Global Warming. Here's the thing.

[myself]

no, coal plants have a life that is easily 50 years and beyond. One was just dismantled that was 70 years old.

and that is technology built without the aid of computers

Well I looked up a website that apparently went by what scientists and engineers think. And they said 40 years. You got a problem with that? Take it up with them.

 

[Flash]

You know, for who knows exactly how many thousands of years, humans have existed without cars, petroleum, coal fired or nuclear powered power plants etc. And for the most part, they got along just fine. Even thriving. You think it would be the end of the world if most of the industry you know took a hit? You can't be that stupid. I seriously doubt anybody can really be that stupid. So I must assume some polluter is paying you to say what you say. Ever consider the Mafia trade? But these days we have the ability to create all that we need to make us comfortable with green energy.

Also, I'm tired of having my thread sidetracked. The point of my thread is the point of my thread. If there is nothing to global warming of any kind, but we did something about it anyway, the worst that can happen is that we live more equitably within our environmental system. But if human caused global warming does exist, which it does, the worst that can happen from doing nothing about is the destruction of the planet. And that happening probably a LOT sooner than you imagine. There is an old saying that says, "It's better to be safe than sorry." What is your take on that saying.

You moron.

When we didn't have technology we only had a few hundred million humans living all over the earth. There is a big difference in sitting around a fire eating grubs and enjoying the standard of living you are living in now.

We cannot sustain a population in the billions without creating a whole hellva lot of pollution.

I kinda know what I am talking about because I am a retired Environmental Engineer that had a 30 year career cleaning up real pollution.

Of course this silly AGW scam is not about pollution. It is about destroying industrialization and redistribution of wealth and it is despicable.

There is no AGW. At least there is no credible scientific proof of it. Only silly ass correlations, fraudulent and cherry picked data and shit in shit out computer models paid for by Environmental Wacko research grants.

These initiatives that the Environmental Wackos spout will cause tremendous economic upheavals and result in real human destruction.

If you beleive this silly shit you are posting then put your money where your mouth is. Go turn off your electricity. Throw the keys to your vehicle away. Start living the life you think all the rest of us should be living.

 

[elektra]

Also, nuclear power plants produce waste that will remain dangerous for far longer than humans have even existed.

Do they? Or is that the propaganda. We used to have breeder reactors, breeders recycle the spent fuel.

Areva makes a reactor that recycles spent fuel.

and of course, like all problems, we can research and solve this one. Simply build another type of reactor that uses the spent fuel?

 

[elektra]

Well I looked up a website that apparently went by what scientists and engineers think. And they said 40 years. You got a problem with that? Take it up with them.

you looked it up on google? So what. You did a google search because you do not know the answer and we are suppose to believe your reply. Scientists? That disqualifies your reply. We dont need a scientist or engineer when we have something extraordinary called, what for it,
OPERATING EXPERIENCE

Average age of US power plant fleet flat for 4th-straight year in 2018

Hydroelectric power plants had the highest average age among U.S. power generation facilities, while wind and solar facilities had the lowest.

www.spglobal.com

Looks like the average is at least 50 years

 

[myself]

You moron.

When we didn't have technology we only had a few hundred million humans living all over the earth. There is a big difference in sitting around a fire eating grubs and enjoying the standard of living you are living in now.

We cannot sustain a population in the billions without creating a whole hellva lot of pollution.

I kinda know what I am talking about because I am a retired Environmental Engineer that had a 30 year career cleaning up real pollution.

Of course this silly AGW scam is not about pollution. It is about destroying industrialization and redistribution of wealth and it is despicable.

There is no AGW. At least there is no credible scientific proof of it. Only silly ass correlations, fraudulent and cherry picked data and shit in shit out computer models paid for by Environmental Wacko research grants.

These initiatives that the Environmental Wackos spout will cause tremendous economic upheavals and result in real human destruction.

If you beleive this silly shit you are posting then put your money where your mouth is. Go turn off your electricity. Throw the keys to your vehicle away. Start living the life you think all the rest of us should be living.

There were many civilizations in the past where people lived in actual cities and towns. Where they did more than sit around a fire eating grubs. Some of those civilizations even created structures that we with all our technology couldn't replicate today. Next, "billions of people?" There are going to be billions more. And soon. Hence the absolute need for some extreme protectionism, isolationism and separatism. And possibly some good old genocide. But with this being a "Soylent Green" forum peopled by mostly doomsday cultists, I'll not go into that last part.

