Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

How much will it take for you to shut the fuck up and never post here again Mis Raz'r Jib? That was fun.

One of the few things you posted I agree with.  It is however the only (legal) entity that has the power to send people with guns to bend you to it's will.

Posted Images

2 hours ago, warbird said:

So a milestone achievement is pretty much ignored???? Gotcha…..

I don't see one single thing the little don did to create that singular data point.  Obama's economy did better and he inherited it.  Everything he's done is destroying the future.

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

I don't see one single thing the little don did to create that singular data point.  Obama's economy did better and he inherited it.  Everything he's done is destroying the future.

You drank Obama kool-aid.  It made you stoopid.

  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

I quoted what was relevant to my reply.

I did not misrepresent anything you've said, ever. If you sound dishonest or like a dumbass, it's because you are.

And if everybody is being a dick to you, then feel free to go away.

-DSK

You are a fucking liar. 

The part you edited out was a direct answer to a question YOU posed to me

HERE: 

It was a question asked and answered

Here is the question from Steam that my comment was directed to  

  What Democrats have the power in the Senate to block or delay President Trump's appointments?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

You fucking idiots are just making shit up now. Into the bin.

Read the article about shitposters/trolls and the NZ massacre? Whilst it is not directly applicable (warbird is far from a terrorist), the mentality behind what they do (& why) is spot on. Truth is not relevant - only whether or not they can "trigger" you with their posts. The point of AOC memes is to her supporters lose their temper. Nothing more. They need to justify their fear with your anger. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Read the article about shitposters/trolls and the NZ massacre? Whilst it is not directly applicable (warbird is far from a terrorist), the mentality behind what they do (& why) is spot on. Truth is not relevant - only whether or not they can "trigger" you with their posts. The point of AOC memes is to her supporters lose their temper. Nothing more. They need to justify their fear with your anger. 

Fuck them. I'm not angry, I'm disgusted.

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

Fuck them. I'm not angry, I'm disgusted.

Generally good enough for them. As long as the reaction is visceral, they feel "they won". Think about why they think getting ignored is a "cowardly act". It's not like they can't still say whatever it is they like to the people still interested in their drivel. It's that they want to confront you with their shitposting and being denied the opportunity for any reaction hits them where it hurts - their fragile sense of self-importance.

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

Wind and solar.  Did I scare you?  OR are will those words cause the witch to melt?  Must be like saying the words "gay and marriage" in Mississipi.  

 

 

3 hours ago, Laker said:

Ok, lets look at electrical power.  Tidal turbines in the Pacific  Northwest take care of their needs, but they don't really need them at this time.  BC and Wa, perhaps OR are pure hydro or derivatives (run of river, etc.)  Mountain States like Colorado, Utah, Alberta.  Magma comes within 20,000 feet of the earth's surface there.  Spending some research dollars will get you there to use geothermal and so they are taken care of.  Hawaii, wind and Offshore Thermal Electrical Conversion. I could go on, but they are not being instituted because they either don't need to be at this time or there is not the culture change that would bring it about.  In BC and WA at the moment, according to some the engineers that I deal with, the role of Hydro is changing to act as a buffer for wind and solar.  In times of wind and sun, the energy is exported and other times, Hydro is drawn upon.  This allows for a lot of export of energy.  On the the demand side, the introduction of electric cars and trucks takes care of a lot of the issues.  Look at the success of the Acid Rain Treaties and see if they have nothing than a positive effect, but the people of, for instance Cleveland, had to undergo a cultural change in their generation of electricity.

That is precisely the point.

We don't need to exploit those resources because they are not economically or logistically sound.  Plenty of research has been done on all those and they are proven viable technologies for regional implementation.  Some more research might be nice but is not necessary.  Any of those states you cite could, through their Public Utilities Commission, They aren't because they are not economically viable given our capacity to provide oil and natural gas products.

