I lived in Huntsville Alabama for 10 years. The Browns Ferry nuclear plant was 5 miles from my apartment. Don't hand me that 'not in my back yard' shit. I had one in my back yard.
Stop it. I smoke pot and I'm pro-nuke. Maybe you should take a toke and lighten up.
Do you bath regularly and have a IQ higher than your shoe size? If so then you are not a smelly hippie. Just because you light up doesn't make you a ignorant hippie. My post is not meant for you.
Funny how the pro-nuke faction always overlooks that there is not enough Uranium to make nuclear power long-term sustainable.
Incorrect. There is plenty of nuclear fuel available, not all of it has be uranium. There over 80% of unspent fuel available in the "spent" fuel rods just sitting around at plants. The reason we can't reclaim this uranium and reuse it is because anti nuke kooks decided that it was unsafe to do so.
Virtually every problem with nuclear power is man made, because of anti nuclear kooks that didn't understand anything more than the bong they where smoking out of.
Nuclear power is by far the most expensive power source ever invented by man
Virtually everything you spouted off about is incorrect. The only reason nuclear power is so expensive is because a bunch of smelly hippies and other do gooders that didn't bother to research the science decided to protest everything with the word "nuclear" in the name. Medicine, power, fisson, and fussion, both practical and theoretical.
It takes to long to build because, thanks to hippies, it takes years, decades, to get permits. We have to store the waste, on site, because a bunch of bong smoking hippies decided that shipping the waste to recycling facilities was to unsafe. Which it isn't.
We can't reprocess the waste because of this silly restriction.
If its so expensive to build and use then why is China building them? China would have no problem just tossing up a cheap coal plant and walking away. China can do it because they didn't have a bunch of idiots protesting the plant.
The vox.com is no more a legitimate news site than the onion is. At least the onion they don't claim to be any thing more than what they are, a satire site.
The vox is the very definition of bad journalism. They go out of their way to twist the truth to be as inflammatory as possible. They will only show one side of the story, usually not the correct side, and write the other side to be as negative as they possibly can. They are what is called in the field "yellow journalist."
I guess I search for the original text, as you privided only american anti Paris *news papers*
Are you insane? Vox.com, while not a legitimate news site, is one of the most anti American sites on the web. Scientific American is widely regarded as one of the best magazines in the field, I don't know about brooking.edu so I'm not going to comment. NPR is about as left leaning, and still be kind of fair, as you can get with out falling over. Dfat,gov,au isn't even an American site. It's Australia . An well Reuters.com is well Reuters, one of the best news organizations in the world.
what does AGW and cutting back on CO2 have to do with mechanized farming? Absolutely NOTHING
I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on this. I believe it has a great deal to do with the issue, if not the lions share.
Granted the tractor in the field as little to do with the issue. But take it out to all the other causes and effects mechanized farming have. Transportation and storage, theses require energy and most of that energy comes from fossil fuels. Then there is CO2 emissions from livestock. Yes, cow farts. Then there is the clear cutting of carbon sinks, forests and the like.
If you add all these up the CO2 contributions from mechanized farming are staggering.
Considering that I started the discussion then it's safe to assume that I have plenty of business posting in this discussion. I deal with dozens of 3 letter acronyms daily. I think that I can be forgiven if one doesn't ring a bell right off that bat. Just like I would forgive you for not knowing what HD, CHR, or TT means.
An for the record, I looked it up and figured it out before you decided to chime in with your brand of enlightenment.
I'm in total agreement again. This is a problem that nobody wants to talk about. People want to phase out old nuclear plants with out addressing what to replace them with. Most often the answer is a coal burning plant because it's cheap to throw one up and walk away.
While we need to cut our reliance of fossil fuels as low as we can I would accept natural gas as a short term solution. It's 10 times cleaner than coal and in many cases easier to get too.
Please stop posting now. There are smarter people than you reading this. Your contributions are only serving to lower the over all IQ of the tread and distract them from the real topic.
China is NOT a developing nation anymore than America was in 1950
Since you put it that way, what you have said it truth. I accept your reclassification of China.
You will not find me arguing with you about coal. I'm in total agreement. Coal has to stop, it's a filthy fuel. I'm not debating about needed change. Change is needed. What I'm mostly debating is sudden change will end in nothing but disaster.
