How many of those have you actually heard about in the news? If the answer is almost none of them it's because earth quakes are not some huge hazard in California. As a California resident I was actually surprised by how big that list was because nothing meaningful came from almost any of them. If you look at federal disaster payouts, Earthquakes are almost non existent on the ledgers. I would be far more concerned with locating a nuclear power plant anywhere near the east cost given the level of devastation the region receives due to hurricanes. A good looking federal source is down right now but sort this list by country and region and perceive the lack of earthquakes on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And this is the problem today.
Too many people looking for an excuse to be outraged.
Heloooooo!
HUMOR?
It
Was
A
JOKE!
Relax! Get a hobby! Get laid!
Don't take life so seriously. You'll never get out alive...
In states like California, repayment on a properly sized solar install can be 3-7 years.
In states like Illinois and Michigan, that jumps to 10-15. Also, to generate equivalent power to a Californian setup, you have to increase the size of the array. Further skewing repaynment ammortization. Also, what are the plans for EOL for used panels. They're not really recyclable. So, what? Megatons of landfill?
California's not REALLY a "good" place for nuclear power. This has to do with geology (quakes), rather than NIMBY/BANANA shenanigans.
Could they benefit? Sure!
But do you really wanna plop down an 8x1 GW plant and have a quake turn it into a giant, eight-fold milkshake mixer? I know I wouldn't...
California's better off taking advantage of alternative power generation that doesn't require gigantic Rube Goldberg hyper-redundant cooling systems (which is what takes up most of the space in a nuclear plant). And they can import power from more geologically stable areas across the state line.
No. But if they're going to move into remote areas without extant infrastructure, it should be allowed for PG&E to recover at least SOME of their costs from the people in the area. As opposed to making PG&E just eat the costs.
Point One: Still trying to blame PG&E for the government trying to offload it's forestry and land management obligations off onto a private coporation.
Point Two: No, municipal, state and federal government have painted PG&E into an insurmountable corner.
Point Three: https://cutterlaw.com/californ... The Nun's canyon fire was started when a tree fell on a power pole, not vice versa, and the transformer on the pole blew.
Point Four and Five: Not all Californians are idiots. But they're the ultra-rare exceptions proving the rule. And it's easy to be prosperous when you're doing on the backs of a near-slave caste of sub-minimum wage workers who shouldn't even be in the country.
Of California's fucked-in-the-head regulatory environment. This has NOTHING to do with climate change.
They're basically required to service areas that will never be profitable, below their costs of delivery, can't spin off unprofitable business segments, they're not allowed to charge more to cover their costs, etc.
Meanwhile, state and federal regulations basically conspire against them. Changes in land management dramatically increase the chances of fire in any given area. And they're made liable for any fires in the area of their equipment, whether it was actually their equipment or not...meanwhile industry regulation basically prevents them from charging true cost of the power they deliver and actually making it MORE profitable to sell the power out of state and then re-import it...
Meanwhile, California's idiot density is going up year over year as people with an actual functional brain flee the state. They've had wildfires in California for HOW LONG? Yet, every year we've got idiots starting fires and moving into areas that abut to the aforementioned badly managed forested land and building WOOD HOUSES, while ignoring sensible rules for building in fire-prone areas. Then, after they've burned down for the umpteenth time, they go back and rebuild in exactly the same fashion!
It's just the intellectually retarded leading the intellectually retarded out there.
It's like going into a boxing match and finding out the other guy is bringing a knife, guns, artillery, grenades and a group of friends to kick your ass.
But I also know there are a lot of cases of *imposed* changes meant to fix problems that simply didn't exist in the first place. All to display wokeness, or foster an ideology as a form of social control.
Unlike you, I'm one of those people who believes in the concept of "Presumption of Innocence". I REALLY have a severe problem with destroying things (and people) based merely on accusation.
And "looking into accusations" is NOT the same thing as believing accusations and penalizing the company or the focus of such accusations until they're proven.
And people "didn't" generally make many accusations.
