there are five times as many whites as blacks in the American population. However, there are only about 30 percent more Hispanics than blacks, yet black-on-Hispanic violence is almost as lopsided as black-on-white violence. This suggests blacks may be deliberately targeting both whites and Hispanics."

What you call "racism" I call "pattern recognition". Avoid the groid! This is why! This is why "white flight" is a thing. It's not an aversion to melanin even if that contradicts your article of religious faith.

Are you paying the Diversity Tax?

Link: https://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-violent-crime/. This one is more honest than the FBI crime stats because it recognizes that Hispanics are culturally (if not racially) different from Whites.

From the article:

"This table can be used for a number of interesting calculations. First, we find that during the 2012/2013 period, blacks committed an average of 560,600 violent crimes against whites, whereas whites committed only 99,403 such crimes against blacks. This means blacks were the attackers in 84.9 percent of the violent crimes involving blacks and whites. This figure is consistent with reports from 2008, the last year DOJ released similar statistics. Perhaps not coincidentally, that was the year Mr. Obama was elected president.

Interestingly, we find that violent interracial crime involving blacks and Hispanics occurs in almost exactly the same proportions as black/white crime: Blacks are the attackers 82.5 percent of the time, while Hispanics are attackers only 17.5 percent of the time.

Some observers argue that what causes the overwhelming preponderance of black-on-white over white-on-black violence is “chance of encounter,” due to the fact that there are five times as many whites as blacks in the American population. However, there are only about 30 percent more Hispanics than blacks, yet black-on-Hispanic violence is almost as lopsided as black-on-white violence. This suggests blacks may be deliberately targeting both whites and Hispanics."

What you call "racism" I call "pattern recognition". Avoid the groid! This is why! This is why "white flight" is a thing. It's not an aversion to melanin even if that contradicts your article of religious faith.

Are you paying the Diversity Tax?

Link: https://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-violent-crime/. This one is more honest than the FBI crime stats because it recognizes that Hispanics are culturally (if not racially) different from Whites.

From the article:

"This table can be used for a number of interesting calculations. First, we find that during the 2012/2013 period, blacks committed an average of 560,600 violent crimes against whites, whereas whites committed only 99,403 such crimes against blacks. This means blacks were the attackers in 84.9 percent of the violent crimes involving blacks and whites. This figure is consistent with reports from 2008, the last year DOJ released similar statistics. Perhaps not coincidentally, that was the year Mr. Obama was elected president.

Interestingly, we find that violent interracial crime involving blacks and Hispanics occurs in almost exactly the same proportions as black/white crime: Blacks are the attackers 82.5 percent of the time, while Hispanics are attackers only 17.5 percent of the time.

Some observers argue that what causes the overwhelming preponderance of black-on-white over white-on-black violence is “chance of encounter,” due to the fact that there are five times as many whites as blacks in the American population. However, there are only about 30 percent more Hispanics than blacks, yet black-on-Hispanic violence is almost as lopsided as black-on-white violence. This suggests blacks may be deliberately targeting both whites and Hispanics."

What you call "racism" I call "pattern recognition". Avoid the groid! This is why! This is why "white flight" is a thing. It's not an aversion to melanin even if that contradicts your article of religious faith.

Are you paying the Diversity Tax?

Here
This home is nicer than many that I saw in rural black mississippi, which DID have open sewars, no electricity/gas, etc.
More
More.

Every nation has elements that are basically poverty. The only real difference between a 1st, and 3rd world, is the degree of poverty. In America, the extreme 3rd world condition probably affects less than 5%. OTOH, when I was in India, I saw that it was rampant, and I would guess that a good 70% or more of population was in poverty.

Except nuclear power stations are usually built from vast quantities of concrete, the production of which creates enormous amounts of carbon dioxide.

Actually, I suppose a lot of hydro dams also use vast quantities of concrete. As you were.

Nuclear plants use relatively little concrete and have the smallest resource footprint of any energy source. There is a good visualization of DOE data on materials intensity at the provided link.

Except nuclear power stations are usually built from vast quantities of concrete, the production of which creates enormous amounts of carbon dioxide.

Actually, I suppose a lot of hydro dams also use vast quantities of concrete. As you were.

Nuclear power also produces enormous amounts of electric energy, more than enough to offset the CO2 produced and make it far lower CO2 than any other energy source we have today.

http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...

Nuclear power is also far safer than anything else and uses far less material resources compared to the energy produced.

If CO2 production concerns you then you'd be supporting nuclear power. If we are going to see any meaningful reduction in CO2, without driving prices through the roof, then we need nuclear, wind, and hydro. Solar costs too much, is inherently unreliable, takes too much materials, and really isn't all that great on CO2 when compared to wind, nuclear, and hydro.