Using coal as an example. It needs to go, has to go. But we can't just shut them all down over night. We have to gradually phase them out as we bring newer and better systems online. In some cases we will have to build new coal plants because that is the best option.
If you can't have a discussion with out having to use personal insults then you have no discussion to bring to the table. You are not here to debate you are here to argue. Change your tone and I'll answer your question. Till then you are not worth my time.
hy would climate change solutions kill people? There's a fairly clear path forward on fixing climate change now. The first step doesn't even touch oil or other farm chemicals.
There are some well developed plans to fight climate change that don't involve people starving, or economies collapsing. Looking at what you posted and it looks like the start of a good plan.
The problem is these plans take time to put in place. You stated if put in place "aggressively." There in lies the problem. Such radical changes can not take place over night. Infrastructure has to be developed, people educated, and equipment built. We can't not just flip a switch and change the nature of the beast.
People don't think about this and want change Now. They don't think about the consequences of rapid change.
China is a developing country and it as of 2018 puts out more CO2 than the US does as a total. India is also a developing country and it is second on the chart, expecting to pass the US soon. So, yes developing countries are putting CO2 into the are at a ever increasing rate. Don't hand me that tired line "developing countries are not responsible."
The Pars agreement was nothing more than a attempt to grab money from developed countries, while forcing them to hobble their economies at the same time. That money would be paid to developing countries while at the same time mostly absolving them from current CO2 emission and future emissions.
Nothing wrong with transferring wealth to developing countries as long as it is done in fair nature to both parties.
The proposed "solutions" to climate change would lead to the deaths of millions of people right now instead of the theoretical deaths of millions of people a century from now.
This is something that "climate warriors" leave out of the conversations. They want change NOW, no mater what the cost. Well the cost would be millions of lives in third world countries. We are completely dependent on mechanized farming to feed the 7B people in this world. Not to mention transportation and storage of food. We cut this back NOW as they want and we will not be able to feed so many people.
An these deaths will occur in the third world because they are most dependent on food shipments from first world countries. So is it will come down to countries feed themselves or feeding them. I can't imagine any country picking to feed another population over its own.
We never had any commitments to this agreement. Obama made the agreement on his own accord and not with the backing of congress. This pretty much makes it worthless.
What we are seeing is people trying to guilt us back into the agreement so the money can keep flowing. This was nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to transfer wealth to 3rd world nations.
State the truth and get labeled a troll. Liberals hate it when someone disagrees with them. They hate it more when someone disagrees with them and is correct and they are not.
We wadded this horrible agreement up and tossed it in the trash. Sorry, we are not bound by the arbitrary numbers set in this attempted money grab agreement.
I always liked to think that we might be alone and we are the First Ones. First Ones as in Babylon 5 first ones. The universe is still young, 14B years, and has a lifespan predicted to be in the trillions of years. Some one has to be first, why not us?
Frankly the World would be much much better off without the airline industry. The risk of invasive species and pathogens spreading would be greatly reduced. A significant amount of pollution would be cut.
Total agreement. The Airline industry releases huge amounts of carbon into the upper atmosphere. Time to reorganize our thinking about them. In the United States we should get with the program and do high speed rail like the rest of the world.
I still don't get the rational behind this. Mice, they are light so you can send a few. Monkeys are close to human standard model so you can learn a lot of science from them. But turtles?
Where two Russians sitting around the break room. "Since we can't catch moose and squirrel lets send Ivans pet turtles to the moon. He'll get a kick out of it!"
The summary is misleading. The turtles went beyond the moon and came back, but they didn't land on the moon, they didn't even orbit the moon
Turtles? Why turtles? I can understand sending monkeys into space. They are at least close to human shape, some what. But turtles? Where they like trying to think of something to send into space and just happen to come across two turtles chilling by the pond?
A single Independent is akin to a single palm tree trying to stop a tidal wave. The wave simply mows
down everything in its path. The gesture is noteworthy, but gestures don't fix problems. You'll need a forest
of trees to make a difference.
Normally, I would argue with you till I was blue in the face. But you know what? You got to a point, and it's a good one. Most independents know when we don't vote for the big two we are just pissing in the wind. But we keep hoping.
Slashdot Mirror
I lived in Huntsville Alabama for 10 years. The Browns Ferry nuclear plant was 5 miles from my apartment. Don't hand me that 'not in my back yard' shit. I had one in my back yard.
