Jump to content
halfmanhalfbronco

Where does climate change rate on your priority list of issues?

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, modestobulldog said:

Worse than the mystery meat in the past.  How do you like his vegan girlfriend?

He’s had one in the past. We had to cook a separate tofurkey for Thanksgiving when we had her over. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

He’s had one in the past. We had to cook a separate tofurkey for Thanksgiving when we had her over. 

I feel your pain.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

163. What's that smell?

164. Climate change

165. Is that a booger?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

999,998: Why is there Braille on drive up ATM’s?

999,999: Why do dogs lick their own balls?

1,000,000: Climate Change

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Is it anybodies top issue?  Top 3?  Non issue?

In terms of potentially destroying mankind in the next century or so - it ranks #2 behind nuclear warheads in the hands of irresponsible leadership.

As an American political issue - I just haven’t seen a plan that would make much difference from either side. I’m less optimistic that enguiniety will solve the problem easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bsu_alum9 said:

In terms of potentially destroying mankind in the next century or so - it ranks #2 behind nuclear warheads in the hands of irresponsible leadership.

As an American political issue - I just haven’t seen a plan that would make much difference from either side. I’m less optimistic that enguiniety will solve the problem easily.

Nuclear.  At least according to science.  Democrats hate science though, or they would embrace nuclear.  Democrats are science deniers when it comes to climate change solutions. 

Mama Jo and the bulk of the scientific community get it, though.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate change is a top 10 issue for me.

Support nuclear power, or you really do not give a shit about global warming.  Or you hate science and have not taken the time to become educated on new nuclear.

  • Like 2
  • Cheers 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Nuclear.  At least according to science.  Democrats hate science though, or they would embrace nuclear.  Democrats are science deniers when it comes to climate change solutions. 

Nuclear isn’t cost-competitive with Coal and Natural Gas and deregulation won’t make it competitive either. It will require government subsidies (which fossil fuel wont let Republicans allow).

If AOC were serious about Green New Deal she’d be trying to fund Nuclear plants in WV, WY, and ND. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, bsu_alum9 said:

Nuclear isn’t cost-competitive with Coal and Natural Gas and deregulation won’t make it competitive either. It will require government subsidies (which fossil fuel wont let Republicans allow).

If AOC were serious about Green New Deal she’d be trying to fund Nuclear plants in WV, WY, and ND. 

You should probably listen to science.  Nuclear could be cost competitive if it was actually invested in.  There is no reason we should not have 4 gn reactors by this year, other than the world and democrats specifically are terrified of it, because they hate science.

But joking aside.  If we invested dramatically right now in nuclear power R&D we could have HE-3 reactors by 2060.  That would be a game changer for humanity.  But we actually need to start investing in it, knowing it will not be cost effective off the bat but it's potential blows away and is far greener than solar and wind.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Climate change is a top 10 issue for me.

Support nuclear power, or you really do not give a shit about global warming.  Or you hate science and have not taken the time to become educated on new nuclear.

Or maybe science doesn't really support your panic as much as folks would like about this global warming crap.  I'm all on board with nuclear.

For the OP.  Climate change ranks right next to worrying about whether I packed fingernail clippers when I left for a fishing trip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

You should probably listen to science.  Nuclear could be cost competitive if it was actually invested in. 

1000 MW wind farm ready in 2022 in Magic Valley for $1B. 

3000 MW nuclear ready in 2028 in Utah for $13.4B.

1900 MW gas ready in 2022 in OH for $1.6B.
——

So are we okay paying $0.25 per kWH for electricity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, bsu_alum9 said:

1000 MW wind farm ready in 2022 in Magic Valley for $1B. 

3000 MW nuclear ready in 2028 in Utah for $13.4B.

1900 MW gas ready in 2022 in OH for $1.6B.
——

So are we okay paying $0.25 per kWH for electricity?

No, but every single subsidy given to solar, wind and fossil fuels should be redirected to nuclear.  Investment in next generation nuclear is the only scientifically clear and forward path to ending fossil fuels.  Democrats have been so terrified of nuclear that you are comparing 1960's reactors to what we could do now.  And ignoring the potential for the future.  If we had invested in nuclear instead of all these deals with wind and solar the past 12 years, we would be far, far, far further ahead on the fight to stem climate change.