"In Charlotte, North Carolina, Black Magistrates Work To Protect Black Criminals Engaging in Armed Robbery By Not Issuing Arrest Warrants (To Fight Racism)"

You know this is true. It's uncomfortable and there is loads of cognitive dissonance because you want to virtue signal and do the approved thing. Still, give it an honest read. A poignant example from the comments section:

"In essence, what it really comes down to is that blacks don't want there to be any consequences for anything they do. Even tickets for traffic infractions are considered an attack on their freedom to do as they please and any consequences of not paying for their misbehavior is just considered a continuation of the attack. More and more, they remind me of out of control obnoxious children screaming, "Leave me alone! I don't care! I'm gonna do whatever I want! You're just being mean to me!" Of course, this always segues into shouts of discrimination, racism, profiling, disparate impact and oppression. It doesn't matter whether it's traffic offenses, their children breaking the rules in school and misbehaving and getting punished for it or blacks wanting to walk around carrying illegal concealed weapons in public. They want to get away with all of it and get outraged, offended and feel disrespected when not allowed to and claim they're being unfairly targeted and affected. You're supposed to ignore the fact that they engage in far more inappropriate behaviors and thus suffer far more consequences. Please buy into their victim narrative- they're "being done wrong" and "kept down."

Put simply, due to their low IQ's and juvenile mentality, they're simply not capable of existing in a first world civilization without being highly disruptive, destructive and a major pain in the ass. You will never see a first world civilization comprised entirely of blacks- it's beyond their comprehension and capability except perhaps for the magical ten percent and that's simply not enough to make a difference. The entire goal of the other 90 percent is to drag everything down to their low level so they can feel "free" and do anything they want. Of course, then they blame everyone else for the horrible conditions that result and scream for everyone else to "help and make a difference" because "you caused all dis! It yo fault! You owes us!"

Bottom line: they're not ready for civilization and need to be off on their own somewhere to revel in their stupidity. They can be free of the requirements of first world civilizations and first world civilizations can be gloriously free of them."

More nations, including the US, need to be protective of their own borders, people, and national interests.

But unless those nations happen to be populated by black/brown people, doing this will get them branded as RACISS!!

Among the global population whites are a 14% minority. Yet only white nations need diversity. No hard evidence is ever submitted that diversity is a good thing. It is an article of faith. Those who question it are treated as heretics when they are merely asking for substantiation, something celebrated when any other claim is made. It covers many diverse cultures living together and how/why it has worked, including several white ones.

Possibly when aliens finally land and we are all "Earthlings" we'll get over this kind of thing. Until then there is a nice fluffy ideal of how things should be. Contrasting that is the real-world turnout of how it's worked every time it's been tried. It's the viewpoint of the child versus the adult.

Yes, Dr. Ripudaman Malhotra is a reputable author, and the article in question is well cited. Replacing Cubic Miles of Oil @ TEAC8 is an interesting presentation by the same author, and the youtube link also references his book.

That was a lie. Nuclear fuel means strip mining and strip mining means contamination of water systems. They also said that it would be "too cheap to meter" and that was why it was worth producing the pollution, but that was also a lie. You can't justify nuclear power without lies.

Typical, cherry picking the worst method of uranium mining which accounts for less than 20% of recovered uranium. Another common strategy is to complain about the inefficiency of obsolete enrichment methods.

Most uranium is recovered by in-situ leaching. All of it could be sourced from seawater extraction, if we chose to. Ideally, we would transition to the thorium fuel cycle, where the fuel is a free byproduct of existing rare earth mining, which ironically, has been expanded by the needs of renewables. Transitioning to nuclear would actually reduce the various mining impacts, since it is drastically more resource efficient.

It's not like they have a history of posting fake news or anything.

http://blog.dilbert.com/2017/0...

https://www.godsavethepoints.c...

https://donsurber.blogspot.com...

Greens would prefer extinction to nuclear energy. In Germany, they chose to sacrifice the ancient Hambach Forest to a coal mine, rather than reopen existing reactors. The comparison remains the same; even the antiquated nuclear reactors in use today use far less materials and land than anything in the renewable energy portfolio.

It appears that the whole notion of Roman soldiers being paid in salt (or salt equivalent) is a fairly recent invention and there don't appear to be any contemporary sources that back it up. It's just a myth, so don't try to reason it out too much. (source)

So what you are saying is that the story isn't worth its salt?

