GauchoGreg

Members
  • Content Count

    5,292
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by GauchoGreg

  1. GauchoGreg

    Ultime / G-Class Development

    Maybe I am in the minority, but I just don't see the point in the MODs.
  2. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    Exactly, volume matters because there really is a TINY amount of it, and since we are already stuck with handling "waste" in perpetuity, it makes fuck-all difference to deal with a bit more. But if one is an irrationally anti-nuke fear-monger, ANY opportunity to oppose nuclear power cannot be passed up.
  3. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    Frankly, it remains irrelevant. The total volume of the "waste" is miniuscule, relatively. It is far less voluminous than the amount of earth extracted to source the uranium, infinitesimally smaller than the volume of coal extracted from the earth (and its tailings). Permanent disposal of current and future uranium in even the most crude (inefficient) simple planting in the ground (glass-encapsulated and enclosed in lead coffins) after even singular use is not a challenge. This is an entirely politically-manufactured "problem". But thankfully, there are ways to re-use the "spent" (in quotes because it is isn't even close to 'spent') uranium, but again, the anti-nuke movement has tried to scuttle the industry by even putting up hurdles to reprocessing and reusing the fuel. The anti-nuke movement is, frankly, despicable.
  4. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    Managed correctly, recycled & re-used, the Uranium will not be a danger to anyone, either (and factually, the uranium waste will be there one way or the other, anyway, and the volume is less relevant than the management... and since we already are dealing with "spent" uranium, having more of it is not that big of a deal.
  5. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    Hey, maybe they could use the blades for the wall.... WIN WIN!!!!
  6. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    Just sayin' But we can't handle dealing with "spent" uranium?
  7. GauchoGreg

    Ultime / G-Class Development

    This part " The automated systems they also regard as security or safety measure controlling the boat from getting into dangerous situations not just for performance " seems very logical and has always had me thinking the consortium Ultim was stupid.... hopefully this will force them to re-think that and recruit Gitana back in with better rules... win-win.
  8. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