And the only reason I am mentioning democrats here is because lord know republicans will not do a damn thing about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Nuclear, Fukushima disaster not good for perception of safety.  In California, I read only Diablo Canyon PG&E plant still operational.  These plants were built near the ocean for cooling which was also a tsunami risk.  With rising sea levels, some of the nuclear waste storage is at risk.
 

I took a project finance course and one risk inherent to project finance infrastructure is technology risk.  At $10B+, that is a big check / bet on a technology with contingent/potential liabilities.  Getting insurance especially in CA would be expensive.  
 

From a national defense, having concentrated power plants I’d think poses a security risk.
 

The idea of building these nuclear plants in the less populated regions is interesting.  With land use power at state and local level (Republican controlled?) and the desire provide power to far away urban centers, would have to be some big legislation.  
 

Climate change doesn’t rank as high right now for me unfortunately.  Too many crises.  
 

I still think states will lead the fight, not the federal govt.  Democrats holding the Exec Branch and two houses of Congress for long seems doubtful, given the flux, historically.  We will see.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2020 at 9:57 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Climate change is a top 10 issue for me.

Support nuclear power, or you really do not give a shit about global warming.  Or you hate science and have not taken the time to become educated on new nuclear.

That is way the Democrats are so full of shit. They really are the anti climate party. Yet they claim the opposite. 
 

The US should be completely green. No chance with Democrats in power. 
 

Pollution

wood>coal>natural gas>uranium.

uranium actually is better than solar panels and wind power. Wind power has a massive footprint and Solar panels created more waste than uranium and also have a big footprint. But I like Musk ideas on some of his solar stuff. We should be 95% electric cars now.
 

The air is so much cleaner today than 130 years ago. Why because we don’t burn wood all the time anymore. 
 

When you claim the world is ending in 10 years from the 1960 on, you tend to lose any credibility with people who think and have experience. The polar caps we’re supposed to be gone by the 1930’s. I guess natural gas saved them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2020 at 2:23 AM, 415hawaiiboy said:

Regarding Nuclear, Fukushima disaster not good for perception of safety.  In California, I read only Diablo Canyon PG&E plant still operational.  These plants were built near the ocean for cooling which was also a tsunami risk.  With rising sea levels, some of the nuclear waste storage is at risk.
 

I took a project finance course and one risk inherent to project finance infrastructure is technology risk.  At $10B+, that is a big check / bet on a technology with contingent/potential liabilities.  Getting insurance especially in CA would be expensive.  
 

From a national defense, having concentrated power plants I’d think poses a security risk.
 

The idea of building these nuclear plants in the less populated regions is interesting.  With land use power at state and local level (Republican controlled?) and the desire provide power to far away urban centers, would have to be some big legislation.  
 

Climate change doesn’t rank as high right now for me unfortunately.  Too many crises.  
 

I still think states will lead the fight, not the federal govt.  Democrats holding the Exec Branch and two houses of Congress for long seems doubtful, given the flux, historically.  We will see.

 

 

You have a much better chance with Republicans in power to get real environmental changes. Democrat leadership just cares about power and catering to the wealthy. They don’t give a shit about the environment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, robe said:

You have a much better chance with Republicans in power to get real environmental changes. Democrat leadership just cares about power and catering to the wealthy. They don’t give a shit about the environment. 

It’s the same with minorities. They are being used as a means to gain power. The comment by Biden tells it like it is. You ain’t black if you don’t vote for me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2020 at 8:45 PM, bsu_alum9 said:

1000 MW wind farm ready in 2022 in Magic Valley for $1B. 

3000 MW nuclear ready in 2028 in Utah for $13.4B.

1900 MW gas ready in 2022 in OH for $1.6B.
——

So are we okay paying $0.25 per kWH for electricity?

you know you gotta pay for the gas right? And that wind is not continuous?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's up there. A lot of my political and personal decisions are based around it. Political stuff like supporting nuclear and geothermal, investing in smart car infrastructure, space exploitation, waste to energy trash disposal, better city planning. Personal decisions like what car to buy, buying local food and products.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, happycamper said:

you know you gotta pay for the gas right? And that wind is not continuous?

and in the case of wind, you need equivalent base load generation capacity since the wind doesn't blow all of the time. Same with solar. They are not stand-alone technologies.

The real future should be distributed,micro-grid reactors that will power neighborhoods instead of cities.  This architecture provides cheap, clean power with the additional benefit of enhancing our ability to withstand an EMP attack.

https://ndia-snv.org/reactors-microgrids-recyc

  • Cheers 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×