Pointing to other countries is nice but they aren't us and have their own solutions to their own energy needs and capabilities.  Iceland, for example, works primarily off of geothermal and hydro power.  That's great but it is a small country which can be served by relatively few installations and a pretty small distribution network.  The whole country gets by on 6 MTOE (million tonnes oil equivalent).  The US uses 138 MTOE.

Iceland.png

Norway is pumping away to get their oil out and sold and investing in wind farms out at sea.  They do believe they are running out of oil.

WEB_1413dh.jpg

Web_1407dh.jpg

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Laker said:

In what way would it wreck our civilization?  Perhaps you should look at the way life is evolving towards a different civilization, but wrecked?

Life is already one evolution past JerKZ.

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

You mean like Sarah Palin saying she could see Russia from her house?

 

Yep. The left were king of the meme’s when it comes to Palin Trump Bush ect.  

Now they are upset when their rising star is subjected to the same crap. 

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

You fucking idiots are just making shit up now. Into the bin.

Warpedbird is afraid of her because she's smarter than him.

A LOT smarter.

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

Ok, lets look at electrical power.  Tidal turbines in the Pacific  Northwest take care of their needs, but they don't really need them at this time.  BC and Wa, perhaps OR are pure hydro or derivatives (run of river, etc.)  Mountain States like Colorado, Utah, Alberta.  Magma comes within 20,000 feet of the earth's surface there.  Spending some research dollars will get you there to use geothermal and so they are taken care of.  Hawaii, wind and Offshore Thermal Electrical Conversion. I could go on, but they are not being instituted because they either don't need to be at this time or there is not the culture change that would bring it about.  In BC and WA at the moment, according to some the engineers that I deal with, the role of Hydro is changing to act as a buffer for wind and solar.  In times of wind and sun, the energy is exported and other times, Hydro is drawn upon.  This allows for a lot of export of energy.  On the the demand side, the introduction of electric cars and trucks takes care of a lot of the issues.  Look at the success of the Acid Rain Treaties and see if they have nothing than a positive effect, but the people of, for instance Cleveland, had to undergo a cultural change in their generation of electricity.

In a few optimum geographical locations, hydro is just great.  Did I say it wasn't?  It is wind and solar that suck.  We can't run civilization on those energy sources.  We can run it on nuclear power though.  That is the point.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Read the article about shitposters/trolls and the NZ massacre? Whilst it is not directly applicable (warbird is far from a terrorist), the mentality behind what they do (& why) is spot on. Truth is not relevant - only whether or not they can "trigger" you with their posts. The point of AOC memes is to her supporters lose their temper. Nothing more. They need to justify their fear with your anger. 

The point of the AOC memes IS she is fucking funny!  She is the ""Dumb Blonde joke" with out the blonde. Her missives on energy and socialism are side splitting, laugh out loud funny. Lefties never have a sense of humor when the spot light shines on their own. We legitimately raise these memes as illustration.It is perfectly OK for the left to demean the President with disgusting , derogatory or insulting references but the left is immune from such? FUCK OFF SNOWFLAKE.

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

The point of the AOC memes IS she is fucking funny!  She is the ""Dumb Blonde joke" with out the blonde. Her missives on energy and socialism are side splitting, laugh out loud funny. Lefties never have a sense of humor when the spot light shines on their own. We legitimately raise these memes as illustration.It is perfectly OK for the left to demean the President with disgusting , derogatory or insulting references but the left is immune from such? FUCK OFF SNOWFLAKE.

The trouble is not that you are making memes about her.

The problem is that they are pathetic, stupid memes.

They aren't funny - that is inexcusable.

FUCK OFF HUMOURLESS OLD FART

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

The trouble is not that you are making memes about her.

The problem is that they are pathetic, stupid memes.

They aren't funny - that is inexcusable.

FUCK OFF HUMOURLESS OLD FART

 

I am not making memes about her. The WHOLE WORLD is making those memes............

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, jzk said:

In a few optimum geographical locations, hydro is just great.  Did I say it wasn't?  It is wind and solar that suck.  We can't run civilization on those energy sources.  We can run it on nuclear power though.  That is the point.  