Supersymmetry is also predicted by other theories, so it isn't a unique prediction of String framework (they shouldn't call it String Theory because Theory is reserved for well established systems in science, such as GR, QFT, evolution, etc). Also, given the landscape problem, if supersymmetry wasn't found at the SSC they could just say that it only appears at higher energies, as some scientists are currently saying after the LHC has ruled out the more plausible SUSY theories that solve the naturalness problem already:

The first step is to backpedal from their earlier claims. This has already happened. Originally we were told that if supersymmetric particles are there, we would see them right away.

        “Discovering gluinos and squarks in the expected mass range [] seems straightforward, since the rates are large and the signals are easy to separate from Standard Model backgrounds.” Frank Paige (1998).

        “The Large Hadron Collider will either make a spectacular discovery or rule out supersymmetry entirely.” Michael Dine (2007)

Now they claim no one ever said it would be easy. By 2012, it was “Natural SUSY is difficult to see at LHC” and “"Natural supersymmetry" may be hard to find.”

Step two is arguing that the presently largest collider will just barely fail to see the new particles but that the next larger collider will be up to the task.

Hence the surprise when the supersymmetric partners of the known particles didn’t show up — first at the Large Electron-Positron Collider in the 1990s, then at the Tevatron in the 1990s and early 2000s, and now at the LHC. As the colliders have searched ever-higher energies, the gap has widened between the known particles and their hypothetical superpartners, which must be much heavier in order to have avoided detection. Ultimately, supersymmetry becomes so “broken” that the effects of the particles and their superpartners on the Higgs mass no longer cancel out, and supersymmetry fails as a solution to the naturalness problem. Some experts argue that we’ve passed that point already. Others, allowing for more freedom in how certain factors are arranged, say it is happening right now, with ATLAS and CMS excluding the stop quark — the hypothetical superpartner of the 0.173-TeV top quark — up to a mass of 1 TeV. That’s already a nearly sixfold imbalance between the top and the stop in the Higgs tug-of-war. Even if a stop heavier than 1 TeV exists, it would be pulling too hard on the Higgs to solve the problem it was invented to address.

It appears that the whole notion of Roman soldiers being paid in salt (or salt equivalent) is a fairly recent invention and there don't appear to be any contemporary sources that back it up. It's just a myth, so don't try to reason it out too much. (source)

If global warming from CO2 production is a problem then we need to consider all solutions to reduce CO2 production. As it is right now, today, nuclear power produced the least CO2 for the most energy. As it is right now nuclear power is by far the safest energy source we have.
Cite: http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...

Anyone that both desires to reduce CO2 immediately and ban the future development of nuclear power is placing us all into an impossible situation. It's possible to both reduce CO2 and not use nuclear power but that means (as shown by the source I linked to above) much more mining of ores for the production of steel, concrete, glass, copper, aluminum, and so many more raw materials. This comes with costs, in money, lives, and standard of living.

Any problems with nuclear power is local, very local, as in limited to the borders of the power plant and the mines. Releases of material beyond these borders are rare, minute, and can be addressed. Issues of CO2 spreading will be global in nature. Any costs of nuclear power must be balanced with the reduced costs of CO2 output it would produce in replacing coal and natural gas.

Wind and solar involve considerable material costs, far more than nuclear. They also have costs in lives from industrial accidents, far less than any from nuclear power per energy produced. Wind and solar are also unreliable and expensive, which when addressing the unreliability means increasing the costs. There may be places where wind and solar are really cheap, and where pumped hydro storage is also cheap, but these places are rare. Suitable sites for nuclear power, especially fourth generation nuclear, are not rare.

I do not believe global warming to be a problem but I will concede that point if it means we get cheap, reliable, and safe nuclear power.

I will believe Australia is taking global warming seriously when they start building nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power has the lowest CO2 output per energy produced than any energy source we have currently with a possible exception for hydroelectric. Nuclear power is also the safest energy source we have, as measured by deaths per energy produced. Any other problems anyone might raise are nothing compared to global warming, assuming that there is in fact man made global warming.
cite: http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...

Problems of cost are nothing, because as is pointed out there are costs to continued use of coal. Problems of nuclear waste are nothing, because the waste is contained and localized compared to CO2 which goes everywhere. We know how to deal with waste effectively, put it in a container and keep an eye on it. Presumably in the future we can extract many of the valuable materials from this waste for use in industry and medicine, something we do a limited amount already.