  9. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    I also always get a chuckle out of people claiming that we MUST, that it is somehow an inherent good, to reduce... to electively consume less, and to produce less power. When confronted with the fact that we could do far better for the environment by pumping MORE electricity into the grid, rather than less, as it would allow for all kinds of positive production, form generating/fabricating materials rather than using wood fiber or stone, by desalinating water that can be used for ag and municipal water and returning water for in-stream use in rivers to help anadromous fish and recreate the river cycle returning nutrients to the seas, by facilitating more electric transportation options, etc. etc. etc. Yes, if you are relying on solar or wind, producing more power forces us to blanket the land/seas with more wind/solar farms. Yes, if you are relying on coal or gas, producing more power forces us to emit more CO2 into the atmosphere (assuming we can't capture the carbon... something real advancements are making more probable). Yes, if you are relying on hydro, it requires more dams. This leaves us with tidal power, geothermal power, and nuclear for energy options where producing more power may not really result in notable detrimental impact on the environment. Knowing that we are already handling nuclear fuels, and will always have to, why would we not embrace producing more power for all the positives that doing so can provide? Oh yeah because the Leftist Greenies have convinced people that using less in inherently good. This truly is a religious perspective, not a reasoned or logical perspective.
  10. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    Yeah, but those nit-picking and claiming moral superiority by saying "no more nukes" and chanting reduce-reuse-recycle and claiming they have opted for renewable energy at home (although their power comes off the same grid as everyone else) get to feel oh so good about themselves while they drive their Nissan Leaf that is powered by coal and chatting on their iPhone that was made in a factory in Shenzen powered by coal energy.
  11. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    I will try to type slower.
  12. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    How dare you.
  13. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    Typical, two lefties avoid the solid issues brought up by intensely respected figures on environmental science and advocating for the environment, and instead take the opportunity to focus on writing style.
  14. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    Meh, I thought anarchy mocked fuckers that played grammar/spelling police. When someone is riffing, don't fuck with 'em.
  15. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    Brand, in that video, discusses "land sparing", which I fully agree with him about. Personally, I fully support maximum liberty... if someone wants to live on more land, great if they want to buy it just to keep it open, or to farm it, or whatever. But frankly, urbanization is becoming more and more popular, which is important since the population is growing and we would not want simple population growth to take over what land is left if people were to all want to live in less dense areas. I would expect Brand would not like the idea of covering open landscapes, wildlands and sensitive habitats, with wind or solar. I think we can all agree that we should maximally capture solar energy through rooftop capture... Similar for brownfields, similar for parking lots, etc. We still will have to deal with the issues of differential solar intensity (northern population centers during the winter, typically cloudy/foggy areas, etc.) and storage, and the related transmission losses.... but still it represents a great opportunity with probably less impact on the environment of any energy source.
  16. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    I believe you are wrong about the date of the video. It was during the Obama administration (he referenced Obama's support of a nuclear policy... too bad Obama never really came through with real support of nuclear), and he references a study in 2006 as very old.
  17. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    Outstanding video. Yes, old, but not as old as Bruce claims (Obama was in office, and he referred to the 2006 study as being very old when he referenced it, so I'm guessing this video was from around 2012-14? The best takeaway, again, is that we need to use REASON, logic, critical thinking. I'm sure Brand would be happy to see how solar has advanced, and would surely embrace it as a bigger component of smart energy policy. Similar for wind. But also, he would blast those like the idiots in this thread that want to ban nuclear for their illogical, emotion-based avoidance due to the waste issue. He also would likely laugh off those who suggest we just embrace the "reduce" mantra, not just because it represents holding ourselves back, but also it holds back (or would simply be ignored by) developing nation.
  18. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    Why? Other than some druid-like believe that less is better, why? I can make a very logical argument that MORE is better. More electrical generation could make it possible to decommission hydro plants/dam and improve anadromous fish passage and spawning, open up increased farmland through removal of lakes and having the power to desalinate water, having the energy to convert our transportation fleets and expand them so that people have more freedom to move around and see their loved ones more, for creating materials that can be used for construction rather than cutting down trees or extracting stone from the earth, etc. What is inherently good about not having more energy?
  19. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    So, Germany, a northern European nation, relatively small relative to climate events, is dedicating their energy source to wind & solar, I find that idiotic. Good for them, I guess. But do realize that they will be captive to outside forces for their energy needs. Again, you are an insufferable ass, as you have actually admitted my points are valid elsewhere, and are smart enough to understand my point is valid, wind/solar cannot replace coal, gas & nuclear without massive amounts of land dedicated to sourcing the energy, and so a nation like Germany will rely upon massive amounts of land & sea (for wind, solar, and hydro) and probably still have to buy energy from outside. You are an insufferable ass because you have recognized the point that it is stupid to have a blanket ban on nuclear and yet still proceed to pump those who want to ban it.
