Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
yes, that seems to be a favored tactic of self-soothing on here... "Provide me list of links, or it's false"... not rational thinking. yes it's a silly request, as I am not demanding you take my word for it.A list? What a silly request. But the tide is turning a bit on this front, as more environmental groups come to the support of nuclear power, with this shift primarily driven by concerns about climate change. Even the Greenpeace director changed his stance. Over time, even more will come into the fold. That doesn't mean nuclear plants will suddenly be built, and nobody appears to want to build them and take responsibility for them. heck, we tried giving away free money and government backed loans to people to build them ....no takers. Maybe that will change over time, too.But not all. And there are strong arguments on both sides of that one.Most. That's why you never hear any environmentalists pushing nuclear to reduce CO2.
If you have a list of the ones who support nuclear, please post it.
Interesting read:
An Open Letter to Environmentalists on Nuclear Energy
Professor Barry W. Brook, Chair of Environmental Sustainability, University of Tasmania, Australia. [email protected]
Professor Corey J.A. Bradshaw, Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change, The Environment Institute, The University of Adelaide, Australia. [email protected]
A list? What a silly request.
Because you can't think of any either.
Yes, the environmental community -- at the very least, those who speak for the major organizations -- is moving toward supporting nuclear power, due to the climate change crisis. it' s a simple fact, and i cannot for the life of me figure out why it throws you into a tizzy.
It will never happen. Once they get close to that year and 99% of all vehicles still run on fossil fuels, they'll get bitch slapped back into reality.
Are you from the 1950's and hoping for the new Cadillac?
Now, if we can just talk them into banning the French, it will be a nice place to visit.An interesting move. The car manufacturers will be pleased of that goes through. On the other hand is that a necessity in the long turn, anyway. France has already the answer for the question where the energy for the increased demand should come from: Nuclear power plants.
Paris to ban all petrol and diesel cars by 2030
. Have to look at this as the French government implementing higher tax rates..................duh............they do it all the time......the government forcing people into more expensive cars in this case. Many will just choose to use mass transit. Taxes in France by 2030 will be stoopid prohibitive........the middle class will be very small.
lol.....well..........could happen but then you'd have a city where only the very rich are driving cars.
But then again, by 2030, France will be a Muslim majority country so who the fuck knows what kind of vehicles will be on the roads?
"I'll know they're serious about CO2 when they finally do support nuclear."yes, that seems to be a favored tactic of self-soothing on here... "Provide me list of links, or it's false"... not rational thinking. yes it's a silly request, as I am not demanding you take my word for it.A list? What a silly request. But the tide is turning a bit on this front, as more environmental groups come to the support of nuclear power, with this shift primarily driven by concerns about climate change. Even the Greenpeace director changed his stance. Over time, even more will come into the fold. That doesn't mean nuclear plants will suddenly be built, and nobody appears to want to build them and take responsibility for them. heck, we tried giving away free money and government backed loans to people to build them ....no takers. Maybe that will change over time, too.But not all. And there are strong arguments on both sides of that one.
If you have a list of the ones who support nuclear, please post it.
Interesting read:
An Open Letter to Environmentalists on Nuclear Energy
Professor Barry W. Brook, Chair of Environmental Sustainability, University of Tasmania, Australia. [email protected]
Professor Corey J.A. Bradshaw, Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change, The Environment Institute, The University of Adelaide, Australia. [email protected]
A list? What a silly request.
Because you can't think of any either.
Yes, the environmental community -- at the very least, those who speak for the major organizations -- is moving toward supporting nuclear power, due to the climate change crisis. it' s a simple fact, and i cannot for the life of me figure out why it throws you into a tizzy.
yes, that seems to be a favored tactic of self-soothing on here... "Provide me list of links, or it's false"...
You think some support nuclear. Good for you.
I'll know they're serious about CO2 when they finally do support nuclear.
it' s a simple fact, and i cannot for the life of me figure out why it throws you into a tizzy.
Why do you feel their supposed evolution would throw me into a tizzy?
If they finally got a clue, it would be a first.
Their current hysterical idiocy amuses me.
Yes , "stupid Brown", and his stupid affinity for improving the health of people...Another stupidity thread that equals the one Brown did in California... I guess if your subjects are stupid enough to buy this hook, line, and sinker, your subjects like being told what to eat, what to drink, where to live and wait on you for their hand outs for their very lives...... Are you going to tell them when they must die too?
One word describes this.. Idiocy!