I find it quite contradictory to both complain so vociferously of global warming while having a ban on the use of a technology that has demonstrated a very effective ability to reduce this warming. Go to hell, Australia. Your entire economy is based on the mining of coal and uranium. You burn the coal and export the uranium. You want us in the USA to reduce our CO2? You first! Be an example for the rest of the world. You built up a bunch of wind and then found out it can't work without a big fucking battery to keep the grid stable. You know what would also keep the grid stable? And actually produce energy? Nuclear power plants. Go build your windmills but also build some nuclear power. If you believe global warming will leave your nation desolate then you need to have an "all the above" energy plan, and "all the above" includes nuclear power.

No one is forcing anyone to use Google, YouTube, or any of the other services.

Other than Stripe and Patreon and Apple and Visa and Mastercard and the US State Department and UK Home Office.

If you start up an alternative service, you can expect to get kicked off of every cloud service provider and then DDOSed to death by NATO. Expect the backbones and satellite service providers to start enforcing the same rules that payment processors are already enforcing, and then please tell me how you can begin to build an alternative to Google when you have no network access, no government funding, and no banks will process your payments.

Every US city with a significant black population already is just like a third-world shithole. When they overrun cities they leave behind nothing in their wake where once prosperous buildings stood.

You want racial reality? View the tables and graphs for yourself, with sources.

Even a (black) Nigerian writer named Chigozie Obioma straight out says "there are no successful black nations". Will you call him "racist" for telling the truth?

This can be down-modded. It can be name-called. It cannot be refuted. The very people who feel "offended" by this would be the first to engage in "white flight" should their own neighborhood be overrun by blacks and they experience the violent crime and fear first hand.

If they are this way "because of past racism" then by that measure the Jews and the Native Americans should also be topping the violent crime charts. They aren't. In fact the Jews are doing very well for themselves including in places like Germany.

Every US city with a significant black population already is just like a third-world shithole. When they overrun cities they leave behind nothing in their wake where once prosperous buildings stood.

You want racial reality? View the tables and graphs for yourself, with sources.

Even a (black) Nigerian writer named Chigozie Obioma straight out says "there are no successful black nations". Will you call him "racist" for telling the truth?

This can be down-modded. It can be name-called. It cannot be refuted. The very people who feel "offended" by this would be the first to engage in "white flight" should their own neighborhood be overrun by blacks and they experience the violent crime and fear first hand.

If they are this way "because of past racism" then by that measure the Jews and the Native Americans should also be topping the violent crime charts. They aren't. In fact the Jews are doing very well for themselves including in places like Germany.

Every US city with a significant nígger population already is just like a third-world shithole. When they overrun cities they leave behind nothing in their wake where once prosperous buildings stood.

You want racial reality? View the tables and graphs for yourself, with sources.

Even a (black) Nigerian writer named Chigozie Obioma straight out says "there are no successful black nations". Will you call him "racist" for telling the truth?

This can be down-modded. It can be name-called. It cannot be refuted. The very people who feel "offended" by this would be the first to engage in "white flight" should their own neighborhood be overrun by blacks and they experience the violent crime and fear first hand.

If they are this way "because of past racism" then by that measure the Jews and the Native Americans should also be topping the violent crime charts. They aren't. In fact the Jews are doing very well for themselves including in places like Germany.

Every US city with a significant nígger population already is just like a third-world shithole. When they overrun cities they leave behind nothing in their wake where once prosperous buildings stood.

You want racial reality? View the tables and graphs for yourself, with sources.

Even a (black) Nigerian writer named Chigozie Obioma straight out says "there are no successful black nations". Will you call him "racist" for telling the truth?

This can be down-modded. It can be name-called. It cannot be refuted. The very people who feel "offended" by this would be the first to engage in "white flight" should their own neighborhood be overrun by blacks and they experience the violent crime and fear first hand.

If they are this way "because of past racism" then by that measure the Jews and the Native Americans should also be topping the violent crime charts. They aren't. In fact the Jews are doing very well for themselves including in places like Germany.

The way things are going, American needs the UN to come in and observe the election. It won't be long until the general public no longer trusts the results.

Far from being "great again", the country is turning into a third world shit hole.

Every US city with a significant nígger population already is just like a third-world shithole. When they overrun cities they leave behind nothing in their wake where once prosperous buildings stood.

You want racial reality? View the tables and graphs for yourself, with sources.

Even a (black) Nigerian writer named Chigozie Obioma straight out says "there are no successful black nations". Will you call him "racist" for telling the truth?

This can be down-modded. It can be name-called. It cannot be refuted. The very people who feel "offended" by this would be the first to engage in "white flight" should their own neighborhood be overrun by blacks and they experience the violent crime and fear first hand.

If they are this way "because of past racism" then by that measure the Jews and the Native Americans should also be topping the violent crime charts. They aren't. In fact the Jews are doing very well for themselves including in places like Germany.