 

[elektra]

Fuck wind. We could supply many times the world's energy needs just here in the U.S. with solar panels. Also, coal fired power plants only have a lifespan of 40 years. It is about the same for nuclear power plants. Though apparently they can or have no choice but to push that lifespan to 60 years beyond what they were designed to do. Also, nuclear power plants produce waste that will remain dangerous for far longer than humans have even existed. Worst of all is the damaged core of Chernobyl. It is expected to remain dangerous for about the next 4.5 billion years.

Sorry, we can not supply our needs, let alone the earths need simply from solar. It will never happen. You could cover the entire earth with solar panels and you would still not have enough energy. Especially when it is dark.

There really is no good place to put solar panels, there burden on the local environment is simply too much. And if they are not a burden, then they are in a place where there is not enough sun to make any difference at all.

 

[myself]

Do they? Or is that the propaganda. We used to have breeder reactors, breeders recycle the spent fuel.

Areva makes a reactor that recycles spent fuel.

and of course, like all problems, we can research and solve this one. Simply build another type of reactor that uses the spent fuel?

Yes. Danger for far longer than humans have existed. Don't believe it? Look it up. Next, I watched a documentary once that went into that very topic. It was called, "Waste: A Nuclear Nightmare." With the use of much power, only a very small percentage of spent fuel can be recycled into usable nuclear fuel. So what you end up with is a whole lot of waste with very little usable nuclear fuel. And most countries with nuclear reactors just take the much cheaper rout of releasing their radioactive waste into the environment. Next, with solar panels, we don't have to do research into anything. Though the technology does keep improving. I remember hearing of a new process where the solar panel material can just be painted on.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes. Danger for far longer than humans have existed. Don't believe it? Look it up. Next, I watched a documentary once that went into that very topic. It was called, "Waste: A Nuclear Nightmare." With the use of much power, only a very small percentage of spent fuel can be recycled into usable nuclear fuel. So what you end up with is a whole lot of waste with very little usable nuclear fuel. And most countries with nuclear reactors just take the much cheaper rout of releasing their radioactive waste into the environment. Next, with solar panels, we don't have to do research into anything. Though the technology does keep improving. I remember hearing of a new process where the solar panel material can just be painted on.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Reactors won't save the planet. That's not the real problem. You probably seen my graphs in post #23. Compare them to this graph. There are now over 7 billion people on the planet. And as long as people have the freedom to screw freely, it isn't going to slow down.

View attachment 533341

Michael Shellenberger will disagree with you. Who's Michael Shellenberger? Well he's the guy that convinced Obama to waste billions on renewables, then he realised his mistake.

 

[myself]

you looked it up on google? So what. You did a google search because you do not know the answer and we are suppose to believe your reply. Scientists? That disqualifies your reply. We dont need a scientist or engineer when we have something extraordinary called, what for it,
OPERATING EXPERIENCE

Average age of US power plant fleet flat for 4th-straight year in 2018

Hydroelectric power plants had the highest average age among U.S. power generation facilities, while wind and solar facilities had the lowest.

www.spglobal.com

Looks like the average is at least 50 years

Yes, I did a google search. It confirmed something I saw on some science show years ago. Though doing the search I did see something about a coal fired power plant that was decommissioned after about 70 years. But I'm sure that was a lot older than what the engineers who originally designed it expected its life span to be. But when it comes to making money, companies are likely to roll the dice and take a chance. After all, if things go wrong, what's the worst that can happen to them. Basically pay for a lot of expensive lawyers and maybe get a monetary slap on the wrist at wrist.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes. Danger for far longer than humans have existed. Don't believe it? Look it up. Next, I watched a documentary once that went into that very topic. It was called, "Waste: A Nuclear Nightmare." With the use of much power, only a very small percentage of spent fuel can be recycled into usable nuclear fuel. So what you end up with is a whole lot of waste with very little usable nuclear fuel. And most countries with nuclear reactors just take the much cheaper rout of releasing their radioactive waste into the environment. Next, with solar panels, we don't have to do research into anything. Though the technology does keep improving. I remember hearing of a new process where the solar panel material can just be painted on.

 

[myself]

Michael Shellenberger will disagree with you. Who's Michael Shellenberger? Well he's the guy that convinced Obama to waste billions on renewables, then he realised his mistake.

Yeah. I heard about the Obama administration putting billions into solar panels. The problem is that without the proper infrastructure, solar panels may as well be piles of dried leaves.

