"If you do not believe in climate change, you should not be allowed to hold public office"

Fogdog said:

adversion? LOL

They aren't needed -- in the US. Why build them when there are better alternatives?

Click to expand...

Fogdog said:

Nope. Wasn't me. I didn't make that claim. Liking the post didn't mean that I was agreeing with everything in that article.

The blob formed off the PNW four years ago during an extended warm period caused by a static high pressure zone. 2013 was a warm winter, a drought year, wind patterns didn't mix the water like it ususally does and the warm water pooled well offshore, the next year, the blob moved into shallower waters and stayed there. It wasn't due to Fukushima. People say all sorts of things and it get's published. It's not a big deal.

National Enquirer posted a made up story about a half boy-half bat found deep underground in a cave. I'm not responsible for it, nor believed it either but I liked Big Lou's post containing a shot of the page from Natl Enquirer.

Not only can you not spell, make laughable gaffs with technical jargon, write poorly and get your facts wrong, you also assume too much. I really hope you aren't some nuclear scientist working on a design or construction of a plant. You are the kind of idiot who would mix up English and metric units of measurement.

Click to expand...

esh dov ets said:

I'd rather read a page of his writing i might not agree completely with then a blurb by you being racist or pedantic and always so enlightening. It's called a dynamic conversation mr. One track mind. Get a ~ lost

Click to expand...

ginjawarrior said:

like coal stations?

or covering the whole of arizona with solar or all of california with wind turbines (either of which will supply all your power needs when sunny or windy)

land use is a big issue along side global warming and energy density is something that affects land use

not much use saving the enviroment if you've already used it all up.....

Click to expand...

Fogdog said:

Too funny this. I don't really care what you or others think.

If a person does not believe in climate change they shouldn't hold public office. Not my statement but it makes a lot of sense. Recognizing facts and addressing them makes for good public policy. Has there ever been a good public policy that was based upon a lie?

Click to expand...

fdd2blk said:

In God we trust.

Click to expand...

Fogdog said:

There is plenty of space for wind, solar and geothermal power to generate 100% of US needs. Fossil fuel can be used as a back-up supply of power in case there is a disruption in any of those.

I'd like to see a comprehensive and impartial discussion of alternatives that includes nuclear. Dismissive hand waving about "unreasonable and hysterical luddites" that oppose nuclear isn't going to do it. Right now, we have to get science deniers out of the way, then we can have a good discussion about which policy path to travel. From what I've seen, there is no easy path. That said, there is no technical reason why the US can't fully replace fossil fuels an meet 100% of its needs. And so, nuclear isn't needed in the US.

Click to expand...

Fogdog said:

Good policy?

Click to expand...

Fogdog said:

There is plenty of space for wind, solar and geothermal power to generate 100% of US needs. Fossil fuel can be used as a back-up supply of power in case there is a disruption in any of those.

I'd like to see a comprehensive and impartial discussion of alternatives that includes nuclear. Dismissive hand waving about "unreasonable and hysterical luddites" that oppose nuclear isn't going to do it. Right now, we have to get science deniers out of the way, then we can have a good discussion about which policy path to travel. From what I've seen, there is no easy path. That said, there is no technical reason why the US can't fully replace fossil fuels an meet 100% of its needs. And so, nuclear isn't needed in the US.

Click to expand...

ttystikk said:

I'm about as far from being a Luddite as it's possible to get and I don't think nuclear power is a viable solution for power generation on the Earth's surface.

These aren't conflicting positions, they reflect the facts you've been discussing in this very thread.

Thanks for spreading the word that nuclear power for civilian electrical generation just flat doesn't make sense.

Click to expand...

esh dov ets said:

problem
http://fukushimawatch.com/2015-08-2...ka-from-radiation-polluted-pacific-ocean.html

Click to expand...

A warm body of water in the Pacific Ocean known infamously as “the blob” has been cited as the culprit behind dangerous algae blooms. The blob encompasses a diameter of 1,000 miles, is 300 feet deep and stretches from California to Alaska.

The blob was discovered in 2013. No one is sure what is fueling the blob; however, radioactive waste from the Fukushima Daiichi power plant may bear some responsibility.

Click to expand...

ttystikk said:

From the article;

'The mainstream media has underplayed the severity of the disaster in order to prevent a mass panic and protect the nuclear industry (including General Electric, which owns NBC). While ignorance maintains civility and corporate revenue, it doesn’t allow people to adequately prepare for oncoming disasters.'

OUTLAW CORPORATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE and while we're at it, end the practice of corporate conglomeration of news and information media.

This is no longer the future, it's here and now.

Any questions?

Click to expand...

ttystikk said:

I'm about as far from being a Luddite as it's possible to get and I don't think nuclear power is a viable solution for power generation on the Earth's surface.

These aren't conflicting positions, they reflect the facts you've been discussing in this very thread.

Thanks for spreading the word that nuclear power for civilian electrical generation just flat doesn't make sense.

Click to expand...

SneekyNinja said:

Radiation for at minimum thousands of years (his article says hundreds but presumably that's the half life) so we can heat water for a little bit of power now?

Crazy talk IMO.

Click to expand...

SneekyNinja said:

He can't even spell but calls "clown shoes" on everyone else...

Click to expand...

ginjawarrior said:

you built yourself a capacitor array yet to power your world?

Click to expand...

ginjawarrior said:

minimum thousands of years???

citation needed

Click to expand...

SneekyNinja said:

Capacitors would be a poor choice for that, they're only intended for short burst of high amperage power (or for filtering noise on a power line, but that's irrelevant).

For a slower and more gradual release you need batteries or super-caps.

If something has a half life of say 200 years, that means in two hundred years it will have lost 50% of its radioactivity.

That means in 400 years it will be 1/4 as radioactive as it was...but still radioactive.

So from a kilo you'd have 250g of radioactive material left.

Another 200 years and you'd have 125g.

Another 200 years you'd have 62.5g.

Another 200 years you'd have 31.25g.

So...

1000 years later you'd go from a kg of radioactive material to 31.25g.

Click to expand...

ginjawarrior said:

i already understood halflifes

please give citation that it is a 200year half life.......

Click to expand...

SneekyNinja said:

Name a gamma ray emitting nuclear waste with a half life less than 200 years.

I'll be waiting.

Click to expand...

ginjawarrior said:

why gamma ray? not alpha or beta?

Click to expand...

SneekyNinja said:

Because Alpha and Beta are easily shielded from?

You should really check your own citations BTW, the attribution to "only lasts a few hundred years" is an opinion paper written by none other than Jim Hansen.

Lol.

Click to expand...