I don't know who stuck that particular anti-solar and wind bee up your butt.  But it must really be starting to bug you.  You're like fuckin' tRump. yelling like an old man at the ceiling of the auditorium:  "Is the wind blowing up there? I want to watch TV, Delores"  

Undoubtedly the most sublimely ignorant - out of hundreds of ignorant things - he has said.  

"Is the wind blowing, Delores?  I want to heat up my cocoa"

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, justsomeguy! said:

Unfortunately, everything is unsustainable.

Well, except chaos and entropy.

They are intrinsically sustainable. Like there is no cure for stupid. It's a universal constant, like gravity or cat hair.

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

I am not making memes about her. The WHOLE WORLD is making those memes............

It's not the whole world, its political PACs and media/PR firms which get paid to make and push out the memes, try tracing one back to when it first appeared, most of the widely disseminated memes are from these sources.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are optimum geographic locations for a variety of energy sources which is why we have the electric grid.  There is an annual conference on the "smart" grid across North America that deals with such things.  Arizona would seem to be a great place for the solar to be generated and then stored in North Dakota dams.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We can run it on nuclear power though.  That is the point.  "

 

But what sort of nuclear power.  80 year old technology American and British boiling water reactors are unacceptable for obvious reasons.  CANDU and French are a bit better, but still not very good.  The issue is that not a lot of money has been put into alternatives.  Thorium? Rankin?  Pure Beta? All of these offer much better approaches, but research seems at a standstill.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Laker said:

We can run it on nuclear power though.  That is the point.  "

 

But what sort of nuclear power.  80 year old technology American and British boiling water reactors are unacceptable for obvious reasons.  CANDU and French are a bit better, but still not very good.  The issue is that not a lot of money has been put into alternatives.  Thorium? Rankin?  Pure Beta? All of these offer much better approaches, but research seems at a standstill.

There have been evolutionary changes in every technology.  That is an appropriate way to bring about change.  If we were to restart widespread use of Nuclear power we wouldn't be building to old designs.  There has been plenty of research and development in the area.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/advanced-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, The Joker said:

You are a fucking liar. 

The part you edited out was a direct answer to a question YOU posed to me

HERE: 

It was a question asked and answered

Here is the question from Steam that my comment was directed to  

  What Democrats have the power in the Senate to block or delay President Trump's appointments?

 

 

Aww, now he's having a widdle hissy fit.

Did your Mommy think it was cute when you did that?

BTW jackass you did not answer my question

-DSK

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

Aww, now he's having a widdle hissy fit.

Did your Mommy think it was cute when you did that?

BTW jackass you did not answer my question

-DSK

Liar 

your question   Post 3112

 What Democrats have the power in the Senate to block or delay President Trump's appointments?

my answer Post 3113

As to who has the power look no further than Chuck Schumer  

 

 

 

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

As to who has the power look no further than Chuck Schumer  

 

I don't know if you are genuinely that stooo-pid or if you are just trying to puff yourself up. Either way, same end result..... not the truth.

They call Sen Schumer the "minority" leader for a reason. He does not control the voting in the Senate.

Goddam Democrats do EVERYTHING bad, they make my beer evaporate too!

-DSK

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

We can run it on nuclear power though.  That is the point.  "

 

But what sort of nuclear power.  80 year old technology American and British boiling water reactors are unacceptable for obvious reasons.  CANDU and French are a bit better, but still not very good.  The issue is that not a lot of money has been put into alternatives.  Thorium? Rankin?  Pure Beta? All of these offer much better approaches, but research seems at a standstill.

What are the "obvious reasons?"

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

There have been evolutionary changes in every technology.  That is an appropriate way to bring about change.  If we were to restart widespread use of Nuclear power we wouldn't be building to old designs.  There has been plenty of research and development in the area.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/advanced-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx

 

Anyone solve the nuclear waste problem, yet? 

I remember in high school, we had a dude come from Point Lepreau, gave a presentation about CANDU & suchlike.  One of those pre-recruiting type of things, to encourage us highschoolers to go into nuclear physics. 

