RobbieB

Greta Rides Again?

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

That's not the only way it works, but at least we are talking about the right things, rather than trying to ram solar/wind through as the only option (as said, solar & wind have great applications, but they lack the potential for the kind of total power production INCREASES we need to power up transition to electric vehicles, desalinate water, improve/expand recycling/synthesizing of more materials, and simply handle the growing populace.

A few very important things not covered in your post.... the new age nuclear tech involves a lot more versatility and options, much of it not requiring the amount of water previously required for cooling, all of it far less wasteful (recycling or burning up of waste, etc.).  Good example is the new MSR (salt reactors) plant designs. 

My vision is that the DoE gets the worlds foremost leaders from academia, industry, energy, and the environment together to identify the best plant options considering all factors, and for different areas, then the president fast-tracks approvals for plants best suited to different areas and different resources.... The government then issues LOANS (not grants, we do not need government to pay for these) at market interest for general construction.  Doing these two things (fast-tracked approval and government loans at market rates) would dramatically reduce the costs that have skyrocketed for nuclear plants due to obstruction from the Left.

This really is far more urgent and far more important than what the asinine "green" movement thinks.  It is despicable what the "Green" movement is doing by pushing their economy-crippling concepts while banning the one thing that could dramatically reduce CO2 while also improving our lives.

"...

A recent study from the nonprofit Energy Innovation Reform Project estimated that the latest batch of nuclear startups could deliver electricity somewhere between $36 and $90 a megawatt hour. That’s competitive with any power plant that runs on natural gas (which runs between $42 to $78), and would provide a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

In a best-case scenario, nuclear power could be even cheaper. There are projections a study like this can make based on, say, an improved design that cuts construction costs, but it can’t anticipate revolutionary advances.

“Hopefully these designers will come up with much more radical reductions in cost — you would like energy to be more accessible to a billion more people — so that nuclear becomes a cheap alternative that can beat natural gas even if there’s no carbon price,” Parsons said. “That’s just a hope, but that’s what entrepreneurs are supposed to do.”

Matthew Bunn, a nuclear expert at Harvard, said that if nuclear power is going to play a role in fighting climate change, these advanced nuclear companies will have to scale up insanely fast. “To supply a tenth of the clean energy we need by 2050, we have to add 30 gigawatts to the grid every year,” he said.

..."

https://www.wired.com/story/next-gen-nuclear/

the key aspect is that the Federal government has the right of eminent domain, and is harder to sue. 

Having the various agencies collaborate to have a federal construction project that is in the national interest built, makes it far harder to obstruct than any commercial. Recouping the value of the construction is easy, lease the license at a rate that has a payback and will accumulate sufficient de-commissioning funds. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fracking can be very bad. Wind farms can be very bad (infrasound and destruction of birds on a massive scale).

Both require regulations and engineering and the regulations must address the downsides even while causing a significant cost increase in some proposed applications.

It is related to the tragedy of the commons. Wind and undgerground resources are free--but messing the m up can hurt others livlyhood property or heakth and the extraction should pay for those rather than simply stealing from others (which -- the stealing--is the traditional way things work). Sorry for poor wording just lazy right now

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LionessRacing said:

the key aspect is that the Federal government has the right of eminent domain, and is harder to sue. 

Having the various agencies collaborate to have a federal construction project that is in the national interest built, makes it far harder to obstruct than any commercial. Recouping the value of the construction is easy, lease the license at a rate that has a payback and will accumulate sufficient de-commissioning funds. 

 

I understand your points, and they are valid.  Certainly, it is critical to do what is possible to avoid the impact of the obstruction from the Leftists which is solely to blame for the insane delays and run-up of costs that the Left now claims makes nuclear non-competitive.  Have to love their thinking... they do the obstruction then blame the results of their obstruction with the added costs.  Brilliant, of the fucking intellectually/morally bankrupt leftists.

But a lot of the siting issues you bring up may not be so problematic with the newer plant models.  I think we agree on the general premise of using the government as a way to expedite the siting and construction... just looking at it at different ways.  When all is said and done, I could not care less which way ends up being more effective, so long as the development of the plants moves forward as quickly as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GauchoGreg said:

I understand your points, and they are valid.  Certainly, it is critical to do what is possible to avoid the impact of the obstruction from the Leftists which is solely to blame for the insane delays and run-up of costs that the Left now claims makes nuclear non-competitive.  Have to love their thinking... they do the obstruction then blame the results of their obstruction with the added costs.  Brilliant, of the fucking intellectually/morally bankrupt leftists.

But a lot of the siting issues you bring up may not be so problematic with the newer plant models.  I think we agree on the general premise of using the government as a way to expedite the siting and construction... just looking at it at different ways.  When all is said and done, I could not care less which way ends up being more effective, so long as the development of the plants moves forward as quickly as possible.

The siting problem is the litigation... There will be resistance no matter what, and the preemption of it by strategy is the best solution, ideally with enabling legislation, and a properly constructed charter akin to the interstate highway system. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LionessRacing said:

The siting problem is the litigation... There will be resistance no matter what, and the preemption of it by strategy is the best solution, ideally with enabling legislation, and a properly constructed charter akin to the interstate highway system.

Of course... I get that.  My point is that different plant models may make it easier to site the plants, particularly if it is not necessary to be on significant bodies of water.

I have always thought that the Native Americans have been missing a hell of an opportunity with nuclear plants... they could make way more money than they do with their casinos by having nuclear plants on their reservations as they could completely circumvent much of the issues.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

somehow there is never a siting issue when the powerplant looks like this:

nssn-01.jpg

 

For that matter the Old Enterprise was homeported on the South Side of Alameda for decades... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

Wind farms can be very bad (infrasound and destruction of birds on a massive scale).

Where does this kind of nonsense come from?  How can anyone conclude that concocted NIMBY negative talking points about solar and wind somehow compare to the real environmental negative after-effects of coal and petroleum?  I mean, really. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Israel Hands said:

Where does this kind of nonsense come from?  How can anyone conclude that concocted NIMBY negative talking points about solar and wind somehow compare to the real environmental negative after-effects of coal and petroleum?  I mean, really. 

https://scitechdaily.com/wind-farms-cause-more-environmental-impact-than-previously-thought/

 

Wind Farms Cause More Environmental Impact Than Previously Thought

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Israel Hands said:

Where does this kind of nonsense come from?  How can anyone conclude that concocted NIMBY negative talking points about solar and wind somehow compare to the real environmental negative after-effects of coal and petroleum?  I mean, really. 

