Biden’s trip released about 2,000,000 pounds of carbon into the atmosphere.
1 Like
How the hell do you travel with an 85 car motorcade? Can you even fit an 85 car motorcade into Vatican City?
2 Likes
The United States is leading the way in reducing carbon dioxide emissions thanks largely to the transition from coal to natural gas brought about by President Trump’s policies
1 Like
I bet the porkulus funding bill recently passed has no money for a nuclear power plants.
1 Like
The Democrats are putting on a brave face but even if they shut down the United States economy it will have a non-measurable effect on the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the world
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/11/14/cop26-ends-in-humiliating-failure/
Edit. Nature magazine does not approve either
COP26 hasn’t solved the problem : scientists react to UN climate deal
2 Likes
Your degree isn’t in math, is it?
Nuclear power is perfectly safe and effective. The FDA and CDC have tested it rigorously and it’s been approved for use by all. Federal mandates are perfectly reasonable and all misinformation should reported to your neighborhood party leader.
1 Like
projects like these have a chance to provide low carbon dioxide power unlike the government throwing hundreds of billions of dollars into solar and wind and wishing real hard that they succeed.
On Tuesday, TerraPower, the US-based nuclear power company backed by Bill Gates, announced it has chosen a site for what would be its first reactor. Kemmerer, Wyoming, population roughly 2,500,
The company has been selected by the US Department of Energy to build a demonstration reactor, a designation that guarantees at least $180 million toward construction and could see it receive billions of dollars over the next several years.
The reactor itself is also not strictly a TerraPower project. The reactor design is being developed jointly with GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy. A company called Bechtel will help with the construction, which will require a workforce equivalent to roughly 80 percent of Kemmerer’s population.
The design will involve a number of technologies that have only been tried rarely or not at all. So this will not be a simple project. TerraPower and GE Hitachi are calling the design Natrium, and they have set up a website to describe it. We’ll go over some of its key differentiators here.
1 Like
thought I would resurrect this old thread.
good article on the beneficial effects of increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. it is literally helping to “green” our planet by promoting the growth of forests and other plants.
1 Like
The climatistas first do everything they can to make nuclear power expensive and then they use taxpayer money to keep open the plants that were opened despite them doing everything they could to keep them from being built in the first place. you can be sure this will be a payoff to well-connected cronies of the Democrats
A certification and bidding process opened Tuesday for a civil nuclear credit program that is intended to bail out financially distressed owners or operators of nuclear power reactors, the US Department of Energy told The Associated Press exclusively, shortly before the official announcement. It’s the largest federal investment in saving financially distressed nuclear reactors.
Owners or operators of nuclear power reactors that are expected to shut down for economic reasons can apply for funding to avoid closing prematurely. The first round of awards will prioritize reactors that have already announced plans to close.
That’s way too stupid to be posted here. Who gives a flying f*ck about increased plant productivity, assuming it’s even factual, when everything else points to a disaster for most life forms? There are obviously not enough plants left to absorb all this CO2 even if they somehow magically “increased productivity.”
Also, and this is from 2009:
Just last week I read somewhere that the reason nuclear power is so expensive is because natural gas is (was?) so cheap and abundant in the US. Not exactly the “climatista” agenda you claim. Also there’s no consensus in the green and climate crowds regarding nuclear (nuclear isn’t causing the climate disaster, but it is hazardous and there are problems with its long-term storage).
Your asinine personal insults are getting tiring. I’m going to ignore your posts until you address the topic of the post without making insults.
1 Like
Ok, I am sorry. The topic is a pseudo-scientific gobbledygook. Is this better? And the burden of proof is on you, since you brought up the “topic”.
Reference for your statement?
1 Like
That’s my opinion, and I provided one link already. You posted an article from a group that’s an obvious front for the fossil fuel industry’s disingenuous fight against climate science. I equate it to the big tobacco’s fight against overwhelming medical evidence of the harm caused by tobacco use. You presented it as an argument, so the burden of proof is on you.
You are entitled to your opinion, as are others who might disagree. I happen to agree with you that climate change exists. It always has existed. I think even @onenote would agree with this. What is at issue is level of anthropogenic contribution to climate change.
But here’s the thing:
There are many credentialled individuals who do not support the current climate change mania. But their voices are not today permitted even to be heard. When they attempt to speak out they are ridiculed and worse. Mainstream sources never, ever, carry their views or allow them to be reviewed by the public.
In a scientific matter such as this all sides need to be allowed freely to express their views without ridicule. If the strength of climate change argument is so overwhelming it should not be necessary to muzzle those who disagree. Free speech and free and open debate must always prevail.
A parallel to this exists with Musk and Twitter. Musk has no intention of shutting down those who disagree with him. It’s the opposite. Fact is he has invited them to remain on Twitter and express their views! All Musk is wanting to do is to allow all voices to be heard without censorship, regardless viewpoint.
Freedom of speech and open debate work in any venue and regardless topic. But they do represent a threat to folks whose tightly held viewpoints might, nevertheless, be erroneous.
3 Likes
This is a classic ad-hominem argument and I reject it. if that’s the best you have we don’t have anything to discuss.
The problems of trying to provide enough storage to back up a fully wind and solar system without fossil fuels are so huge and so costly that you would think that everyone pushing the “net zero” agenda would be completely focused on these issues. And given that the issues are quite obvious, you would think that such people would be well down the curve with feasibility studies, cost studies, and demonstration projects to make their case on how their plans could be accomplished. Remarkably, that is not the case at all.
To calculate how much storage you need in gigawatt hours, multiply average usage in GW by 30 days and 24 hours per day. So California will need about 22,302 GWH of storage, Australia about 18,720 GWH, and New York about 12,960 GWH. That is to supply current levels of demand. For the “everything electrified” case, triple all of these numbers: 66,906 GWH for California, 56,160 GWH for Australia, and 38,880 GWH for New York. Price that out at current costs of Tesla-type lithium-ion batters (~$150/KWH) and you will get around $10 trillion for California, $8.4 trillion for Australia, and $5.8 trillion for New York. These figures are in the range of triple total annual GDP for each of these jurisdictions, before you even get to the cost of the three-times overbuild of the generations system to account for charging of the batteries when the sun is shining and wind blowing. Nor can Tesla-style batteries hold charge for months on end as would be necessary for this system, but at this point, that seems like a minor quibble.
The article then goes on to list the actual plans for backup energy storage by these areas and they are grossly inadequate.
2 Likes