What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Global Warming. Here's the thing.

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
16,334
Reaction score
1,993
Points
290
Location
N/A
A generous estimate of the coal required to manufacture a windmill run 230 tons. The average wind turbine will generate 6MKWh in one year. To do so with coal would require burning 3,000 tons of coal. So, the average wind turbine, started on New Years, will have paid off its coal consumption before the end of January.
 
OP
myself

myself

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2021
Messages
578
Reaction score
206
Points
143
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?

Don't expect there to be any life expectancy at all for most life past the year 2050. So, who's civilization is best. Ours or those in the past where the average life expectancy may have only been around 30. And for times back then, their knowledge of medicine was basically nonexistent. That is why their life expectancy was so short. Living greener wouldn't make our medical knowledge disappear.
 
OP
myself

myself

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2021
Messages
578
Reaction score
206
Points
143
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.

.

There is an old saying. "Don't kill the messenger." You prefer the Solyent Green solution? That's up to you. But if you think you can just go up to third world lowlifes and say "don't have children" and expect them to listen, you're dreaming. Next, we are polluting the U.S. by providing energy to many millions of illegals. Instead of just this one person turning off his electricity, don't you suppose it would do more good environmentally to deport all those illegals?
 
OP
myself

myself

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2021
Messages
578
Reaction score
206
Points
143
How many deaths have resulted from spent fuel from a nuclear reactor in the 70 years since beginning operation?

zero

Zero is the wrong answer. I would have to look it up to make sure. But I remember hearing of a nuclear accident that happened somewhere in Russia that the government covered up. Nuclear plants keep their spent fuel submerged in cooling tanks. Or cooling ponds if you prefer. Apparently the water drained out of one of their cooling pools causing the spent rods to overheat. They exploded and released deadly radiation all over the place. I'm sure that killed many. And continues to do so.
 
OP
myself

myself

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2021
Messages
578
Reaction score
206
Points
143
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.

Nothing is heavily regulated. That's the whole point behind all the deregulation the republicans are always trying to push forward. Money matters to them. Human life and the environment certainly doesn't. Watch the documentary, "The Corporation." Another even better one is, "What lies upstream."
 
OP
myself

myself

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2021
Messages
578
Reaction score
206
Points
143
Seriously, this is pure bullshit. No country releases spent nuclear fuel into the environment.

I remember seeing things on TV long ago where some ship dropped a load of barrels of nuclear waste onto a Greenpeace boat that ran along side the ship to try and stop them from dropping their load of waste. It didn't work. As I told somebody around here, you need to find and watch the documentary, "Waste: A Nuclear Nightmare."
 

westwall

LET'S GO BRANDON!
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
74,156
Reaction score
29,629
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
Don't expect there to be any life expectancy at all for most life past the year 2050. So, who's civilization is best. Ours or those in the past where the average life expectancy may have only been around 30. And for times back then, their knowledge of medicine was basically nonexistent. That is why their life expectancy was so short. Living greener wouldn't make our medical knowledge disappear.





Yeah, you anti science religious loons have been around for a LOOOOOOOOONG time...

repent-the-end-is-nigh-ye-must-be-cleansed.png
 
OP
myself

myself

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2021
Messages
578
Reaction score
206
Points
143
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.

Breeder reactors are run off plutonium. They produce even more plutonium. How much more, I don't know. But that is why they are called breeder reactors. That aside, I'm sure they go through the same problems that any other nuclear plant does. They eventually use up their fuel and produce radioactive waste. Next, if France has recycled over 30,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel, that means they probably still have around 25,000 tons of nuclear waste. As I said, only a small percentage of spent nuclear fuel can be recycled into usable nuclear fuel. It isn't perpetual motion. Not by a long shot. As for how much nuclear waste you think the U.S. has, let's say I'm extremely doubtful. And most of what of it there is will remain dangerous for longer than humans have even existed. But let me guess. Because you won't be around, you don't care.
 
OP
myself

myself

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2021
Messages
578
Reaction score
206
Points
143
A generous estimate of the coal required to manufacture a windmill run 230 tons. The average wind turbine will generate 6MKWh in one year. To do so with coal would require burning 3,000 tons of coal. So, the average wind turbine, started on New Years, will have paid off its coal consumption before the end of January.

I still prefer solar panels.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
70,418
Reaction score
16,555
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
Zero is the wrong answer. I would have to look it up to make sure. But I remember hearing of a nuclear accident that happened somewhere in Russia that the government covered up. Nuclear plants keep their spent fuel submerged in cooling tanks. Or cooling ponds if you prefer. Apparently the water drained out of one of their cooling pools causing the spent rods to overheat. They exploded and released deadly radiation all over the place. I'm sure that killed many. And continues to do so.

It's true, commies suck.

Your math still sucks worse.
 

elektra

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
10,520
Reaction score
2,023
Points
255
Location
Temecula California
Zero is the wrong answer. I would have to look it up to make sure. But I remember hearing of a nuclear accident that happened somewhere in Russia that the government covered up. Nuclear plants keep their spent fuel submerged in cooling tanks. Or cooling ponds if you prefer. Apparently the water drained out of one of their cooling pools causing the spent rods to overheat. They exploded and released deadly radiation all over the place. I'm sure that killed many. And continues to do so.
Spent fuel rods exploded? Only in your dream world. There is not one scientist or engineer in the world that will state that the danger of, "spent", fuel rods, that is fuel rods that can no longer sustain a critical nuclear reaction, exploding.