Stop it. I smoke pot and I'm pro-nuke. Maybe you should take a toke and lighten up.
Do you bath regularly and have a IQ higher than your shoe size? If so then you are not a smelly hippie. Just because you light up doesn't make you a ignorant hippie. My post is not meant for you.
Funny how the pro-nuke faction always overlooks that there is not enough Uranium to make nuclear power long-term sustainable.
Incorrect. There is plenty of nuclear fuel available, not all of it has be uranium. There over 80% of unspent fuel available in the "spent" fuel rods just sitting around at plants. The reason we can't reclaim this uranium and reuse it is because anti nuke kooks decided that it was unsafe to do so.
Virtually every problem with nuclear power is man made, because of anti nuclear kooks that didn't understand anything more than the bong they where smoking out of.
Nuclear power is by far the most expensive power source ever invented by man
Virtually everything you spouted off about is incorrect. The only reason nuclear power is so expensive is because a bunch of smelly hippies and other do gooders that didn't bother to research the science decided to protest everything with the word "nuclear" in the name. Medicine, power, fisson, and fussion, both practical and theoretical.
It takes to long to build because, thanks to hippies, it takes years, decades, to get permits. We have to store the waste, on site, because a bunch of bong smoking hippies decided that shipping the waste to recycling facilities was to unsafe. Which it isn't. We can't reprocess the waste because of this silly restriction.
If its so expensive to build and use then why is China building them? China would have no problem just tossing up a cheap coal plant and walking away. China can do it because they didn't have a bunch of idiots protesting the plant.
"..and you can keep your hippies."
Vox.com is a news site.
The vox.com is no more a legitimate news site than the onion is. At least the onion they don't claim to be any thing more than what they are, a satire site.
The vox is the very definition of bad journalism. They go out of their way to twist the truth to be as inflammatory as possible. They will only show one side of the story, usually not the correct side, and write the other side to be as negative as they possibly can. They are what is called in the field "yellow journalist."
I guess I search for the original text, as you privided only american anti Paris *news papers*
Are you insane? Vox.com, while not a legitimate news site, is one of the most anti American sites on the web. Scientific American is widely regarded as one of the best magazines in the field, I don't know about brooking.edu so I'm not going to comment. NPR is about as left leaning, and still be kind of fair, as you can get with out falling over. Dfat,gov,au isn't even an American site. It's Australia . An well Reuters.com is well Reuters, one of the best news organizations in the world.
You didn't even look at the links he provided.
what does AGW and cutting back on CO2 have to do with mechanized farming? Absolutely NOTHING
I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on this. I believe it has a great deal to do with the issue, if not the lions share.
Granted the tractor in the field as little to do with the issue. But take it out to all the other causes and effects mechanized farming have. Transportation and storage, theses require energy and most of that energy comes from fossil fuels. Then there is CO2 emissions from livestock. Yes, cow farts. Then there is the clear cutting of carbon sinks, forests and the like.
If you add all these up the CO2 contributions from mechanized farming are staggering.
Considering that I started the discussion then it's safe to assume that I have plenty of business posting in this discussion. I deal with dozens of 3 letter acronyms daily. I think that I can be forgiven if one doesn't ring a bell right off that bat. Just like I would forgive you for not knowing what HD, CHR, or TT means.
An for the record, I looked it up and figured it out before you decided to chime in with your brand of enlightenment.
I'm in total agreement again. This is a problem that nobody wants to talk about. People want to phase out old nuclear plants with out addressing what to replace them with. Most often the answer is a coal burning plant because it's cheap to throw one up and walk away.
While we need to cut our reliance of fossil fuels as low as we can I would accept natural gas as a short term solution. It's 10 times cleaner than coal and in many cases easier to get too.
Before I answer with something more thought out first tell me what AGW means. I'm drawing a blank on this one.
Please stop posting now. There are smarter people than you reading this. Your contributions are only serving to lower the over all IQ of the tread and distract them from the real topic.
China is NOT a developing nation anymore than America was in 1950
Since you put it that way, what you have said it truth. I accept your reclassification of China.
You will not find me arguing with you about coal. I'm in total agreement. Coal has to stop, it's a filthy fuel. I'm not debating about needed change. Change is needed. What I'm mostly debating is sudden change will end in nothing but disaster.