The way things are going, American needs the UN to come in and observe the election. It won't be long until the general public no longer trusts the results.

Far from being "great again", the country is turning into a third world shit hole.

Every US city with a significant nígger population already is just like a third-world shithole. When they overrun cities they leave behind nothing in their wake where once prosperous buildings stood.

You want racial reality? View the tables and graphs for yourself, with sources.

Even a (black) Nigerian writer named Chigozie Obioma straight out says "there are no successful black nations". Will you call him "racist" for telling the truth?

This can be down-modded. It can be name-called. It cannot be refuted. The very people who feel "offended" by this would be the first to engage in "white flight" should their own neighborhood be overrun by blacks and they experience the violent crime and fear first hand.

If they are this way "because of past racism" then by that measure the Jews and the Native Americans should also be topping the violent crime charts. They aren't. In fact the Jews are doing very well for themselves including in places like Germany.

Baroness Helena Kennedy's SOAS is the notorious "School of Organized Anti-Semitism". Check JIDF blogs for more info. ... Kennedy sits on the board of the The Institute for Strategic Dialogue which is responsible for The Strong Cities Network

Sana Amanat, Marvel's Muslim VP of Content and Character Development and Ms. Marvel co-creator, is the cousin of Huma Abedin ... A non-profit Omar Amanat co-founded, Soliya, received a $1.25 million grant from the State Department

Soliya has merged with the UN-established Alliance of Civilizations Media Fund ... Suhail Rizvi is a major investor in Twitter. Some reports say he owned 15% of the company when it went public. ... In the best case scenario, "Strong Cities" is just an intelligence sharing network. In the worst case scenario, it is the surrender of territory to Farah Pandith's organization.

Wikimedia Foundation trustee Bishakha Datta is the chair of the Association for Progressive Communications,[1] a member of the Internet Governance Forum and a promoter of the notion that disagreeing with a woman on the Internet is "Cyber Violence" and should be judged as a crime under existing battery law.[2] ...
Wikimedia Foundation board member Esra'a Al Shafei is funded by the Omidyar Foundation and is a board member of AccessNow,[299] a project of Democratic Party activist group Avaaz / Purpose Action[300] that is best known for its public relations support for the delivery of arms to al-Qaeda in the Benghazi scandal and to ISIS in Syria.[301] ...
Longtime Esalen employee[12][13] John Marks and his wife Susan Collins Marks run Search for Common Ground which ran the The U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project with the Consensus Building Institute and the Rockfeller Brothers Fund.[14][15][16] The project produced a report in 2008 that called for American support for the Muslim Brotherhood.[17] Susan Collins Marks is on the board of the Future Shapers Collaborative with Muna AbuSulayman,[18] manager of Kingdom Holdings of Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal and daughter of Abdulhamid Abusulayman of the International Institute of Islamic Thought who called for the "Islamization of Knowledge" in 1989.[19] ...

As of 2013,[316] the Wikimedia Foundation's major donors include: ... Arcadia Fund of Lisbet Rausing and Peter Baldwin and Jacob Rothschild[20]

Remember Sad Puppies? The guys who took over the Hugo Awards used to do PR on BoingBoing for the Taliban and the Kashmiri jihad. People who disagreed were banned and had their posts removed. It was one of the first sites to do that.

Microsoft hired Suhail Khan, a guy under investigation for the past 20 years for his affiliations with terrorists, as its director of external affairs.

Remember that "safe space" campaign a few years back? It was run by the Muslim Public Affairs Council. Their definition of a "safe space" is one where no one has ever criticized Islam.

Remember that "Women's March" that was supposed to be about abortion rights but had oppressive hijabs all over the place? Its organizer has family members in jail for helping Hamas. Guess who Chuck the Schmuck brought to the center of the United States government to protest against Brett Kavanaugh.

Remember that group that harassed Bern

It's also worth pointing out that most of the camera sensors used in phones are made by Sony (including the camera in the iPhone). A lot of the differences these camera review sites are trumpeting is nothing more than post-processing. That is, if you had the raw image data, you could process it to make one camera's output identical to another's. If you're a serious enough photographer to read DXO Mark's reviews, then you probably already have the post-processing knowledge to overcome most of the flaws they point out in a particular phone's camera.

Sony grabbed the opportunity that Kodak missed. While Kodak was the first company to realize that electronic digital imaging was the future (they developed first the CCD camera in 1975), they didn't have the technological base to manufacture their own sensors on the scale needed to replace film. So they always outsourced that part of their production. This resulted in Kodak holding nothing but patents when digital replaced film. OTOH Sony had the technical capability to manufacture their own sensors, and quickly took over the small camera sensor market.