Well, a whole project went bad in Massachussets...

Destruction of birds is no joke, regardless of what you think of the infrasound thing (it is considered controversial but it did matter--in the case in MA).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

Well, a whole project went bad in Massachussets...

Destruction of birds is no joke

Are you talking about the project that "went bad" because of NIMBY?  That says more about Americans' mindset and misinformation than science.

And VWAP's cited study was based on a theorized case of building out wind farms on 1/3 of the land in the US, in order to immediately replace fossil fuel generation...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Israel Hands said:

Are you talking about the project that "went bad" because of NIMBY?  That says more about Americans' mindset and misinformation than science.

And VWAP's cited study was based on a theorized case of building out wind farms on 1/3 of the land in the US, in order to immediately replace fossil fuel generation...

Political reality (NIMBY whatever) is part of the deal. See also "the issue of "the commons."
Bird strikes are REAL.

Wind power has a place but what are you arguing about? That we shouldn't take the care to do it right, because "petroleum is so much worse?"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Israel Hands said:

Where does this kind of nonsense come from?  How can anyone conclude that concocted NIMBY negative talking points about solar and wind somehow compare to the real environmental negative after-effects of coal and petroleum?  I mean, really. 

Yeah, blanketing wind turbines on landscape like that below is SO VERY "Green", right?  Would have devastated endangered sage grouse habitat, not to mention an incredibly beautiful landscape.  How very green.  Other people see near shore ocean areas similarly.  Visual pollution is a very real thing, or do you think not?  And for crap energy due to great inconsistency of wind, often when you don't need it, or none when you do need it..... causing fires.....

Actual proposed wind farm site (Kiger Gorge, Steens Mountain, Oregon).  

pomo_0616_star_treks_steens_mountain_gor

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

Political reality (NIMBY whatever) is part of the deal. See also "the issue of "the commons."
Bird strikes are REAL.

Wind power has a place but what are you arguing about? That we shouldn't take the care to do it right, because "petroleum is so much worse?"

Your stance is that of someone who is opposed to wind power, and who is throwing up already-discredited 'science' including the NIMBY positions of rich friends like the Kennedys:lol:. People who are dogmatically opposed to things often call for "more studies."  The studies have been done. The units are being installed around the world - successfully.  The industry is improving as it grows.  It's really only this administration who wants to hitch its wagon to Mr. Peabody's 1930s coal-train.

The birdstrike argument has been refuted and the funny part is that conventional power generation and transmission kills MORE birds than wind power.  As do cats. http://theconversation.com/wind-farms-are-hardly-the-bird-slayers-theyre-made-out-to-be-heres-why-79567

Wind, solar, nuclear - all are better than fossil fuels.  Bring 'em on!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

Actual proposed wind farm site (Kiger Gorge, Steens Mountain, Oregon).  

 

Put a wind farm right on it then!   Do yourself a favor - get a plane ticket...er, catch a catamaran ride to Spain. Look at the wind farms across the countryside. Then convince yourself and others how awful they are.  They aren't.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Israel Hands said:

Your stance is that of someone who is opposed to wind power, and who is throwing up already-discredited 'science' including the NIMBY positions of rich friends like the Kennedys:lol:. People who are dogmatically opposed to things often call for "more studies."  The studies have been done. The units are being installed around the world - successfully.  The industry is improving as it grows.  It's really only this administration who wants to hitch its wagon to Mr. Peabody's 1930s coal-train.

The birdstrike argument has been refuted and the funny part is that conventional power generation and transmission kills MORE birds than wind power.  As do cats. http://theconversation.com/wind-farms-are-hardly-the-bird-slayers-theyre-made-out-to-be-heres-why-79567

Wind, solar, nuclear - all are better than fossil fuels.  Bring 'em on!

You write to me like a fucking wikipedia "editor."

I don't have a "stance"

I am well aware of all the other bird hazards from conventional buildings etc expecially in fog during ,migration. I have a complete set of The Auk in my house...

This does NOT mean we shouldn't do a GOOD JOB engineering the goddamned things.

Stop being so fucking political and just have a conversation.

Sheesh.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Israel Hands said:

Put a wind farm right on it then!   Do yourself a favor - get a plane ticket...er, catch a catamaran ride to Spain. Look at the wind farms across the countryside. Then convince yourself and others how awful they are.  They aren't.

Man, you are a tremendous tool.  Yeah, because there are no wind farms along the Columbia River to see as examples.  Yeah, why preserve natural open spaces when you can blanket them with these:

2l-image-235.jpg

or these:

ca_0712NID_Solar_Farm_California_online.

You know, because Mother Gaia spoke to you and said on the 9th Day, she made wind turbines, and she saw they were good.

Meh, personally I believe those landscapes look better without the massive white towers and constantly whirling blades the size of football fields.  But hey, I also think a beautiful women looks better without tattoos.  What do I know, plaster those fucking things everywhere... you know, because they make the landscape better.

tramp-stamps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

Man, you are a tremendous tool.  Yeah, because there are no wind farms along the Columbia River to see as examples.  Yeah, why preserve natural open spaces when you can blanket them with these:

2l-image-235.jpg

or these:

ca_0712NID_Solar_Farm_California_online.

You know, because Mother Gaia spoke to you and said on the 9th Day, she made wind turbines, and she saw they were good.

Meh, personally I believe those landscapes look better without the massive white towers and constantly whirling blades the size of football fields.  But hey, I also think a beautiful women looks better without tattoos.  What do I know, plaster those fucking things everywhere... you know, because they make the landscape better.

 

I had to delete the tattoo example because it caused retinal burns.

Let's put something easier on they eyes up in its place:

Gustave_Courbet_-_Nude_Woman_with_Dog_-_

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

spaced to eliminate seeing the retina burning image...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have quite a bit of wind now. Must be tough to keep the baby calm and safe. And the diapers must start to smell soon. God, I’m glad to not be there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NORBowGirl said:

They have quite a bit of wind now. Must be tough to keep the baby calm and safe. And the diapers must start to smell soon. God, I’m glad to not be there. 

Diapers?

You don't take plastic diapers on a crossing!  The horror!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

roughly 18% of the way across

18.JPG

 

Apparently didn't need any onions:

 

onions.JPG

 

Definitely interesting to note that the 40something footer built in the 60s that I sailed across went the same speed in that wind and on that angle. Weighed about 8 tons too. Looking at that cat it didn't look fast (looked heavy). Wonder about the herky-jerky motion? Never sailed a cat on an ocean crossing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GauchoGreg said:

Why is fracking banned in nations that are Leftist enclaves of the uber-woke green brigade... I think the answer is in the question.