NOW, however, it's a proven path to victim privilege. Likely, 99% of women are NOT going to abuse such a thing. But you ever hear the term "the squeaky wheel gets the oil"? What WILL happen is that a minority of occasions will come to define EVERYTHING.
And no, SJW's aren't canaries.
They're chickens, and of COURSE the sky is falling!
Well, maybe if they'd just leave people the fuck alone, and stop pressing their shitty politics into EVERY FUCKING FACET of human entertainment and interaction, there'd be nothing to complain about.
But no! THEY know BETTER! THEY are going to save all us "peons" with their superior morality. Even if it kills us.
Slashdot Mirror
I stumbled on more stupid from you Chas!
Here's a list of California earthquakes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
How many of those have you actually heard about in the news? If the answer is almost none of them it's because earth quakes are not some huge hazard in California. As a California resident I was actually surprised by how big that list was because nothing meaningful came from almost any of them. If you look at federal disaster payouts, Earthquakes are almost non existent on the ledgers. I would be far more concerned with locating a nuclear power plant anywhere near the east cost given the level of devastation the region receives due to hurricanes. A good looking federal source is down right now but sort this list by country and region and perceive the lack of earthquakes on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And this is the problem today.
Too many people looking for an excuse to be outraged.
Heloooooo!
HUMOR?
It
Was
A
JOKE!
Relax! Get a hobby! Get laid!
Don't take life so seriously. You'll never get out alive...
Yet you failed to rebut a single thing I said.
Thanks for the easy victory here.
I can speak on Illinois.
In states like California, repayment on a properly sized solar install can be 3-7 years.
In states like Illinois and Michigan, that jumps to 10-15.
Also, to generate equivalent power to a Californian setup, you have to increase the size of the array. Further skewing repaynment ammortization.
Also, what are the plans for EOL for used panels. They're not really recyclable.
So, what? Megatons of landfill?
Yeah. Honestly I never QUITE understood the wisdom of putting a NUCLEAR POWERPLANT in quake-prone area.
Now, a great many places CAN have quakes (Illinois being one). But quakes happen on near-geologic timescales there.
California's like "That's the third quake TODAY!" "BAH! Was barely a 6.5!"
Not to say that they couldn't benefit from Nuclear. Just, not in the immediate quake zones.
Okay, I'm gonna actually disagree here a bit.
California's not REALLY a "good" place for nuclear power.
This has to do with geology (quakes), rather than NIMBY/BANANA shenanigans.
Could they benefit? Sure!
But do you really wanna plop down an 8x1 GW plant and have a quake turn it into a giant, eight-fold milkshake mixer?
I know I wouldn't...
California's better off taking advantage of alternative power generation that doesn't require gigantic Rube Goldberg hyper-redundant cooling systems (which is what takes up most of the space in a nuclear plant). And they can import power from more geologically stable areas across the state line.
Question: Why is it THE POWER COMPANY'S job to do LAND MANAGEMENT in areas not directly on their easement?
The Nun's Canyon fire was started by a blown transformer, set off by a nearby tree falling into the easement and hitting the pole it was on.
No. But if they're going to move into remote areas without extant infrastructure, it should be allowed for PG&E to recover at least SOME of their costs from the people in the area. As opposed to making PG&E just eat the costs.
But of COURSE these people had to turn it into a Left-Right issue.
Because that's all of the very little they know anything about.
Don't forget all the near-slave cast of illegal economic migrants they need to keep their economy glued together...
Point One: Still trying to blame PG&E for the government trying to offload it's forestry and land management obligations off onto a private coporation.
Point Two: No, municipal, state and federal government have painted PG&E into an insurmountable corner.
Point Three: https://cutterlaw.com/californ...
The Nun's canyon fire was started when a tree fell on a power pole, not vice versa, and the transformer on the pole blew.
Point Four and Five: Not all Californians are idiots. But they're the ultra-rare exceptions proving the rule.
And it's easy to be prosperous when you're doing on the backs of a near-slave caste of sub-minimum wage workers who shouldn't even be in the country.