Demonstrably untrue.

http://bsdimp.blogspot.com/201...

The problem isn't finding evidence that we humans are doing plenty to fuck up our atmosphere and environment. The problem is convincing enough of the greedy fucks in charge to give up their precious money in order to do something about it. For the worlds largest polluters, revenue is all that matters, side effects be damned.

Launch all the "damn" satellites you want. Until you fix the political problem, any results will continue to fall on deaf ears.

It is a political problem, not a monetary problem. Governments are free to print money, and the value of currency is artificial. The actual limiting factor is resources, and as long as those in power are deploying our limited resources in ineffective ways, the problem will continue growing. We need policy based on science and facts, not political whim and fantasy. Policy that considers energy returned on energy invested, resource efficiency, land impact, grid requirements, the potentially to rapidly scale, and so forth. Nuclear is at the top of all the metrics that matter, and there is great potential for cost reduction and efficiency improvement with molten salt reactors.

If global warming from carbon emissions are bringing us all these terrible storms, with all the death and destruction they cause, then we should do everything in our power to reduce our CO2 footprint. As nuclear power is the one energy source we have today with the lowest CO2 output per energy produced then we should be building nuclear power plants as quickly as we can. Anyone standing in the way of nuclear power development is by inaction killing people and destroying property.

I'm sure someone will shout, "but nuclear power is not safe!!" Is it? Less safe than hurricanes? I call bullshit. Nuclear power is the safest energy source we have existing today, look it up. In fact here's a web page to get you started:
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...

If CO2 is the problem then we need to look at solutions with the lowest CO2 output. That means nuclear power. It also means more wind and hydro but not many people oppose those. If you oppose nuclear power based on the threat it poses to humanity then I must assume you are ignorant or believe global warming is no real threat.

I personally believe that global warming is no real threat but I advocate nuclear power for many reasons, one of them being to get the global warming alarmists to SHUT THE FUCK UP!! If global warming is a problem then it only remains a problem because we stopped building nuclear power plants in the USA.

What happened? The country did worse with his plan than his own predictions for doing nothing.

You are making the claim that Obama is bad at predicting, and then using that admittedly bad prediction as your measure of his success. Your argument is self-refuting. If the prediction is bad, it's illogical of you to use it as a measure of his economic success. What's more, a bad predictor could be good at the economy, and a good predictor could be bad at the economy. Nothing about your argument makes sense. The only way we can really understand Obama's impact, short of traveling in time and re-running the experiment, is by comparing his presidency to others. By that measure, he's done quite well.

Obama's recovery is one of the longest in history,

Yes, and hence one of the slowest, i.e., one of the weakest and worst.

No, based on the metrics I provided. Repeating this same thing over and over doesn't make it true, and doesn't refute the facts.

If the Keynesian view were correct, the economy should have responded as he predicted. But, in fact, the economy responded like Austrian models predicted.

Nonsense. Austrian economists were predicting hyperinflation left and right, or maybe a deflationary default. Where is it? http://socialdemocracy21stcent...

Austrian economics gives you exactly what you'd expect for a philosophy that specifically rejects mathematical rigor and empiricism: total garbage, handwaving, magical thinking. And predictive power roughly on par with astrology.

But what Keynesians give you is slow growth and boom-bust cycles because the boom-bust cycles are caused by monetary policy and government spending in the first place.

Totally unsupported claim. What Keynesians give you is a responsible adult model of economic behavior - pay off your debts when things are good, so you've got some room to borrow when things are bad. This lessens the amplitude of the boom-bust cycle. Austrians just say "government is bad" and when you ask them to prove it, they stick their fingers in their ears. Austrians suck at math, modeling, and basically all the modern tools of science, because fundamentally, they don't believe in them. And really, they have to be that way, because if they used empirical methods, those methods would quickly reveal that their theory has no basis in fact.

Given the solar potential of that area of the world, they could use solar thermal to power the desal plants, mine the brine for lithium and magnesium and use the sodium & potassium salts for thermal energy storage

Taking the whole area of the Middle East, the population there, the solar power available, and the drinking water that solar power could produce, then I would agree that solar thermal is possible as a solution. There's a huge problem, the people in the Middle East are a bunch of groups that don't get along very well. Politics prevent this from being feasible.

First, solar desalination is a big fat valuable target in case of war or terrorism. You can't put a solar collector in a bunker and expect it to work. Maybe you can build it from bulletproof glass and such but it's still a big target if it's to collect enough sun to matter. Second, some of these nations are small with not a lot of open area for solar collectors. To get enough sun they'd have to "import some sun" from their neighbors in the form of desalinated water, electricity, or something else of value. This means trade with people that might just rather see them dead, and also having something of value to give in return. What would these nations have to trade? Other than the oil and natural gas that we'd rather not see burned?