It's banned in a lot of places in Australia because the fracking companies acted like arrogant, entitled arseholes who wanted to ride rough-shod over the land owners and ignored most of the rules around environmental constraints.

The backlash that THEY deserved got them banned.

That was something I'm in full agreement on, too, and I doubt many would call me a member of "the uber-woke green brigade".....

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

It's banned in a lot of places in Australia because the fracking companies acted like arrogant, entitled arseholes who wanted to ride rough-shod over the land owners and ignored most of the rules around environmental constraints.

The backlash that THEY deserved got them banned.

That was something I'm in full agreement on, too, and I doubt many would call me a member of "the uber-woke green brigade".....

FKT

Pretty fucking stupid to ban  the technology rather than banning the companies that violated the rules/laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GauchoGreg said:

Pretty fucking stupid to ban  the technology rather than banning the companies that violated the rules/laws.

Comes to the same thing when ALL the companies were doing it.

My take on it - buy an insurance bond to cover the cost of remediation and provision of clean water for a minimum of 50 years if you fuck up. Plus guarantee no adverse effects on the hydrogeology (bores going dry et al).

Can't afford the insurance premium? That tells me the level of confidence in the technology.

FKT

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Comes to the same thing when ALL the companies were doing it.

My take on it - buy an insurance bond to cover the cost of remediation and provision of clean water for a minimum of 50 years if you fuck up. Plus guarantee no adverse effects on the hydrogeology (bores going dry et al).

Can't afford the insurance premium? That tells me the level of confidence in the technology.

FKT

The "put up or shut up" is the real test of commitment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fastyacht said:

The "put up or shut up" is the real test of commitment.

The comments re 'tragedy of the commons' is spot-on. Also known as privatising your profits and socialising your costs.

If you let companies get away with that crap, then they will game the system.

I've no rooted objection to fracking for gas extraction as a technology. I have a HUGE problem with it if, in the process, it fucks up the water table. Especially in Australia where we aren't over-endowed with water resources in the first place and they're already over-extracted.

Anyway it's high tide and the strong winds have finally dropped so I'm off to do some boat work. I'm sure I won't miss anything of value here.

Still waiting on my metre or so of sea level rise. 2 would be even better.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GauchoGreg said:

Man, you are a tremendous tool.  Yeah, because there are no wind farms along the Columbia River to see as examples.  Yeah, why preserve natural open spaces when you can blanket them with these:

2l-image-235.jpg

or these:

ca_0712NID_Solar_Farm_California_online.

You know, because Mother Gaia spoke to you and said on the 9th Day, she made wind turbines, and she saw they were good.

Meh, personally I believe those landscapes look better without the massive white towers and constantly whirling blades the size of football fields.  But hey, I also think a beautiful women looks better without tattoos.  What do I know, plaster those fucking things everywhere... you know, because they make the landscape better.

 

Well, you could flood the valley for a hydro plant, blow the top of the mountains for coal, fill the landscape with oil derricks like Odessa

th.jpeg.8d677f0f66ee97fa5c875a66c1ca27eb.jpeg

plonk your nuclear reactor on the beach like San Onofre

th.jpeg.f087ea733f1d31873f2feb37a43ec49f.jpeg

or heat with wood and deforest Scotland 

th.jpeg.dc5a0c8d22e738c8522978817c91a0b0.jpeg

Lot's of choices.  I tend to prefer the ones that can be removed without permanent damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fastyacht said:

 

Definitely interesting to note that the 40something footer built in the 60s that I sailed across went the same speed in that wind and on that angle. Weighed about 8 tons too. Looking at that cat it didn't look fast (looked heavy). Wonder about the herky-jerky motion? Never sailed a cat on an ocean crossing.

Of course it is heavy! They are carrying with them the hopes and dreams of an entire generation. The weight on her shoulders of the future of the planet alone would not be insignificant not including the Camera man, sound guy, director and all their gear. 

I wish we could have got Guy Le douche on board before they left. It would be good to have boots on the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GauchoGreg said:

Man, you are a tremendous tool.  Yeah, because there are no wind farms along the Columbia River to see as examples.  Yeah, why preserve natural open spaces when you can blanket them with these:

2l-image-235.jpg

or these:

ca_0712NID_Solar_Farm_California_online.

 

The first landscape was already ruined by the power/telephone poles in the foreground

Still better than this 

Unlikely-IPPs.jpg

 

Pretty pathetic moaning about wind turbines and solar farms. It's not like the USA or Australia doesn't have the space for them.

 

As the Lefty Loony says, they can be dismantled and removed if need be.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

Well, you could flood the valley for a hydro plant, blow the top of the mountains for coal, fill the landscape with oil derricks like Odessa

th.jpeg.8d677f0f66ee97fa5c875a66c1ca27eb.jpeg

plonk your nuclear reactor on the beach like San Onofre

th.jpeg.f087ea733f1d31873f2feb37a43ec49f.jpeg

or heat with wood and deforest Scotland 

th.jpeg.dc5a0c8d22e738c8522978817c91a0b0.jpeg

Lot's of choices.  I tend to prefer the ones that can be removed without permanent damage.

Nice straw man arguments.  As you will notice, I'm not a fan of hydroelectricity due to the impact on anadromous fish and inundation of valuable and scenic lands, and I'm not suggesting fossil fuels (even gas) as long-term sources for powering the grid (those resources are far more important for remaining transportation needs such as aviation, and plastics).  Nuclear has by far the smallest footprint of any of the power sources you just discussed, and modern plants, especially the new MSR models, have by far the least impact or risk of injury, death or pollution.  And when you say you "tend to prefer the ones that can be removed without permanent damage" you are both ignoring that the need for power does not just go away, so acting like the wind or solar farms will just go away and the land returned to natural state is not exactly making me feel all warm and fuzzy.  Further, I have actually toured both San Onofre and Diablo Canyon, studied them in detail, as well as their management, and can tell that their impact on the environment is miniuscule compared to the big wind and solar farms.  So, anticipating that none of the power source impacted lands just go back to nature, I would prefer those that take up the least amount of land in the 1st place.