  20. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    Go Gauchos... Going full circle, the best class I ever took at UCSB, and my all time best professor there (my major was Environmental Studies), was Professor Mel Manalis, who taught "Energy & the Environment". Outstanding class that covered the political, ethical, feasibility characteristics of various types of energy. Much of the class was dedicated to nuclear. Of course, as you know, UCSB is hardly some conservative bastion, and that major was WAY Left, but that class forced even the Green leftist students to recognize the insanity that had been the anti-nuke craze. Specifically, arguments like the ones you have been discussing were debunked, and the long-term negative impacts of the blanket obstruction of nuclear (and specifically things like obstructing reprocessing/recycling "spent" fuel .... something our Military and the French were doing way back when I was taking that class) were having on the well being of the environment. So, be a critical thinker.... part of which is questioning what you already think and consider you could be wrong. Your arguments are irrational and unreasoned.... the issue of nuclear "waste" is hardly a reason to ban the technology and deprive us of the best way to produce huge amounts of energy within a very small footprint, on-demand, when needed, and with no emissions. If you don't give a damn about covering huge swaths of landscape with wind/solar farms, I guess it does not matter, but in a world with fewer and fewer remaining areas, I find the idea of blanketing areas like the Steens Mountain or North Carolina wetlands (actuall wind farm proposals) with such as abhorrent destruction of wilderness and sensitive habitats, far worse than having more nuclear plants and "dealing" with the "waste".
  21. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, who the hell gives a fuck? The point is that so what if alpha/gamma particles are released in a secure environment it is irrelevant that those particles are being emitted... and if the source material is then reprocessed and the emission source is reduced, all the better. The world has massive amounts of room to store such materials (easily enough room on the sites of the power plants, which should continue to be used after being renovated/redeveloped), with the storage space demanded always to be far less room than the space that will be required to support the wind/solar generation facilities that would be required to replace the energy that could be provided by nuclear power producing the "spent" fuels. It is a bogus argument. And, why, by the way, should we not have "conveniences". Why should we not have more power to provide energy for larger, more capable cars (emissions free), why not have more power to provide for desalination or heating roadways, construction, recycling and/ore reduction of waste, exploration, etc.? The only reason having more "conveniences" (read, having more electrical power on hand to facilitate the "conveniences") is a bad thing is if you see such in some weird religious manner as evil.
  22. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    OK, fine, not super volcano (if you don't care about having any energy source to preserve any humanity in a worst case scenario). How about just a big volcano, a Krakatoa type event... you know, the type that caused the little ice age? Yeah, those never happen, right? No need to be prepared with an energy source that would not be cut off by a year where the sun rarely shines, like: But again, you clearly show your ignorance of the issue of nuclear fuel storage. Do yourself a favor and actually research the issue through scientific/engineering journals on modern plants and proposed new age plants. Those of us that have done so, and are not committed to some bizarre desire to emotionally condemn science and engineering, recognize the need to replace coal and gas with a clean energy source that does not take over massive amounts of land & sea and provide erratic, unpredictable energy production.
  23. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    As for your last question, hell, what do I care if they cover Australia sea-to-sea-to-sea-to-sea with PV panels? But my point was that average daily energy need, which I'm sure that silly exhibit was about, considers the energy need for the world and the theoretical energy production from solar farms and the land needed to supply that energy, but it does not consider that at any given point in time, there may be no solar energy production there (night, storms, clouds of locust or star destroyer docked immediately above the solar farm), and so you actually have to have several times more PV coverage than the theoretical need, and that is before you even discuss the losses of energy due to transmission and storage. Yes, I know that it was just a conceptual to give an idea of the land coverage need, but it does not change either of these points, regardless of where the solar farms are, at any given point in time, half of the world is in night, and a ton is under cloud cover, and maintenance takes a bunch offline, etc., and so transmission & storage are necessary and result in a ton of waste. So, the theoretical area of land needed for solar to supply the energy need is easily way less than half of the actual land area that would be needed. My guess is that map did not consider that. Then, do you put your eggs in the basket of reliance on wind and solar and then have some climactic event like a super-volcano erupting and completely destroying your solar energy production like we see every 100-150 years? "Oops... wish we had developed a bunch of nuclear plants..... I guess we are all fucked now that those PV panels are nothing but ash collectors". AGAIN, the point is that we (those of us who use reason and logic) should all call out those who are into banning nuclear as the idiots that they are as they are hurting humanity and environment, not helping it.
  24. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    This post is the only example necessary to point out the insanity of Bruce.... he had had actually been doing quite well in the past couple of days until dumping this on us. (must be viewed in its original form, with all of the quotes, to fully see the insanity. Bruce, if you want people to take you seriously, you cannot do a multi-quote post with more than 2-3 quotes.
  25. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    I'm winning.