I could go on but I hope I've made my point. This is not a problem that can be solved with solar power given the politics. That's even assuming the physics and economics work out. To convince them to switch to solar power you'd have to show them it can make them money, or be less of a money sink than using oil, natural gas, or nuclear power. I've seen the math and even in sunny UAE they cannot rely on solar power to provide the electricity and drinking water they need. They will have to use nuclear power or revert to a stone age existence in time.

Some sources:
https://www.withouthotair.com/
http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co...
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...

Oh, it's worse than that. It's quite possible that this wind farm will end up producing as much CO2 as if they just burned natural gas in a combined cycle plant.

Your link actually says:

Analysis by Larsen and Rez shows that we would do better in terms of carbon emissions if instead of installing low capacity factor wind or solar systems and backing them with natural gas, we simply used a combined cycle natural gas plant.

which is something slightly different.

The abstract is:

The capacity factor of wind farms in different regions of the United States has been calculated from hourly wind data and the power curves of the wind turbines. In places with constant high winds like the Texas panhandle, capacity factors of 40% are possible. However the capacity factors in less favorable locations in Illinois or New York are below 20%. Reliable capacity factor estimates are important since displacing efficient combined cycle gas turbines from baseload generation by intermittent wind power could lead to an increase in carbon dioxide emissions. Before a site is considered capacity factors should be calculated from the power curve of the proposed wind turbine and measured wind data throughout the year, preferably at hub height.

So, noting that it mentions low capacity factor wind, the paper is presumably suggesting ones that are sited such they have a capacity factor of 20% are not very economically viable, but in the case of the TFA, we are talking 45% capacity, so the above criticism linked from the blog may not be relevant.

Nuclear is more expensive. It's that simple.

Then we should subsidize it until it's cheaper. If that works for other low CO2 energy sources then it should apply to nuclear as well.

Nuclear power also works at night, in high winds, in no winds, when it's raining, cold, hot... okay maybe it has to reduce power when it gets really hot. That's why we need a mix. Pick energy that's cheap, low CO2, and safe. The top three on that is onshore wind, hydro, and nuclear, not necessarily in that order. Then comes things like (also not in any particular order) geothermal, biomass fuels, off shore wind, and concentrated thermal solar. (Cite on CO2 emissions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... )

Solar PV is just a bad idea all around. Anyone that thinks that PV is cheap is only looking at the subsidized cost, the real cost is very high except when laid out flat on a field. Putting PV on rooftops might mean not losing any area of value but it can multiply the cost by five times. (cite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) Solar power isn't all that safe either, considering how many industrial accidents there are per real energy produced. Solar PV is also very resource intensive. (cite: http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2... )

If people believe that solar and wind can get cheaper if we will it so and throw enough money at the problem then we can do the same to make nuclear cheaper.

If nuclear power costs too much then lower the price. It's that simple.

Tech basically doesn't matter in the long term housing cost trend for the San Francisco area. The rate of increase has been unchanged for many decades, laying the blame squarely at the feet of development-killing regulation/NIMBYs.

Oh, it's worse than that. It's quite possible that this wind farm will end up producing as much CO2 as if they just burned natural gas in a combined cycle plant.

Wind power is only "green" if there is access to hydro for storage. Maybe batteries could do just as well as hydro, or perhaps even better, but it seems we simply can't build them fast enough. Hydro storage is dependent on favorable land features and climate, so they can't be put just anywhere we want.

The Walney Extension (as it is called) is made up of 87 turbines built by Siemens Gamesa and MHI Vestas, and covers 145 square kilometers (55 square miles), which is equivalent to around 20,000 football pitches. The 40 eight-megawatt MHI Vestas turbines being used stand 195 meters (213 yards) tall and are the largest wind turbines in operation globally.

Is this supposed to be impressive, that such a massive investment of resources still can't replace the energy of even a single gas turbine on one small site? Nor can it produce energy on demand, so this entire farm is incapable of reliably powering even a single home. Claims about "cost" are meaningless while externalizing the storage or backup generation required to integrate this intermittent energy into the grid.

Depending on the energy mix, this may actually be even worse than using gas plants exclusively, from both carbon and resource perspectives. Combined cycle gas plants are twice as efficient as the (cheap) peaking gas plants often coupled with and required by intermittent renewables, offsetting any potential gain. Since the northeast US appears intent on replacing clean nuclear generation with inefficient gas combustion, it is difficult to consider this as progress.