Geothermal and tidal power certainly have good potential, as well, by the way.... And the future uses of solar are likely to be very diverse and effective, such as roof-top, in-road, parking covers, etc., particularly at place of use rather than transmitting to the Grid.  so I'm by no means a nuclear only guy.  I'm just calling out what needs to be called out, that the idea of 'Green" needs to be less religious in nature, and focus more on science and reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

Nice straw man arguments.  As you will notice, I'm not a fan of hydroelectricity due to the impact on anadromous fish and inundation of valuable and scenic lands, and I'm not suggesting fossil fuels (even gas) as long-term sources for powering the grid (those resources are far more important for remaining transportation needs such as aviation, and plastics).  Nuclear has by far the smallest footprint of any of the power sources you just discussed, and modern plants, especially the new MSR models, have by far the least impact or risk of injury, death or pollution.  And when you say you "tend to prefer the ones that can be removed without permanent damage" you are both ignoring that the need for power does not just go away, so acting like the wind or solar farms will just go away and the land returned to natural state is not exactly making me feel all warm and fuzzy.  Further, I have actually toured both San Onofre and Diablo Canyon, studied them in detail, as well as their management, and can tell that their impact on the environment is miniuscule compared to the big wind and solar farms.  So, anticipating that none of the power source impacted lands just go back to nature, I would prefer those that take up the least amount of land in the 1st place.

Geothermal and tidal power certainly have good potential, as well, by the way.... And the future uses of solar are likely to be very diverse and effective, such as roof-top, in-road, parking covers, etc., particularly at place of use rather than transmitting to the Grid.  so I'm by no means a nuclear only guy.  I'm just calling out what needs to be called out, that the idea of 'Green" needs to be less religious in nature, and focus more on science and reason.

We had a shitstorm in my area when a piece of forest about 40 acres in size was to be clearcut to become a solar farm. Yes, that's going on in the Liberal Northeast. I rode my bike riht past San Onofre for a week. Didn't bother me. The amount of power flowing out of it was huge and the environmental impact underwhelming. However a tsunami will take it out. Not fond of powerplants on saltwater like that. We have one near me now, and a deactivated on about the same distance away.

I don't think the average educated human quite internalizes how utterly fantastic the nuclear power approach is. It is, in fuel impact, mass wise, on the order of 6 million to 1!  l lb of uranium fuel produces more energy than 6 million pounds of coal--and that's with a traditional reactor!

Back when nuclear was getting beat on, sometimes the anti-nukes would always report on everything in pounds for the uranium, and tons for the coal--made it see like there was so much nuclear waste. This was a trick. But people bought it. I was anti-nuke as a kid, until 19 or 20. My big problem with nuclear was the impossibility of believing that humans could be politically stable for long periods of time to maintain effective stewardship of waste. Yes, I was a political skeptic at age ten. But then my perspective shifted as I came to understand how colossal the human health consequences of coal were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fastyacht said:

We had a shitstorm in my area when a piece of forest about 40 acres in size was to be clearcut to become a solar farm. Yes, that's going on in the Liberal Northeast. I rode my bike riht past San Onofre for a week. Didn't bother me. The amount of power flowing out of it was huge and the environmental impact underwhelming. However a tsunami will take it out. Not fond of powerplants on saltwater like that. We have one near me now, and a deactivated on about the same distance away.

I don't think the average educated human quite internalizes how utterly fantastic the nuclear power approach is. It is, in fuel impact, mass wise, on the order of 6 million to 1!  l lb of uranium fuel produces more energy than 6 million pounds of coal--and that's with a traditional reactor!

Back when nuclear was getting beat on, sometimes the anti-nukes would always report on everything in pounds for the uranium, and tons for the coal--made it see like there was so much nuclear waste. This was a trick. But people bought it. I was anti-nuke as a kid, until 19 or 20. My big problem with nuclear was the impossibility of believing that humans could be politically stable for long periods of time to maintain effective stewardship of waste. Yes, I was a political skeptic at age ten. But then my perspective shifted as I came to understand how colossal the human health consequences of coal were.

Just met with some Japanese businessmen from Fukushima.  Talk about nuclear power on the shoreline in an active seismic zone to them.

I'm working with another group in Richland, WA about a project right on the Columbia River.  Talk about nuclear power waste management to them.

You're right.  An absolutely fantastic power source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Dark Knight said:

The first landscape was already ruined by the power/telephone poles in the foreground

Still better than this 

Unlikely-IPPs.jpg

 

Pretty pathetic moaning about wind turbines and solar farms. It's not like the USA or Australia doesn't have the space for them.

 

As the Lefty Loony says, they can be dismantled and removed if need be.

 

 

Yeah, lots of space for them, out there where other people can deal with them, where much of their power production is lost (that which is not already worthless due to when it is produced and when it is not) through transmission.  Erratic power (we already see where most utilities are not wanting more wind energy contracts due to the nature/timing of the power generation.

Back to better solutions, how do you feel about nuclear?  Look at the following link and tell me if you would rather have asinine policy like that Greta and AOC are pumping, which will economically cripple us and input a nanny state on us all, limiting much of what we do and what we can buy in order to reduce our energy usage, or would you rather have more rapid and deeper cuts to CO2 production while actually having more, safe, non-CO2 emitting power?  Face it, the Green's favored way of dealing with global warming sucks ass.

Some of the MSR and other plant designs even have the plants under ground... completely safe and passive safety in design.

By the way, not sure what plant that is in your photo, but regardless, not sure what the black smoke is... not looking like a modern plant in the US or Europe.

https://www.nanalyze.com/2015/10/6-nuclear-energy-companies-building-molten-salt-reactors/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

We had a shitstorm in my area when a piece of forest about 40 acres in size was to be clearcut to become a solar farm. Yes, that's going on in the Liberal Northeast. I rode my bike riht past San Onofre for a week. Didn't bother me. The amount of power flowing out of it was huge and the environmental impact underwhelming. However a tsunami will take it out. Not fond of powerplants on saltwater like that. We have one near me now, and a deactivated on about the same distance away.

I don't think the average educated human quite internalizes how utterly fantastic the nuclear power approach is. It is, in fuel impact, mass wise, on the order of 6 million to 1!  l lb of uranium fuel produces more energy than 6 million pounds of coal--and that's with a traditional reactor!

Back when nuclear was getting beat on, sometimes the anti-nukes would always report on everything in pounds for the uranium, and tons for the coal--made it see like there was so much nuclear waste. This was a trick. But people bought it. I was anti-nuke as a kid, until 19 or 20. My big problem with nuclear was the impossibility of believing that humans could be politically stable for long periods of time to maintain effective stewardship of waste. Yes, I was a political skeptic at age ten. But then my perspective shifted as I came to understand how colossal the human health consequences of coal were.

