Global warming is speeding up.

[Votto]

Isn't China far and away the biggest emitter of the dreaded - and mutating - CO2 virus?

Fires! Then it mutates and causes Floods!

Must have been made in Wuhan

To be fair, China is trying to kill off as many carbon footprints with the biological weapon Covid.

Their one child policy simply did not kill off enough people.

They are trying to do their part after all.

 

[myself]

Toddsterpatriot

Nuclear plants are downright diabolical. We shouldn't be creating things that will remain toxic for far longer than humans have even existed. Neither is there anything cheap about them. And when things go bad with them, all of the money in the world can't clean it up. Also, look at the melted core of Chernobyl. It is expected to remain dangerous for about the next 4.5 billion years.

 

[myself]

CrusaderFrank

Solar panels.

 

[Votto]

Toddsterpatriot

Nuclear plants are downright diabolical. We shouldn't be creating things that will remain toxic for far longer than humans have even existed. Neither is there anything cheap about them. And when things go bad with them, all of the money in the world can't clean it up. Also, look at the melted core of Chernobyl. It is expected to remain dangerous for about the next 4.5 billion years.

And if you knew anything about nuclear power, you would know that the technology today allows them to build reactors that we need not worry having them melt down

The type of technology in Russia and Japan we saw go bad is 1960's stuff.

And nuclear technology is the ONLY viable carbon free energy source that would come close to meeting the needs of the nation.

But meeting the needs of the nation is of no concern to you or the democrat party, is it.

No, the name of the game is use less and raise prices till people crack.

 

[myself]

Votto

They gave up that one child policy some time ago. Then they went to two. Now from what I hear it is up to 3.

 

[Votto]

CrusaderFrank

Solar panels.

Solar panels pollute when they are made and are highly inefficient.

 

[Votto]

Votto

They gave up that one child policy some time ago. Then they went to two. Now from what I hear it is up to 3.

I think they figured out that it would be best to kill off the world's population and not their own.

Talk about epiphanies.

My, my, the life of a dictatorial sociopath

 

[gtopa1]

What freezing cold predictions would that be?

The ones I was told about by greenies in the 1970s.....all America's fault of course.

lmao

Greg

 

[myself]

Votto

And who says new nuclear technology is safer. The idiots who would like to build them. Solar panels are more efficient and far safer.

 

[gtopa1]

Toddsterpatriot

Nuclear plants are downright diabolical. We shouldn't be creating things that will remain toxic for far longer than humans have even existed. Neither is there anything cheap about them. And when things go bad with them, all of the money in the world can't clean it up. Also, look at the melted core of Chernobyl. It is expected to remain dangerous for about the next 4.5 billion years.

What is the half-life of Uranium???

Greg

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

omg omg omg we all going to diiiieeeeeeeeee

 

[fncceo]

But the way things are looking, it is doubtful there will be any people around to drive them.

 

[myself]

Votto

Solar panels last around 24 years. The energy it takes to create them, from mining the ore they are made of to the finished product is the amount of energy you get from them in 1 to 4 years. That sounds pretty efficient to me. As for any pollution created from making them, that can be controlled.

 

[Votto]

Votto

And who says new nuclear technology is safer. The idiots who would like to build them. Solar panels are more efficient and far safer.

Can We Make A Nuclear Reactor That Won't Melt Down?

Yes we can. NuScale Power is on track to build the first small modular nuclear reactor in America, having their first-ever SMR Design Certification Application accepted for full review by the NRC and now getting approval for their walk-away-safe concept. Their reactor just won’t melt down.

www.forbes.com

This stuff is really not hard to find

Then again, the DNC press would never tell anyone about any of this, cuz they have political reasons for hating nuclear.

 

[Crick]

What is the half-life of Uranium???

Greg

The half-life of uranium-238 is about 4.5 billion years, uranium-235 about 700 million years, and uranium-234 about 25 thousand years.
--https://web.evs.anl.gov/uranium/faq/uproperties/faq5.cfm

I still favor the construction of nuclear power plants to supplement renewable and alternative energy.

 

[Crick]

The ones I was told about by greenies in the 1970s.....all America's fault of course.

lmao

Greg

Can you explain why you find those poorly supported hypotheses, published in Newsweek and Time more than any peer reviewed science journal, more believable or reliable or acceptable than the conclusions of the IPCC??

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddsterpatriot

Nuclear plants are downright diabolical. We shouldn't be creating things that will remain toxic for far longer than humans have even existed. Neither is there anything cheap about them. And when things go bad with them, all of the money in the world can't clean it up. Also, look at the melted core of Chernobyl. It is expected to remain dangerous for about the next 4.5 billion years.

Nuclear plants are downright diabolical.

But CO2 is gonna kill us....now, right?

We shouldn't be creating things that will remain toxic for far longer than humans have even existed.

How much time do we have now? Was AOC correct? Did she say 12 years?

Neither is there anything cheap about them.

You're worried about money when the planet is dying?

Also, look at the melted core of Chernobyl.

I know, fucking commies are the worst!!

It is expected to remain dangerous for about the next 4.5 billion years.

You're worried about the U-238? That's funny.

 

[Votto]

Votto

Solar panels last around 24 years. The energy it takes to create them, from mining the ore they are made of to the finished product is the amount of energy you get from them in 1 to 4 years. That sounds pretty efficient to me. As for any pollution created from making them, that can be controlled.

The environmental toll of solar panels is mind boggling

Solar Panels Produce Tons of Toxic Waste—Literally

Beyond the clear misallocation of resources and energy market price distortions, there are numerous human health concerns directly related to the manufacture and disposal of solar panels.

fee.org

As far as harvesting power from the sun, only about 30% can be used, the rest is lost due to the inefficiency of solar panels.

Why are Solar Panels Inefficient? - Understand Solar

Inefficiency is widely misunderstood by the layman. Here’s a test of your understanding: Out of two 250 watt solar panels, one with 15% efficiency, and one with 20% efficiency, which one puts out the most power? Answer: They both work just the same: they both put out the same identical power...

understandsolar.com

Both wind and solar combined cannot meet the needs of the populace. It simply can't be done.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How fast did the warming occur 2000 years ago? 4000? 6000?

If you are truly interested in this topic, here is a list of some good resources:

Climate Change Resources

www.aza.org

Better to look there than to troll non-scientists on message boards with your questions.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But meeting the needs of the nation is of no concern to you or the democrat party, is it.

Obama offered government backed loans to companies to build nuke plants. But you didn't know that, because you were too busy cackling and pointing and accusing others of not knowing stuff.