"I'll know they're serious about CO2 when they finally do support nuclear."yes, that seems to be a favored tactic of self-soothing on here... "Provide me list of links, or it's false"... not rational thinking. yes it's a silly request, as I am not demanding you take my word for it.A list? What a silly request. But the tide is turning a bit on this front, as more environmental groups come to the support of nuclear power, with this shift primarily driven by concerns about climate change. Even the Greenpeace director changed his stance. Over time, even more will come into the fold. That doesn't mean nuclear plants will suddenly be built, and nobody appears to want to build them and take responsibility for them. heck, we tried giving away free money and government backed loans to people to build them ....no takers. Maybe that will change over time, too.If you have a list of the ones who support nuclear, please post it.
Interesting read:
An Open Letter to Environmentalists on Nuclear Energy
Professor Barry W. Brook, Chair of Environmental Sustainability, University of Tasmania, Australia. [email protected]
Professor Corey J.A. Bradshaw, Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change, The Environment Institute, The University of Adelaide, Australia. [email protected]
A list? What a silly request.
Because you can't think of any either.
Yes, the environmental community -- at the very least, those who speak for the major organizations -- is moving toward supporting nuclear power, due to the climate change crisis. it' s a simple fact, and i cannot for the life of me figure out why it throws you into a tizzy.
yes, that seems to be a favored tactic of self-soothing on here... "Provide me list of links, or it's false"...
You think some support nuclear. Good for you.
I'll know they're serious about CO2 when they finally do support nuclear.
it' s a simple fact, and i cannot for the life of me figure out why it throws you into a tizzy.
Why do you feel their supposed evolution would throw me into a tizzy?
If they finally got a clue, it would be a first.
Their current hysterical idiocy amuses me.
Which, of course, is just an absurd standard you contrive in a backward think to somehow justify goofy stuff you plan to say in the future.
The idiocy of environmentalists and scientists amazes you, eh? Well, that settles it. We need to book speaking engagements for you at every major scientific environmental and scientific society on the planet, so that you can educate them all.
There's nothing absurd about that at all, if the person feels both that there are alternatives to nuclear power and that nuclear power also represents an unacceptable threat to the environment and our well being."I'll know they're serious about CO2 when they finally do support nuclear."yes, that seems to be a favored tactic of self-soothing on here... "Provide me list of links, or it's false"... not rational thinking. yes it's a silly request, as I am not demanding you take my word for it.A list? What a silly request. But the tide is turning a bit on this front, as more environmental groups come to the support of nuclear power, with this shift primarily driven by concerns about climate change. Even the Greenpeace director changed his stance. Over time, even more will come into the fold. That doesn't mean nuclear plants will suddenly be built, and nobody appears to want to build them and take responsibility for them. heck, we tried giving away free money and government backed loans to people to build them ....no takers. Maybe that will change over time, too.
Interesting read:
An Open Letter to Environmentalists on Nuclear Energy
Professor Barry W. Brook, Chair of Environmental Sustainability, University of Tasmania, Australia. [email protected]
Professor Corey J.A. Bradshaw, Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change, The Environment Institute, The University of Adelaide, Australia. [email protected]
A list? What a silly request.
Because you can't think of any either.
Yes, the environmental community -- at the very least, those who speak for the major organizations -- is moving toward supporting nuclear power, due to the climate change crisis. it' s a simple fact, and i cannot for the life of me figure out why it throws you into a tizzy.
yes, that seems to be a favored tactic of self-soothing on here... "Provide me list of links, or it's false"...
You think some support nuclear. Good for you.
I'll know they're serious about CO2 when they finally do support nuclear.
it' s a simple fact, and i cannot for the life of me figure out why it throws you into a tizzy.
Why do you feel their supposed evolution would throw me into a tizzy?
If they finally got a clue, it would be a first.
Their current hysterical idiocy amuses me.
Which, of course, is just an absurd standard you contrive in a backward think to somehow justify goofy stuff you plan to say in the future.
The idiocy of environmentalists and scientists amazes you, eh? Well, that settles it. We need to book speaking engagements for you at every major scientific environmental and scientific society on the planet, so that you can educate them all.
Which, of course, is just an absurd standard
CO2 is gonna destroy our civilization.....kill all the animals and all the people.....
Okay, let's build more nuclear power plants
We can't do that, they're too dangerous......
There is an absurd standard here, it's not mine though.
There's nothing absurd about that at all, if the person feels both that there are alternatives to nuclear power and that nuclear power also represents an unacceptable threat to the environment and our well being."I'll know they're serious about CO2 when they finally do support nuclear."yes, that seems to be a favored tactic of self-soothing on here... "Provide me list of links, or it's false"... not rational thinking. yes it's a silly request, as I am not demanding you take my word for it.A list? What a silly request.