My major in school was Environmental Studies.  The best class I ever had was "Energy and the Environment".  Fantastic professor, extremely objective, and we went through the impact of all power sources and their impact on the environment, as well as risk of catastrophe, etc.  My department was WAY left, as far as you can go.  But during that class, we studied in detail, then visited Diablo Canyon, and by the end of that class even almost all of the enviroLeftists were becoming pro-nuclear, or at least struggling to find reasons to oppose it.  And that for a relatively old design, even if the construction was one of the newest in America at that time.  What the environmental movement has done to paralyze nuclear power is sickening and ironic.... they have directly contributed a great deal to global warming by effectively killing the growth of nuclear power, forcing us to continue relying on coal and gas when we would have naturally transitioned away, to a pretty high degree, already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

My major in school was Environmental Studies.  The best class I ever had was "Energy and the Environment".  Fantastic professor, extremely objective, and we went through the impact of all power sources and their impact on the environment, as well as risk of catastrophe, etc.  My department was WAY left, as far as you can go.  But during that class, we studied in detail, then visited Diablo Canyon, and by the end of that class even almost all of the enviroLeftists were becoming pro-nuclear, or at least struggling to find reasons to oppose it.  And that for a relatively old design, even if the construction was one of the newest in America at that time.  What the environmental movement has done to paralyze nuclear power is sickening and ironic.... they have directly contributed a great deal to global warming by effectively killing the growth of nuclear power, forcing us to continue relying on coal and gas when we would have naturally transitioned away, to a pretty high degree, already.

 

What was done to damage the reputation of nuclear power in this country is called Three Mile Island, WPPSS, Chernobyl, Fukushima, Hanford and Yucca Mountain.  All those damn environmental movement types keep on mentioning them.  Pity that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

 

What was done to damage the reputation of nuclear power in this country is called Three Mile Island, WPPSS, Chernobyl, Fukushima, Hanford and Yucca Mountain.  All those damn environmental movement types keep on mentioning them.  Pity that.  

Yes, that is all true. But also what is never mentioned are all the other huge end results of death and health impacts of the coal that they effectively lobbied FOR. You can't have it both ways but unfortunately there i always a tendency to want that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, fastyacht said:

Yes, that is all true. But also what is never mentioned are all the other huge end results of death and health impacts of the coal that they effectively lobbied FOR. You can't have it both ways but unfortunately there i always a tendency to want that.

Just who "effectively lobbied FOR" coal?  Do you mean as the default fuel in lieu of nuclear?  That is a bit of convoluted reasoning to get to a place to "blame the environmentalists" for mountain top removal mining practice, mine safety failures and the air and water pollution from high sulphur coal.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

Just who "effectively lobbied FOR" coal?  Do you mean as the default fuel in lieu of nuclear?  That is a bit of convoluted reasoning to get to a place to "blame the environmentalists" for mountain top removal mining practice, mine safety failures and the air and water pollution from high sulphur coal.  

Well that's the point--it IS convoluted. By actively lobbying against nuclear, the results of success were more coal/oil/gas...whatever worked at the best economics, short of other lobbying successes. There was a long struggle from many to get scrubbers onto coal to deal with mercury. One of the great travesties was the slowness of that effort. It didn't finally go into effect until just a few years ago--after coal began a steep decline anyway. Meanwhile we ended up significantly contributing to environmental mercury including the whole "don't eat fish" phenomenon.

Nothing is easy or simple. And when I hear some "activists" say stuff like, "I understand the science" I roll my eyes. I'm an engineer: I'm naturally skeptical about technical specifications and pronouncements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

Just who "effectively lobbied FOR" coal?  Do you mean as the default fuel in lieu of nuclear?  That is a bit of convoluted reasoning to get to a place to "blame the environmentalists" for mountain top removal mining practice, mine safety failures and the air and water pollution from high sulphur coal.  

Left Shift, don't confuse him with facts - his mind is made up - nuclear is the only way forward.

Challenge his fear-trope about birdstrike risk with facts, and he accuses you of being a wiki-editor.  :rolleyes: 

Fastyacht, you and Gaucho have blathered on and on with a tone of expertise on this thread.  How about letting others talk for awhile. Go sailing or get a room or something.  Me, I'm looking forward to hearing about how the rest of Greta's trip goes, and how many more young people go sailing for the first time due to her popularity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

Yeah, lots of space for them, out there where other people can deal with them, where much of their power production is lost (that which is not already worthless due to when it is produced and when it is not) through transmission.  Erratic power (we already see where most utilities are not wanting more wind energy contracts due to the nature/timing of the power generation.

Back to better solutions, how do you feel about nuclear?  Look at the following link and tell me if you would rather have asinine policy like that Greta and AOC are pumping, which will economically cripple us and input a nanny state on us all, limiting much of what we do and what we can buy in order to reduce our energy usage, or would you rather have more rapid and deeper cuts to CO2 production while actually having more, safe, non-CO2 emitting power?  Face it, the Green's favored way of dealing with global warming sucks ass.

Some of the MSR and other plant designs even have the plants under ground... completely safe and passive safety in design.

By the way, not sure what plant that is in your photo, but regardless, not sure what the black smoke is... not looking like a modern plant in the US or Europe.

https://www.nanalyze.com/2015/10/6-nuclear-energy-companies-building-molten-salt-reactors/

I'm happy with the idea of Nuclear. In Aus we have our own supply of uranium, we have enough space to store waste and we a geologically stable. 

However we should not ignore wind, solar and wave, and we also should not put all our eggs in one basket.

Wind and solar are quick and cheap too install and are also scalable. In Aus I think we should be looking at increasing our electricity production and replacing our existing coal power plants with wind and solar in the short term, some more efficient coal in the medium and then nuclear in the long term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Israel Hands said:

Left Shift, don't confuse him with facts - his mind is made up - nuclear is the only way forward.

Challenge his fear-trope about birdstrike risk with facts, and he accuses you of being a wiki-editor.  :rolleyes: 

Fastyacht, you and Gaucho have blathered on and on with a tone of expertise on this thread.  How about letting others talk for awhile. Go sailing or get a room or something.  Me, I'm looking forward to hearing about how the rest of Greta's trip goes, and how many more young people go sailing for the first time due to her popularity.

Saved for posterity.

Expertise? If you have it, bring it on. In the meantime, stop pretending you know what you don't know. And stop being so fucking political. You seriously wrote EXACTLY the same way that Wikipedia editors write when they "correspond" with "content creators."  Seriously. Including the annoying BOLD and CAPITALS and UNDERLINE and pretend military procedures shit.