Using coal as an example. It needs to go, has to go. But we can't just shut them all down over night. We have to gradually phase them out as we bring newer and better systems online. In some cases we will have to build new coal plants because that is the best option.
u? Are you really that retarded?
If you can't have a discussion with out having to use personal insults then you have no discussion to bring to the table. You are not here to debate you are here to argue. Change your tone and I'll answer your question. Till then you are not worth my time.
hy would climate change solutions kill people? There's a fairly clear path forward on fixing climate change now. The first step doesn't even touch oil or other farm chemicals.
There are some well developed plans to fight climate change that don't involve people starving, or economies collapsing. Looking at what you posted and it looks like the start of a good plan.
The problem is these plans take time to put in place. You stated if put in place "aggressively." There in lies the problem. Such radical changes can not take place over night. Infrastructure has to be developed, people educated, and equipment built. We can't not just flip a switch and change the nature of the beast.
People don't think about this and want change Now. They don't think about the consequences of rapid change.
China is a developing country and it as of 2018 puts out more CO2 than the US does as a total. India is also a developing country and it is second on the chart, expecting to pass the US soon. So, yes developing countries are putting CO2 into the are at a ever increasing rate. Don't hand me that tired line "developing countries are not responsible."
The Pars agreement was nothing more than a attempt to grab money from developed countries, while forcing them to hobble their economies at the same time. That money would be paid to developing countries while at the same time mostly absolving them from current CO2 emission and future emissions.
Nothing wrong with transferring wealth to developing countries as long as it is done in fair nature to both parties.
The proposed "solutions" to climate change would lead to the deaths of millions of people right now instead of the theoretical deaths of millions of people a century from now.
This is something that "climate warriors" leave out of the conversations. They want change NOW, no mater what the cost. Well the cost would be millions of lives in third world countries. We are completely dependent on mechanized farming to feed the 7B people in this world. Not to mention transportation and storage of food. We cut this back NOW as they want and we will not be able to feed so many people.
An these deaths will occur in the third world because they are most dependent on food shipments from first world countries. So is it will come down to countries feed themselves or feeding them. I can't imagine any country picking to feed another population over its own.
We never had any commitments to this agreement. Obama made the agreement on his own accord and not with the backing of congress. This pretty much makes it worthless.
What we are seeing is people trying to guilt us back into the agreement so the money can keep flowing. This was nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to transfer wealth to 3rd world nations.
State the truth and get labeled a troll. Liberals hate it when someone disagrees with them. They hate it more when someone disagrees with them and is correct and they are not.
We wadded this horrible agreement up and tossed it in the trash. Sorry, we are not bound by the arbitrary numbers set in this attempted money grab agreement.
I always liked to think that we might be alone and we are the First Ones. First Ones as in Babylon 5 first ones. The universe is still young, 14B years, and has a lifespan predicted to be in the trillions of years. Some one has to be first, why not us?
Frankly the World would be much much better off without the airline industry. The risk of invasive species and pathogens spreading would be greatly reduced. A significant amount of pollution would be cut.
Total agreement. The Airline industry releases huge amounts of carbon into the upper atmosphere. Time to reorganize our thinking about them. In the United States we should get with the program and do high speed rail like the rest of the world.
I still don't get the rational behind this. Mice, they are light so you can send a few. Monkeys are close to human standard model so you can learn a lot of science from them. But turtles?
Where two Russians sitting around the break room. "Since we can't catch moose and squirrel lets send Ivans pet turtles to the moon. He'll get a kick out of it!"
The summary is misleading. The turtles went beyond the moon and came back, but they didn't land on the moon, they didn't even orbit the moon
Turtles? Why turtles? I can understand sending monkeys into space. They are at least close to human shape, some what. But turtles? Where they like trying to think of something to send into space and just happen to come across two turtles chilling by the pond?
A single Independent is akin to a single palm tree trying to stop a tidal wave. The wave simply mows down everything in its path. The gesture is noteworthy, but gestures don't fix problems. You'll need a forest of trees to make a difference.
Normally, I would argue with you till I was blue in the face. But you know what? You got to a point, and it's a good one. Most independents know when we don't vote for the big two we are just pissing in the wind. But we keep hoping.