Because you can't think of any either.
Yes, the environmental community -- at the very least, those who speak for the major organizations -- is moving toward supporting nuclear power, due to the climate change crisis. it' s a simple fact, and i cannot for the life of me figure out why it throws you into a tizzy.
yes, that seems to be a favored tactic of self-soothing on here... "Provide me list of links, or it's false"...
You think some support nuclear. Good for you.
I'll know they're serious about CO2 when they finally do support nuclear.
it' s a simple fact, and i cannot for the life of me figure out why it throws you into a tizzy.
Why do you feel their supposed evolution would throw me into a tizzy?
If they finally got a clue, it would be a first.
Their current hysterical idiocy amuses me.
Which, of course, is just an absurd standard you contrive in a backward think to somehow justify goofy stuff you plan to say in the future.
The idiocy of environmentalists and scientists amazes you, eh? Well, that settles it. We need to book speaking engagements for you at every major scientific environmental and scientific society on the planet, so that you can educate them all.
Which, of course, is just an absurd standard
CO2 is gonna destroy our civilization.....kill all the animals and all the people.....
Okay, let's build more nuclear power plants
We can't do that, they're too dangerous......
There is an absurd standard here, it's not mine though.
"There's nothing absurd about that at all, if the person feels both that there are alternatives to nuclear power and that nuclear power also represents an unacceptable threat to the environment and our well being."I'll know they're serious about CO2 when they finally do support nuclear."yes, that seems to be a favored tactic of self-soothing on here... "Provide me list of links, or it's false"... not rational thinking. yes it's a silly request, as I am not demanding you take my word for it.
Yes, the environmental community -- at the very least, those who speak for the major organizations -- is moving toward supporting nuclear power, due to the climate change crisis. it' s a simple fact, and i cannot for the life of me figure out why it throws you into a tizzy.
yes, that seems to be a favored tactic of self-soothing on here... "Provide me list of links, or it's false"...
You think some support nuclear. Good for you.
I'll know they're serious about CO2 when they finally do support nuclear.
it' s a simple fact, and i cannot for the life of me figure out why it throws you into a tizzy.
Why do you feel their supposed evolution would throw me into a tizzy?
If they finally got a clue, it would be a first.
Their current hysterical idiocy amuses me.
Which, of course, is just an absurd standard you contrive in a backward think to somehow justify goofy stuff you plan to say in the future.
The idiocy of environmentalists and scientists amazes you, eh? Well, that settles it. We need to book speaking engagements for you at every major scientific environmental and scientific society on the planet, so that you can educate them all.
Which, of course, is just an absurd standard
CO2 is gonna destroy our civilization.....kill all the animals and all the people.....
Okay, let's build more nuclear power plants
We can't do that, they're too dangerous......
There is an absurd standard here, it's not mine though.
There's nothing absurd about that at all
CO2 is gonna kill us all!! We only have 10 years to change everything, or it will be too late!!!
Cool, let's build nuclear reactors.
Are you crazy? That stuff stays radioactive for 20,000 years.
Durr.
if the person feels both that there are alternatives to nuclear power
Of course. They love more expensive, less reliable alternatives.
That's why I don't take their position seriously.
also represents an unacceptable threat to the environment and our well being.
Because our well being isn't threatened by expensive energy that destabilizes our grid, right?
"There's nothing absurd about that at all, if the person feels both that there are alternatives to nuclear power and that nuclear power also represents an unacceptable threat to the environment and our well being."I'll know they're serious about CO2 when they finally do support nuclear."yes, that seems to be a favored tactic of self-soothing on here... "Provide me list of links, or it's false"...
You think some support nuclear. Good for you.
I'll know they're serious about CO2 when they finally do support nuclear.
it' s a simple fact, and i cannot for the life of me figure out why it throws you into a tizzy.
Why do you feel their supposed evolution would throw me into a tizzy?
If they finally got a clue, it would be a first.
Their current hysterical idiocy amuses me.
Which, of course, is just an absurd standard you contrive in a backward think to somehow justify goofy stuff you plan to say in the future.
The idiocy of environmentalists and scientists amazes you, eh? Well, that settles it. We need to book speaking engagements for you at every major scientific environmental and scientific society on the planet, so that you can educate them all.
Which, of course, is just an absurd standard
CO2 is gonna destroy our civilization.....kill all the animals and all the people.....
Okay, let's build more nuclear power plants
We can't do that, they're too dangerous......
There is an absurd standard here, it's not mine though.
There's nothing absurd about that at all
CO2 is gonna kill us all!! We only have 10 years to change everything, or it will be too late!!!
Cool, let's build nuclear reactors.