Yet you completely failed to rebut even a single point made.
Congrats on simply ceding me victory in the discussion at the outset.
Ah. A grown up response! How refreshing.
And your mastery of "alternative facts" is ASTOUNDING!
Dude! Turn your brain back on!
Who deregulates their industry, BUT LETS THE POLITICIANS LOCK THE PRICING STRUCTURES IN PLACE?
SOMEONE achieved regulatory capture.
But it sure as fuck wasn't PG&E!
Of California's fucked-in-the-head regulatory environment.
This has NOTHING to do with climate change.
They're basically required to service areas that will never be profitable, below their costs of delivery, can't spin off unprofitable business segments, they're not allowed to charge more to cover their costs, etc.
Meanwhile, state and federal regulations basically conspire against them. Changes in land management dramatically increase the chances of fire in any given area. And they're made liable for any fires in the area of their equipment, whether it was actually their equipment or not...meanwhile industry regulation basically prevents them from charging true cost of the power they deliver and actually making it MORE profitable to sell the power out of state and then re-import it...
Meanwhile, California's idiot density is going up year over year as people with an actual functional brain flee the state. They've had wildfires in California for HOW LONG? Yet, every year we've got idiots starting fires and moving into areas that abut to the aforementioned badly managed forested land and building WOOD HOUSES, while ignoring sensible rules for building in fire-prone areas. Then, after they've burned down for the umpteenth time, they go back and rebuild in exactly the same fashion!
It's just the intellectually retarded leading the intellectually retarded out there.
It's like going into a boxing match and finding out the other guy is bringing a knife, guns, artillery, grenades and a group of friends to kick your ass.
Ahahaha!
You're funny!
Unfortunately that's not true.
Troll Level: Abject Newb
Presumption of innocence is the foundation of our society.
Not simply "important for a criminal trial".
But hey, if you're simply willing to fuck with someone's life and livelihood by simply being a rube and believing any and everything you're told?
All I can say is that I'm thankful I don't work for you.
I didn't say that.
I know there are cases of genuine abuse.
But I also know there are a lot of cases of *imposed* changes meant to fix problems that simply didn't exist in the first place.
All to display wokeness, or foster an ideology as a form of social control.
Oh fuck off!
My issue has nothing to do with "women" or any other social class.
Other than a bunch of social busybodies who want to have a modicum of control, however petty, among their fellow man.
That's not bro culture. That's a sociopath /sexual predator.
THIS.
Unlike you, I'm one of those people who believes in the concept of "Presumption of Innocence".
I REALLY have a severe problem with destroying things (and people) based merely on accusation.
And "looking into accusations" is NOT the same thing as believing accusations and penalizing the company or the focus of such accusations until they're proven.
And people "didn't" generally make many accusations.
NOW, however, it's a proven path to victim privilege. Likely, 99% of women are NOT going to abuse such a thing.
But you ever hear the term "the squeaky wheel gets the oil"? What WILL happen is that a minority of occasions will come to define EVERYTHING.
And no, SJW's aren't canaries.
They're chickens, and of COURSE the sky is falling!
Better for them to fix the issue
That's the damn point.
It's an accusation. An issue is something that's actually been shown to exist.
It's like patching over a non-existent hole in a wall.
And once you let this poisonous little ideology in, all that's seen are holes in walls.
The problem is, the impetus behind this stuff now competes with the profit motive for capitalism in general.
Well, maybe if they'd just leave people the fuck alone, and stop pressing their shitty politics into EVERY FUCKING FACET of human entertainment and interaction, there'd be nothing to complain about.
But no! THEY know BETTER!
THEY are going to save all us "peons" with their superior morality. Even if it kills us.
Please.
Show us on the doll where the evil culture touched you...
Sorry, notice the term "accusation".
An accusation is not evidence of wrongdoing.
So you're flipping a proverbial nut over something that has a good possibility of not even being true.
But hey, outrage culture! Right?