 

[myself]

If I bore you, go haunt somebody elses thread.

 

[westwall]

You know, for who knows exactly how many thousands of years, humans have existed without cars, petroleum, coal fired or nuclear powered power plants etc. And for the most part, they got along just fine. Even thriving. You think it would be the end of the world if most of the industry you know took a hit? You can't be that stupid. I seriously doubt anybody can really be that stupid. So I must assume some polluter is paying you to say what you say. Ever consider the Mafia trade? But these days we have the ability to create all that we need to make us comfortable with green energy.

Also, I'm tired of having my thread sidetracked. The point of my thread is the point of my thread. If there is nothing to global warming of any kind, but we did something about it anyway, the worst that can happen is that we live more equitably within our environmental system. But if human caused global warming does exist, which it does, the worst that can happen from doing nothing about is the destruction of the planet. And that happening probably a LOT sooner than you imagine. There is an old saying that says, "It's better to be safe than sorry." What is your take on that saying.

No they didn't. The average life expectancy was 30 years. Thanks to oil and gas the average life expectancy has doubled. Have you always been this stupid or is this a recent problem of yours?

 

[Flash]

There were many civilizations in the past where people lived in actual cities and towns. Where they did more than sit around a fire eating grubs. Some of those civilizations even created structures that we with all our technology couldn't replicate today. Next, "billions of people?" There are going to be billions more. And soon. Hence the absolute need for some extreme protectionism, isolationism and separatism. And possibly some good old genocide. But with this being a "Soylent Green" forum peopled by mostly doomsday cultists, I'll not go into that last part.

Yes Moon Bat the solution to pollution is genocide to get rid of a few billion people. Will you volunteer to be that is sacrificed for the rest of humanity?

I doubt it because you don't even have the courage to turn off your electricity.

.

 

[elektra]

Yes. Danger for far longer than humans have existed. Don't believe it? Look it up. Next, I watched a documentary once that went into that very topic. It was called, "Waste: A Nuclear Nightmare." With the use of much power, only a very small percentage of spent fuel can be recycled into usable nuclear fuel. So what you end up with is a whole lot of waste with very little usable nuclear fuel. And most countries with nuclear reactors just take the much cheaper rout of releasing their radioactive waste into the environment. Next, with solar panels, we don't have to do research into anything. Though the technology does keep improving. I remember hearing of a new process where the solar panel material can just be painted on.

How many deaths have resulted from spent fuel from a nuclear reactor in the 70 years since beginning operation?

zero

 

[elektra]

Yes, I did a google search. It confirmed something I saw on some science show years ago. Though doing the search I did see something about a coal fired power plant that was decommissioned after about 70 years. But I'm sure that was a lot older than what the engineers who originally designed it expected its life span to be. But when it comes to making money, companies are likely to roll the dice and take a chance. After all, if things go wrong, what's the worst that can happen to them. Basically pay for a lot of expensive lawyers and maybe get a monetary slap on the wrist at wrist.

The designed life is shorter than the actual life. Seems that the engineers of the 1940's did not engineer for new technologies that allowed inspection and repair.

A coal plant is pretty simple, burn coal, boil water, turn to steam, spin turbine. Pretty much all steel, which is easily non-destructively inspected.

All plants are heavily regulated, and more than adequately inspected. No rolling of the dice or taking a chance.

 

[elektra]

And most countries with nuclear reactors just take the much cheaper rout of releasing their radioactive waste into the environment.

Seriously, this is pure bullshit. No country releases spent nuclear fuel into the environment.

 

[elektra]

With the use of much power, only a very small percentage of spent fuel can be recycled into usable nuclear fuel. So what you end up with is a whole lot of waste with very little usable nuclear fuel.

I dont know what you watched but it is not a Breeder reactor, that takes spent fuel, runs like a normal reactor creating electricity which is sold to the market. The spent fuel is recycled in the Breeder reactor into new fuel, where it is used again.

What remains is 5 times less waste, 10 times less radioactivity.

France alone has recycled over 30,000 tons of spent fuel cells.

Currently, all the spent fuel that the USA has generated would fit onto one football field. Cover it with water, and it is perfectly safe.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No they didn't. The average life expectancy was 30 years. Thanks to oil and gas the average life expectancy has doubled. Have you always been this stupid or is this a recent problem of yours?

Stupidity that profound took him many years to achieve........