Are you crazy? That stuff stays radioactive for 20,000 years.
Durr.
if the person feels both that there are alternatives to nuclear power
Of course. They love more expensive, less reliable alternatives.
That's why I don't take their position seriously.
also represents an unacceptable threat to the environment and our well being.
Because our well being isn't threatened by expensive energy that destabilizes our grid, right?
Of course. They love more expensive, less reliable alternatives."
No, "they" love sustainable energy, and realize that the actual cost of a gallon of gasoline is much more than what is paid at the pump.
You really can't have a discussion like a normal, rational human without a bunch of juvenile lies and strawmen, can you? It makes you seem stupid.
And what you said is obviously stupid, as technology progresses and your comment is completely devoid of the reasons they like sustainable energy. Play dumb, get treated dumb. My kids learned that when they were little."There's nothing absurd about that at all, if the person feels both that there are alternatives to nuclear power and that nuclear power also represents an unacceptable threat to the environment and our well being."I'll know they're serious about CO2 when they finally do support nuclear."
Which, of course, is just an absurd standard you contrive in a backward think to somehow justify goofy stuff you plan to say in the future.
The idiocy of environmentalists and scientists amazes you, eh? Well, that settles it. We need to book speaking engagements for you at every major scientific environmental and scientific society on the planet, so that you can educate them all.
Which, of course, is just an absurd standard
CO2 is gonna destroy our civilization.....kill all the animals and all the people.....
Okay, let's build more nuclear power plants
We can't do that, they're too dangerous......
There is an absurd standard here, it's not mine though.
There's nothing absurd about that at all
CO2 is gonna kill us all!! We only have 10 years to change everything, or it will be too late!!!
Cool, let's build nuclear reactors.
Are you crazy? That stuff stays radioactive for 20,000 years.
Durr.
if the person feels both that there are alternatives to nuclear power
Of course. They love more expensive, less reliable alternatives.
That's why I don't take their position seriously.
also represents an unacceptable threat to the environment and our well being.
Because our well being isn't threatened by expensive energy that destabilizes our grid, right?
Of course. They love more expensive, less reliable alternatives."
No, "they" love sustainable energy, and realize that the actual cost of a gallon of gasoline is much more than what is paid at the pump.
You really can't have a discussion like a normal, rational human without a bunch of juvenile lies and strawmen, can you? It makes you seem stupid.
No, "they" love sustainable energy
That's what I said, they love more expensive, less reliable alternatives.
And those stinking automobiles will never replace the horse, either. LOL You 'Conservatives' are so fucking stupid.It will never happen. Once they get close to that year and 99% of all vehicles still run on fossil fuels, they'll get bitch slapped back into reality.
And those stinking automobiles will never replace the horse, either. LOL You 'Conservatives' are so fucking stupid.It will never happen. Once they get close to that year and 99% of all vehicles still run on fossil fuels, they'll get bitch slapped back into reality.
The sales remained two digit? Well, I suppose they could go to one three digit number, but only one. You cannot get more than 100%.Probably true. People simply don´t agree to electric cars. There was a large program in Spain that featured large savings for people that buy an e-car but the sales remained two-digit. The government must provide the means for the development, it cannot order a development it doesn´t control.It will never happen. Once they get close to that year and 99% of all vehicles still run on fossil fuels, they'll get bitch slapped back into reality.
Much more today than they will even in 5 years. And those cheaper batteries will be more energy dense, and charge much faster. And you assholes will still be standing beside the road, yelling "get a horse". LOLIf the batteries are insufficient, the infrastructure should provide the means for an easy exchange at the former patrol stations. This could be faster than refueling.I think the policy will work fine in French cities and for travel between cities. Already, one has no need for a car when in those places.
In the rural regions and travel between and among them, I cannot say. I suppose it could work out well, but for it to do so, there must be some combination of the following advancements in transportation technology and/or energy delivery:
- a faster way to recharge batteries
- batteries with greater energy capacities
- a power network whereby cars draw electricity from "third rails" of sorts embedded in the pavement or running above the pavement (as trolleys used to).
Also, home recharging over night is a fantastic solution, even if it takes ours.
Electric energy has a source and it must be sufficient also in case dozens of millions of cars are being electrified. If the source is nuclear and it will be nuclear in France, then the cars are nuclear powered. 70 % of France´s households heat with electric energy, they are nuclear powered households.Did I miss a major development in automotive technology? Have the French invented nuclear powered cars?
If the batteries are insufficient, the infrastructure should provide the means for an easy exchange at the former patrol stations. This could be faster than refueling.
How much do these batteries cost?