Hell, if spent fuel rods explode so easy, why do nations spend billons of dollars and years of research and development to make a bomb?

You are making stuff up, everytime you say you read this once but dont remember where.
 

elektra

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
10,520
Reaction score
2,023
Points
255
Location
Temecula California
Breeder reactors are run off plutonium.
No they do not, they use uranium, breeders can be used to create plutonium. Plutonium does not exist in nature,

Uranium 238, which has a little Uranium 235. Uranium 238 does not fission well, hence its u235 content is enriched.

Once enriched, it is nuclear fuel. Plutonium which does not exist in nature must be made in a breeder reactor.

If as, "myself" states, that breeders run off plutonium, not uranium, where does that plutonium come from?

"myself", you are demonstrating that you know nothing about anything you comment on.
 

elektra

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
10,520
Reaction score
2,023
Points
255
Location
Temecula California
I remember seeing things on TV long ago where some ship dropped a load of barrels of nuclear waste onto a Greenpeace boat that ran along side the ship to try and stop them from dropping their load of waste. It didn't work. As I told somebody around here, you need to find and watch the documentary, "Waste: A Nuclear Nightmare."
Now you are talking about nuclear waste when we were speaking of spent nuclear fuel?

Low level nuclear waste wont get you sick or kill you. I used to work at a nuclear power plant pack 4x4x8 ft metal boxes with 2500 lbs of low level nuclear waste. It was to be buried at hanford washington.

I wore a paper suit and sometimes used a respirator if I was using a grinder to cut stuff up.
Sadly, all that low level radioactive waste could of been recycled and used in another reactor. Too many regulations though. Bad regulations.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
70,418
Reaction score
16,555
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
No they do not, they use uranium, breeders can be used to create plutonium. Plutonium does not exist in nature,

Uranium 238, which has a little Uranium 235. Uranium 238 does not fission well, hence its u235 content is enriched.

Once enriched, it is nuclear fuel. Plutonium which does not exist in nature must be made in a breeder reactor.

If as, "myself" states, that breeders run off plutonium, not uranium, where does that plutonium come from?

"myself", you are demonstrating that you know nothing about anything you comment on.

He's a moron, but he once remembered seeing a show about the issue. So he's an expert now.
 
OP
myself

myself

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2021
Messages
578
Reaction score
206
Points
143
Spent fuel rods exploded? Only in your dream world. There is not one scientist or engineer in the world that will state that the danger of, "spent", fuel rods, that is fuel rods that can no longer sustain a critical nuclear reaction, exploding.

Hell, if spent fuel rods explode so easy, why do nations spend billons of dollars and years of research and development to make a bomb?

You are making stuff up, everytime you say you read this once but dont remember where.

Unfortunately, I don't know how to do a copy and past of a website to make it appear as something you cam click on to see in my reply. But I can tell you what the name of the website is for you to google. One is "The Kyshtym Disaster: The largest nuclear disaster you've never heard of." Another one is called, "A very dangerous removal of nuclear fuel rods at Fukushima" At that website they talk about how dangerous it will be to even remove the spent fuel rods from their cooling pool. If they were to accidentally drop even one of those it would cause a nuclear reaction that would spread a LOT of radiation. It may not go off like a nuclear bomb. But no doubt it would cause some sort of explosion.
 

elektra

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
10,520
Reaction score
2,023
Points
255
Location
Temecula California
Nothing is heavily regulated. That's the whole point behind all the deregulation the republicans are always trying to push forward. Money matters to them. Human life and the environment certainly doesn't. Watch the documentary, "The Corporation." Another even better one is, "What lies upstream."
yet, many of these big corporations are Democrat controlled?

yet, it was Republicans who started the environmental protection agency?

Democrats have always been in power, but you are a bunch of rats, you fuck everything up and blame republicans.

Nothing is heavily regulated but that is why we try to deregulate? The more you post, the dumber you prove you are.
 

frigidweirdo

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
35,232
Reaction score
4,375
Points
1,130
The weather has been changing every single day this earth has been in existence.
It's not going to stop. Man has no control over it, never did, never will.

If you don't like the weather where you are at, then move.

Not true. Cities are hotter than the countryside for a reason. We literally change the temperatures in the cities and we know it.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
70,418
Reaction score
16,555
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
At that website they talk about how dangerous it will be to even remove the spent fuel rods from their cooling pool. If they were to accidentally drop even one of those it would cause a nuclear reaction that would spread a LOT of radiation

Hilarious!!
 
OP
myself

myself

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2021
Messages
578
Reaction score
206
Points
143
No they do not, they use uranium, breeders can be used to create plutonium. Plutonium does not exist in nature,

Uranium 238, which has a little Uranium 235. Uranium 238 does not fission well, hence its u235 content is enriched.

Once enriched, it is nuclear fuel. Plutonium which does not exist in nature must be made in a breeder reactor.

If as, "myself" states, that breeders run off plutonium, not uranium, where does that plutonium come from?

"myself", you are demonstrating that you know nothing about anything you comment on.

Well apparently you are right. (That mustn't happen very often) Breeder reactors do use uranium. Also, plutonium does exist in nature. But at very low levels. So even if the plutonium is man made, it can still be used as nuclear fuel. I have to admit that my knowledge about how nuclear reactors work is limited, I do know that they produce radioactive byproducts that make them not worth the trouble.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$142.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top