How about you explain in somewhat more complete cogent essay form, what it is that you think about the subject, rather than simply playing this stupid game.
 

"Blathered on with tone of expertise."   That right there, that sentence, is telling, perhaps. Now go back and write something useful interesting and thoughtful instead of merely metacritical of people here (me in this case).

"Confuse him with facts."

Oh God, here we go again. You really are a piece of work in this post. But all is not lost.

Sheesh.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Israel Hands said:

Me, I'm looking forward to hearing about how the rest of Greta's trip goes, and how many more young people go sailing for the first time due to her popularity.

What, self entitled millennials expecting to be taken on free adventures on luxury cats or IMOCA 60's?

What we need is young people who are interested in the sailing for the sport and not "to save the planet"; and who will join sailing clubs and to learn and gain experience.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

stop pretending you know what you don't know. And stop being so fucking political.

Dude, you are the one pontificating on and on here.  All I did is point out that you were using some false talking points.  But I don't think you bothered to go back and research them yourself - ex: the conventional power system kills more birds on a unit energy basis than wind. You've been using a political talking point. 

Twice you've referred to my posts as being "political." I've not espoused any political leaning, just some disgust about a bunch of cynical old men crapping on a teenage girl who has dared to speak up about something. (Sure she's naive. Show me a teen who isn't.) She has drawn a lot of attention toward an important subject. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Israel Hands said:

Dude, you are the one pontificating on and on here.  All I did is point out that you were using some false talking points.  But I don't think you bothered to go back and research them yourself - ex: the conventional power system kills more birds on a unit energy basis than wind. You've been using a political talking point. 

Twice you've referred to my posts as being "political." I've not espoused any political leaning, just some disgust about a bunch of cynical old men crapping on a teenage girl who has dared to speak up about something. (Sure she's naive. Show me a teen who isn't.) She has drawn a lot of attention toward an important subject. 

1st of all, I am not downing the "teenage girl."
2nd of all, "talking points" is a reach. Stating that windmills can and do kill birds and that it should be considered in sighting and design is NOT a political "talking point!" As I told you already, I already knew all about the other mortality issues with tall structures--that does not negate the need to design new things in a thoughtful way and besides, nowhere in my post did I indicate that windpower should not be utilized. Perhaps you like reaching.

You are the political one, because your reaction to simple discussion is to immediately use political language such as "talking point" for instance.
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Israel Hands said:

Dude, you are the one pontificating on and on here.  All I did is point out that you were using some false talking points.  But I don't think you bothered to go back and research them yourself - ex: the conventional power system kills more birds on a unit energy basis than wind. You've been using a political talking point. 

Twice you've referred to my posts as being "political." I've not espoused any political leaning, just some disgust about a bunch of cynical old men crapping on a teenage girl who has dared to speak up about something. (Sure she's naive. Show me a teen who isn't.) She has drawn a lot of attention toward an important subject. 

Well, I guess they're "kinder and gentler" toward you.  I get pasted with "religious" - by the very dubious "Saint Greta" among others.  

It is to laugh.

In the meantime, the catamaran proceeds apace, and they apparently are having an interesting time of it, including a bit of ugly weather that our in loco parentis trolls seemed ready to declare as child abuse.  Do they sail?  Do they have kids?  Do their mom's feed them at their regular hour?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NORBowGirl said:

They have quite a bit of wind now. Must be tough to keep the baby calm and safe. And the diapers must start to smell soon. God, I’m glad to not be there. 

I saw a pic of Nikki collecting rainwater in a bucket to wash the diapers. I can’t imagine using disposables...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

1st of all, I am not downing the "teenage girl."
2nd of all, "talking points" is a reach. Stating that windmills can and do kill birds and that it should be considered in sighting and design is NOT a political "talking point!" As I told you already, I already knew all about the other mortality issues with tall structures--that does not negate the need to design new things in a thoughtful way and besides, nowhere in my post did I indicate that windpower should not be utilized. Perhaps you like reaching.

You are the political one, because your reaction to simple discussion is to immediately use political language such as "talking point" for instance.
 

Is "teenage girl" in quotes because you have some doubt that she is a teenager?  Or is that the language your content creators use to pass on their political talking points?  

Here's a debating lesson from the *resident:  "I'm not a puppet. You're the puppet." is not a brilliant rhetorical device.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Left Shift said:

Is "teenage girl" in quotes because you have some doubt that she is a teenager?  Or is that the language your content creators use to pass on their political talking points?  

Here's a debating lesson from the *resident:  "I'm not a puppet. You're the puppet." is not a brilliant rhetorical device.

I agree with you there but frankly I don't have the patience for meta-bullshit which is all that series of ridiculous interactions was.  There's a discussion between 4 people about power sources, pollution, etc and I thought it was somewhat interesting and made some comments. "Blathering on" is a statement of emotional feelings--meta stuff. I could have ignored it. Whatever.

"teenage girl" was a direct quotation of what Judas wrote. Nothing more. He didn't say "Greta" he said "teenage girl."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This latest stunt by Greta's handlers just shows why she is the patron saint of tokenism. This whole not flying bullshit is just attention whoring. Even the most foaming at the mouth, rabid, leftist, nutjob fanboy must realize that her 'Giving up flying' does not make any difference to the environment nor will it convince a single one of her followers to follow suit. No entitled child is going to forgo their annual holiday for their beliefs. It in fact has the opposite effect because with each of these carbon free trips of hers causes a flurry of airline bookings as her handlers and support staff fly backwards and forwards across the Atlantic making arrangements for her photo opportunities. Teaming up with 'Tash and 'Brows demonstrates what an orchestrated shit show this is. Those two are without doubt the most hedonistic, self centered attention whoring grifters the world has ever seen. They sail around on other people dime, and what they call work is making a reality TV show about themselves. Apart from the usual meaningless words that their generation are so fond of, I have never seen them do anything for conservation of climate change - until an opportunity like this presents itself to pump up both their ratings, likes and (most importantly of all) donations.

It is like Lisa Simpson has been brought in as an intruder into the big brother house. 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Israel Hands said:

how many more young people go sailing for the first time due to her popularity.