So they build these highly efficient natural gas fired power plants. Then they build a big wind farm. And to keep the CO2 emissions low they pay the people with the wind farm to not produce power. Do they like paying for their electricity three times over?

Build some nuclear power plants already! Stop subsidizing more wind power! Maybe start up on the wind subsidies again after there's some batteries or something in place to avoid having to shutdown the wind power generation.

The Walney Extension (as it is called) is made up of 87 turbines built by Siemens Gamesa and MHI Vestas, and covers 145 square kilometers (55 square miles), which is equivalent to around 20,000 football pitches. The 40 eight-megawatt MHI Vestas turbines being used stand 195 meters (213 yards) tall and are the largest wind turbines in operation globally.

Is this supposed to be impressive, that such a massive investment of resources still can't replace the energy of even a single gas turbine on one small site? Nor can it produce energy on demand, so this entire farm is incapable of reliably powering even a single home. Claims about "cost" are meaningless while externalizing the storage or backup generation required to integrate this intermittent energy into the grid.

Depending on the energy mix, this may actually be even worse than using gas plants exclusively, from both carbon and resource perspectives. Combined cycle gas plants are twice as efficient as the (cheap) peaking gas plants often coupled with and required by intermittent renewables, offsetting any potential gain. Since the northeast US appears intent on replacing clean nuclear generation with inefficient gas combustion, it is difficult to consider this as progress.

The "cost" is also highly skewed by misinformed policy, with heavy subsidies and incentives not available to nuclear, which are the main reason it is struggling in the market. Unlike changing the laws of physics, this is a situation that can be corrected, and reactor cost can be decreased with experience and new technologies.

With that addressed, we should be mindful of the material inputs of various sources. These also impose direct environmental costs in terms of mining and refining, and increase cost of decommissioning and recycling. Not only is the land area for nuclear minimal, it is also tens of times more resource efficient at producing energy. Using less resources can also be leveraged into a more rapid scaling of installation, which could help greatly.

Where have I lied? How about instead of attacking the messenger you debate the message.

Here's just one of many places showing nuclear power to be safe. Go see figure 3.
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...

Indeed. Objecting to nukes because of safety is silly.

Objecting to nukes because of economics makes much more sense. They are far too expensive, and the cost is going up while the cost of solar, wind, and storage is falling.

I've seen the economics and here's a report that seems to get cited often:
https://www.lazard.com/media/4...

On the second page of the PDF there's a chart showing that solar is indeed quite inexpensive compared to nuclear. There is also a warning at the top of the graph that costs addressing the intermittent nature of solar and wind were not taken into account. Solar power with storage is not cheap, and neither is putting solar on rooftops. Solar power is only cheap when there is no storage (meaning reliance on things like hydro, natural gas, and internal combustion diesel engines) and when placed in large open fields close to the ground. Wind is cheap, and will likely still see some gains in getting cheaper yet, but it has problem with being intermittent as well. Wind is not considered safe enough to put near inhabited areas and, while it does not displace cropland and grazing areas like solar would, it's not something people will put on their rooftops either.

That Lazard study and articles like the following explaining the safety and resource needs of solar tells me that there is not much future in solar power.
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...

Solar is complicated, expensive, and when compared to other energy sources available to us it's really not that great on safety and CO2 output. What really kills solar, by my estimation, is the resources needed. We'd be far better off with wind, hydro, and nuclear.

If you want to make an economic case against nuclear then I'd like to see the costs from storage. If you say that the storage costs will come down in a decade to be affordable then I'm fine with waiting. The question then is, what do we do until then? Keep burning coal? I say we build nuclear power plants. The claim has been that solar and wind prices will come down with economy of scale. Would that not also be true for nuclear? Japan, South Korea, and France, all saw costs go down by standardizing their nuclear power. In the USA we kept building a bunch of reactors by the ones and threes and so costs stayed high. Stop doing that and costs go down.

Here's a couple experts in the field that did a study on the costs of storage and it's not a pretty picture they paint. The storage alone for wind and solar would cost much more than an equivalent supply of energy from nuclear power.
http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co...

The "Roadmap To Nowhere" authors make it clear that an all nuclear power grid is not ideal or perhaps even possible, they just use that as an intellectual exercise. I recognized this as well, we'll need something other than nuclear, and to me wind and hydro are far better options in nearly every case than solar. As it is now, today, solar is a bad idea. Until that changes we'll need something that's cheap, reliable, safe, low in CO2, and something we can deploy in quantity today. Solar scores poorly on all metrics.

Prove to me that solar and storage can compete and I'll change my mind.