Crisis? How many tsunamis has Germany experienced in the last 3 centuries? Though I'm less certain, I'm not aware of any seismic events. And there's no comparison of 21st century German nuclear technology and 1980s Soviet technology. There was no crisis. There was politics and virtue signaling.
OT: Record-high ocean temperatures to make hurricane season more active
- Thread starter Morrischiano2
- Start date
- Status
Crisis? How many tsunamis has Germany experienced in the last 3 centuries? Though I'm less certain, I'm not aware of any seismic events. And there's no comparison of 21st century German nuclear technology and 1980s Soviet technology. There was no crisis. There was politics and virtue signaling.
There are two distinct but related problems. Problem 1 is that addressing the situation requires change, and people are generally resistant to change. Problem 2 is the continued Boolean / absolute approach to everything that is solution oriented.
Want to build windmills offshore? Go for it. I don't care about the marine / aesthetic impact but the reality is it'll marginally affect our power situation. Any proposal that doesn't include Nuclear or is entirely against fossil fuels (eg nat gas) is myopic and not pragmatic
Edit - apologies if confusing. kids asleep and hitting bourbon hard
Want to build windmills offshore? Go for it. I don't care about the marine / aesthetic impact but the reality is it'll marginally affect our power situation. Any proposal that doesn't include Nuclear or is entirely against fossil fuels (eg nat gas) is myopic and not pragmatic
Edit - apologies if confusing. kids asleep and hitting bourbon hard
More bourbon actually sounds like a good idea. Maybe after the cookies.
But you're right - and your latter point makes me absolutely insane. Build windmills. Build nuke plants. Build GIGANTIC solar arrays in the Mojave or wherever. ****, I long ago stated in another thread that you could literally line all of Interstate 80 in Wyoming - one of the most consistently windy places on the planet - with windmills every half mile and NOBODY WOULD NOTICE.
And yes, we need nuclear. And we can continue to leverage natural gas. My Maginot Line is continued investment in coal / petroleum.
bac2headinthesand, Take a break from your Fox propaganda conspiracy BS and look at facts that been endorsed by 97% of the Scientists on this planet.
Also the concern of having a fukashima or Chernobyl. So wasn’t all bs. I thought you were referring to their recent increase in coal from the switch from Russian gas. Either way, they’re moving off of coal as are we.
Chernobyl was a fluke - it wouldn't have happened if the Russians had built a reactor building with appropriate containment and safeguards. But they're Russians, so they didn't do that.
Fukushima is similarly singular - don't build nuclear power plants in highly active tectonic regions prone to tsunamis. I mean, really... that was just sloppy.
I'm partial to the SMR concept, anyway. That alone pretty much eliminates the possibility of catastrophic accident - they're just not big enough.
Doesn’t matter. People see it and freak out. Low probability but big event.
I agree SMR will be the way to go. Of course no one wants these near them either and even these will take a decade to get going in any meaningful size.
Im not particularly optimistic given the lack of alignment/agreement you cited earlier. And because people in general don’t realize they're the ones that have to help solve it everyday. It’s put on companies and buildings to fix.
Who you gonna believe....97% of the scientists or Bac the landscaper ?
Truth be told, I'm not really optimistic, either. Personally, I think we're on a path to destroying civilization.
True global cooperation on what have become true global issues is unforeseeable. There's far too much parochialism, both national and religious. The latter is, I think, one of the biggest obstacles. If one were to imagine a genuinely global society it would have to be absent religious influence. And that's not likely to happen anytime soon. The Revelationists would rather see it all burn. That's unfortunate, but I think given the evidence at hand it's also the most likely outcome.
Humanity 2.0 might do better. If not, then the cockroaches will do just fine. As for me... I plan to retire, sail the tropics for a little while and hope my kids will be okay after I'm gone.
It was a good series. The movies. The TV one, not so much.
First two were pretty good.
Third wasn’t bad.
Fourth was, eh.
if we could only go back to the good Ole days when you could ride in the pickup truck be and get ejected Those were some great times!
Can't we just start with making it mandatory that every public builing in NJ have parking lot solar installed and any new commercial development as well?