But only if they get a day off school to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

This latest stunt by Greta's handlers just shows why she is the patron saint of tokenism. This whole not flying bullshit is just attention whoring. Even the most foaming at the mouth, rabid, leftist, nutjob fanboy must realize that her 'Giving up flying' does not make any difference to the environment nor will it convince a single one of her followers to follow suit. No entitled child is going to forgo their annual holiday for their beliefs. It in fact has the opposite effect because with each of these carbon free trips of hers causes a flurry of airline bookings as her handlers and support staff fly backwards and forwards across the Atlantic making arrangements for her photo opportunities. Teaming up with 'Tash and 'Brows demonstrates what an orchestrated shit show this is. Those two are without doubt the most hedonistic, self centered attention whoring grifters the world has ever seen. They sail around on other people dime, and what they call work is making a reality TV show about themselves. Apart from the usual meaningless words that their generation are so fond of, I have never seen them do anything for conservation of climate change - until an opportunity like this presents itself to pump up both their ratings, likes and (most importantly of all) donations.

It is like Lisa Simpson has been brought in as an intruder into the big brother house. 

It's funny how no one wants to address the hypocrisy of Greta not flying when Nikki had to fly to the US to help Greta to sail to Europe.  

Don't be so harsh on SLV. They have taken the opportunity to make money from stupid people and have been very good at it. As for helping Greta, it is great marketing for their "product" and may allow them to upgrade their lifestyle further.

Sure beats working. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current (and historic) political environment is one where a "16 yr old girl" with a vision can mobilize. 

From Jeane d'Arc onwards, and no doubt back to Boudicca and the Irish Warrior Queens. 

Sadly mobilization without a good plan tends to have the predictable results of history. 

If people get serious about realistic pollution abatement there are a few sequential steps: 

  1. Minimization of material and energy waste In the developed world,
  2. Help the developing world make efficient choices, based on the best current technologies, not the sunk costs of the evolving infrastructure
  3. Realization that everyone (once the are aware of the choices) wants to have:
    1. a clean, warm, dry place to live
    2. good food and water
    3. the benefits of modern technology for communications, health care, transportation 
    4. Providing that for their neighbors near and far is an evolved concept
  4. Realization that real people are
    1. competitive at the individual, tribal and national level
    2. some will cheat to gain advantage.
  5. Working in the direction of self interest is far more successful than trying to enforce change from outside

That basically means incentives, subsidies and penalties to move in the desired direction.

Penalizing your self (as in European fuel taxes) is a means to preserve your local supply, but at a cost of reducing your ability to achieve the societal wants. 

Penalizing others by boycott is effective if you can enforce it, to motivate better practices of extraction, refinement etc. 

Being willing to pay more for something that is "more wonderful" is a short term solution, but can be effective in subsidizing the development and deployment of socially beneficial systems of communication and transport. Public transport is a classic, but that requires a population density that is significant to be effective. 

Barking about 12 yr catastrophic scenarios over the last 50 yrs (10 yrs this month since "climategate') just undermines any credibility.  Using the urgency of a problem to fund pet projects and divert resources does as well. (Why do so many UN members want to vote for "Paris Accords"? Because it was cash positive to most of them) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Israel Hands said:

I'm looking forward to hearing about how the rest of Greta's trip goes, and how many more young people go sailing for the first time due to her popularity.

img_23.jpg

 

 

yandy89866.jpg

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, MidPack said:

^^ Conveniently misleading...and I’d be willing to be you know better. The US still leads the world in carbon emissions, that’s what really matters.

7EB15075-C1B3-4101-851B-4E062C5E28FF.jpeg

Interesting statistic, now you need to multiply the individual output by total population to find the total output per country

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Dark Knight said:

It's funny how no one wants to address the hypocrisy of Greta not flying when Nikki had to fly to the US to help Greta to sail to Europe.  

 

Because there is none. She has never said that everybody else should stop flying, just that she for herself will prove that she can manage without flying. Do you understand this, or is the concept to challenging for you? 

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Rushman said:

Interesting statistic, now you need to multiply the individual output by total population to find the total output per country

 

'per capita' is conveniently misleading.

Over-breeding is why we're talking about humans having an 'impact' on the planet.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dark Cloud said:

'per capita' is conveniently misleading.

Over-breeding is why we're talking about humans having an 'impact' on the planet.

Perhaps the Chinese had it right.. One child per couple

* Is that policy still in place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rushman said:

Perhaps the Chinese had it right.. One child per couple

* Is that policy still in place?

I don't think so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, toecutter said:

No. They need more soldiers required for future plans.

Plans for saving taking the planet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, toecutter said:

No. They need more soldiers required for future plans.

No need for soldiers... They are buying the best bits already 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NORBowGirl said:

Because there is none. She has never said that everybody else should stop flying, just that she for herself will prove that she can manage without flying. Do you understand this, or is the concept to challenging for you? 

by getting people to do the flying for her. Hypocritical. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Dark Knight said:

It's funny how no one wants to address the hypocrisy of Greta not flying when Nikki had to fly to the US to help Greta to sail to Europe.  

Which weighs more, Nikki or Greta and Svante? Wouldn't Nikki's flight save one flight in this case? The best solution would have been to take someone from Americas, but this was still better than fly both Greta and his father back to the Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Thankfully the Greta frenzy seems to be dying away.

The whole thing reminded me of nothing so much as the mass hysteria that accompanied the death of Princess Diana.

Agreed, and fark!  they dragged that out for long enough!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mad said:

Agreed, and fark!  they dragged that out for long enough!!!

I am in general agreeance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are sailing quite slow atm. Doing 4.6knots in 20 knots of wind but with a good angle - the sea state must be a challenge. Or do they slow down to clean all the diapers? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NORBowGirl said:

They are sailing quite slow atm. Doing 4.6knots in 20 knots of wind but with a good angle - the sea state must be a challenge. Or do they slow down to clean all the diapers? 

Glad I am not on that boat right now - perhaps hove-to for a meal ?  Do cats do hove-to ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dark Cloud said:

Glad I am not on that boat right now - perhaps hove-to for a meal ?  Do cats do hove-to ?

I have no idea...but maybe at least a drogue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NORBowGirl said:

I have no idea...but maybe at least a drogue?

If only 20kts wind, then I doubt it. Prob a tracker anomaly 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dark Cloud said:

If only 20kts wind, then I doubt it. Prob a tracker anomaly 

They are back at 9.5 knots. So prob just a diaper change. :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NORBowGirl said:

They are sailing quite slow atm. Doing 4.6knots in 20 knots of wind but with a good angle - the sea state must be a challenge. Or do they slow down to clean all the diapers? 

Wasn't there a big discrepancy yesterday between the wind shown on that chart, and the actual wind they were sailing in? They were beating but the chart showed reaching.

The computer graphics are all just exptrapolations from weather forecasting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

Wasn't there a big discrepancy yesterday between the wind shown on that chart, and the actual wind they were sailing in? They were beating but the chart showed reaching.

The computer graphics are all just exptrapolations from weather forecasting.

I guess stranger things have happened, so it might be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Thankfully the Greta frenzy seems to be dying away.

The whole thing reminded me of nothing so much as the mass hysteria that accompanied the death of Princess Diana.

Yep.

Both dumb as a rock; but at least Di was cute, which no one will ever credibly say about Greta.

princess-diana1.jpg?w=1410&h=2000

 

greta.jpg?anchor=center&mode=crop&width=

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Left Shift said:

Just met with some Japanese businessmen from Fukushima.  Talk about nuclear power on the shoreline in an active seismic zone to them.

I'm working with another group in Richland, WA about a project right on the Columbia River.  Talk about nuclear power waste management to them.

You're right.  An absolutely fantastic power source.

EXTREMELY old designs, both of them.  And if you are talking Hanford, we are not even fruits and vegetables, let alone apples and oranges.  If the Left put half of the resources into perfecting new MSR designs, thorium designs, etc. as they did in finding ways to integrate socialist policy into energy policy, such as the NGD, we would probably already have the new age nuclear plants online, making the examples of Fukushima and Hanford laughable.

EDIT:  I now see that it is the "Whoops" plant near Richland that you are referring to... by the way, similar in a way to Chernobyl, as a dual-purpose (energy and weapons) plant...  which has fuck-all nothing to do with modern plant designs.  I love how you keep going back to massively obsolete examples that have nothing to do with even modern "conventional" plant designs, let alone MSR and other state of the art and/or future designs alternative desings (those things that would/could already be in service had it not been for the environmentalist-led obstruction to the entire nuclear energy industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Left Shift said:

 

What was done to damage the reputation of nuclear power in this country is called Three Mile Island, WPPSS, Chernobyl, Fukushima, Hanford and Yucca Mountain.  All those damn environmental movement types keep on mentioning them.  Pity that.  

How many people were killed at TMI and Yucca Mountain?  What kind of plants were Chernobyl, WPPSS, Hanford, and Fukushima?  How many people have died, outside of the disaster at Chernobyl (a reasonable exception considering the type of plant it involved, which is not like anything in the entire Western world), worldwide due to nuclear power?  The damage to the reputation would be nil had it not been for the insane reporting, prodded on by the Left, that was devoid of scientific understanding and was propelled instead by ideology.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, NORBowGirl said:

Because there is none. She has never said that everybody else should stop flying, just that she for herself will prove that she can manage without flying. Do you understand this, or is the concept to challenging for you? 

 

 

So, a 16 year old girl taking a year off school, obviously without a job, and with other people paying for everything from the clothes she wears, to the food she eats, to her medical care, to her transportation...., can opt to sail instead of fly.  Great.  Good she has a nice adventure.  Nice that she may be developing a love of sailing.  How many 16 year olds the world over have no job, have everything paid for by others, and love sailing?  Why the press releases and press coverage for Greta.  Why does every leftist on Facebook fawn over her with "I love her!", and "she is such an inspiration!"?  Are you really going there?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

How many people were killed at TMI and Yucca Mountain?  What kind of plants were Chernobyl, WPPSS, Hanford, and Fukushima?  How many people have died, outside of the disaster at Chernobyl (a reasonable exception considering the type of plant it involved, which is not like anything in the entire Western world), worldwide due to nuclear power?  The damage to the reputation would be nil had it not been for the insane reporting, prodded on by the Left, that was devoid of scientific understanding and was propelled instead by ideology.

I'm not sure it is only the "left" that got spooked by nuclear mistakes and the bad reporting though. Just as in the US where it is sort of 30 40 30 where the 40 doesn't really care one way or the other long term as far as "position" I think you have the same thing.

Now for shits and giggles compare to teh VHS versus Betamax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fastyacht said:

I'm not sure it is only the "left" that got spooked by nuclear mistakes and the bad reporting though. Just as in the US where it is sort of 30 40 30 where the 40 doesn't really care one way or the other long term as far as "position" I think you have the same thing.

Now for shits and giggles compare to teh VHS versus Betamax.

Of course not... I did not mean to imply that (that only the Left was opposed).  Most people follow the news in a superficial way, and accept what is fed to them in a superficial way without digging in to verify and objectively consider for themselves if an issue is legitimate, or not.  Just like silicone implants, mercury in dental fillings, emfs from wind turbines (see, I'm being fair, I don't see how that claim against wind energy is legit), etc. ... people buy into sensationalism and will find themselves against things due to unsubstantiated claims and scare tactics, and it often takes many years or decades for the reality to change things.  The problem is that politicians (on both sides) are naturally cowards and often will not stick their necks out for something that is right if they see that it will not score them political points.  The politicians on both side allowed the Left, aided by the sensationalist reporting of the lame media, to skew public sentiment against nuclear power, and in so doing, kicked the can of our energy needs down the road, and in so doing, missed a huge opportunity to have already dramatically reduce CO2 emissions.  This is why one of the original founders of Greenpeace (Patrick Moore) regrets his actions in starting the anti-nuclear energy movement by conflating the peaceful use of nuclear tech in energy with the use of nuclear tech in weapons. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GauchoGreg said:

How many 16 year olds the world over have no job, have everything paid for by others, and love sailing?  

For the first two, most of the 16 y/os in the First World. The point of the publicity stunt is to get them thinking about #3.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CFS Klopas said:

For the first two, most of the 16 y/os in the First World. The point of the publicity stunt is to get them thinking about #3.

 

Calling BS on that.  I do not think for a second they (Greta's handlers) are promoting sailing as much as they are continuing to try and pump the GND and any European corollaries with ongoing publicity for Greta.  They don't give a crap about sailing. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this might get interesting for those more interested in the crossing instead of pissing on each others shoes.....looks like La Vag now has a Tropical Storm thrown into the mix....Sebastian is now a named storm heading in their general direction.  Looks like they are currently around N34 W61 with Sebastian running through the hood shortly...20L_geps_latest.png 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Huggy Bear Brown said:

So this might get interesting for those more interested in the crossing instead of pissing on each others shoes.....looks like La Vag now has a Tropical Storm thrown into the mix....Sebastian is now a named storm heading in their general direction.  Looks like they are currently around N34 W61 with Sebastian running through the hood shortly...20L_geps_latest.png 

Way up in the beginning of the thread I asked, as did someone else, "and hurricane season isn't over yet. Who would do this?"

  • Like 1