The NYT has lost its integrity. It’s not a matter of agreeing with them. It’s them actively lying and losing all journalistic boundaries.
Meh, I don’t think they actively lie. I think they’re just not informed and in many cases don’t actively pursue all facets of a story. Then there are those that actively and willfully tell falsehoods as they’re schtick. They are worse as a result.
Modern nuclear plant technology makes a meltdown theoretically impossible. The fuel can be engineered with a certain geometry that pulls apart and slows the reaction if the temp gets too hot (self-regulates). All society needs to do is find the courage to build modern plants to solve all of our energy problems without harmful emissions.
The solution is at our fingertips.
Last edited:
Don't put your back-up power generators at sea level. Sure, the tsunami would have damaged the plant, but losing the generators caused the meltdown.
I agree on the nuclear topic but it doesn’t mean it’s the only solution. There is too much energy to be replaced for just nuclear. Plus we can say we solved all these problems and then Mother Nature hits us with some unexpected event like an earthquake under a facilty or a category 5 tornado. There’s always risk and people don’t want them near where they live. People are pushing back against wind and solar in their communities. Also, nuclear takes forever to get vertical. SMR holds great promise but still takes a decade. We can build renewables today. But we need to do it all.
Nuclear doesn't take forever to build. The gov'ment causes nuclear to take forever to build. Solve that issue and we are good to go. Start with expanding and modernizing existing sites. Pretty simple.
I would call the false allegations of marital infidelity by John McCain early in 2008 a wilfully told falsehood. My respect for Anderson Cooper went up when he reported the Times story that night on CNN, paused, and then said "you know this is awfully thinly sourced". Surprised he wasn't fired. Of course if Trump had insulted him in 2008 as opposed to 2015 the story would never have run.
97% of scientists has always been a ******** number.
And the worst part about it is the “cure” is a flyer with zero certainty that’ll work.
And how did the Maginot Line turn out?
Why not pour a significant amount of our resources into recapture and re-use of exhaust from coal and petroleum?
Renewable Energy
Nuclear
Natural gas
Cleaned/recaptured petroleum & coal.
Everyone here has said as much. The georgia site took 30 billion and ten years. It’s not the only solution but for some strange reason seems to be the only one touted by a number of folks. Solar installs will produce 10 times as much energy as the new Georgia plant this year alone .
All needed but at the end of the day nothing will be more efficient than renewables as long as there is a base load from nuclear/gas to support fluctuations and provide for unexpected events. Producing oil/coal and then the energy to scrub and store carbon will never be as efficient as renewables or nuclear. There are efforts on all of these front including carbon capture. But you’re right that the environmental movement as been too myopic.
Exactly, that "97% of scientists agree" stat is intentionally misused to gaslight the general public. I pointed this out in the 'Record Heat Out West' thread but of course the usual suspects ignore plain facts, or are just plain gullible. Here's the full context of that routinely misstated "97% of scientists agree" line:
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."
Gotta wonder how many scientists that don't agree with the herd are "actively" published.
^^^ What kind of dunderhead brings religion..or the lack thereof...into a thread like this ?
Do you have some data? Or are you just resting on your wonder? Do you have scientific bodies in any significant numbers that refute this? Or are you basing human existence on your wonder?
The only drivel I see posted here is from the usual reactionary know-nothings.
As I said, there are 54 existing sites in the US, modernize and expand with more reactors. Go from there. We can likely double or triple production.
Relax bro, I am an all-of-the-above guy on energy, and in general a fan of cleaner and greener as I've posted many times, just skeptical on the hysteria. I'm not in the climatology field, but it's obvious how carefully that line is worded that there are questions that can be asked. So yeh, I have a natural curiosity. What are you talking about "basing human existence on wonder" haha, so dramatic.
Religion is the greatest impediment to social harmony. That's a simple fact - and you're offering evidence to support that fact with every one of your posts.
If Jesus were to appear today, evangelical Christians would kill him all over again. They don't stand for any of this "love thy neighbor" and "do unto others" crap. Forgiveness? Charity? Hah.
Because you say so? Rrrright.
Now explain to the class what "Evangelical Christians" killed Jesus the first time, and why in your mind "they" would do it now. I'll wait
- Status