During the question & answer period at the end, I asked about the waste issue (I'd been to Cold Lake the previous summer, and had time to read up, and think about Nuclear power some...); he didn't have much of an answer.  Basically just predicted we'd have that issue solved in the next couple of decades.  I think he might have mentionned breeder reactors or something like that. 

Mainly, I remember how I wanted to ask a follow-up question, but he didn't call on me after that, and it was real obvious to everyone there that I'd made him... uncomfortable. 

Anyways.  That was over 35 years ago.  They've had their couple of decades.  They solve it yet? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

I don't know if you are genuinely that stooo-pid or if you are just trying to puff yourself up. Either way, same end result..... not the truth.

They call Sen Schumer the "minority" leader for a reason. He does not control the voting in the Senate.

Goddam Democrats do EVERYTHING bad, they make my beer evaporate too!

-DSK

You are really not good at this.  

Your original question was delay or block   Nothing about voting   

The minority party has plenty of ways to block or slow nominations.  

I suggest remedial US government 101 

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

Anyone solve the nuclear waste problem, yet? 

I remember in high school, we had a dude come from Point Lepreau, gave a presentation about CANDU & suchlike.  One of those pre-recruiting type of things, to encourage us highschoolers to go into nuclear physics. 

During the question & answer period at the end, I asked about the waste issue (I'd been to Cold Lake the previous summer, and had time to read up, and think about Nuclear power some...); he didn't have much of an answer.  Basically just predicted we'd have that issue solved in the next couple of decades.  I think he might have mentionned breeder reactors or something like that. 

Mainly, I remember how I wanted to ask a follow-up question, but he didn't call on me after that, and it was real obvious to everyone there that I'd made him... uncomfortable. 

Anyways.  That was over 35 years ago.  They've had their couple of decades.  They solve it yet? 

Right.

Big problem. Something we can't get rid of, and lasts basically forever (well, about ten X longer than human civilization in history) Furthermore, we don't have enough fissionable material that we can mine, in the Earth's crust, to generate our power needs for more than a century or so, if that.

Bad trade-off IMHO

Fusion is a game changer though. That's what we need, and research has slowed to a crawl in this country. Maybe we're planning on letting some other country develop it first, then bombing them and stealing it? Hey, it worked for oil!

-DSK

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

Anyone solve the nuclear waste problem, yet? 

I remember in high school, we had a dude come from Point Lepreau, gave a presentation about CANDU & suchlike.  One of those pre-recruiting type of things, to encourage us highschoolers to go into nuclear physics. 

During the question & answer period at the end, I asked about the waste issue (I'd been to Cold Lake the previous summer, and had time to read up, and think about Nuclear power some...); he didn't have much of an answer.  Basically just predicted we'd have that issue solved in the next couple of decades.  I think he might have mentionned breeder reactors or something like that. 

Mainly, I remember how I wanted to ask a follow-up question, but he didn't call on me after that, and it was real obvious to everyone there that I'd made him... uncomfortable. 

Anyways.  That was over 35 years ago.  They've had their couple of decades.  They solve it yet? 

Landfills.

They seem good at storing all the rest of our garbage for centuries.

They are equally good for eternal whatifs and extending study periods.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Joker said:
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

They call Sen Schumer the "minority" leader for a reason. He does not control the voting in the Senate.

Goddam Democrats do EVERYTHING bad, they make my beer evaporate too!

 

You are really not good at this.  

Your original question was delay or block   Nothing about voting   

The minority party has plenty of ways to block or slow nominations.  

I suggest remedial US government 101 

The minority party, if it comes to a straight partisan vote (as it increasingly has, the past twenty years), cannot block a nomination.

I suggest you pay attention.

President Trump's appointees are few and far between because 1- he's a shitty boss and no honest person with more than 3 functioning brain cells wants to work for him, 2- he's lazy and does not produce nominations very quickly.

Those goddam Democrats! How dare they install such a lazy incompetent President! They are trying to destroy America!!

-DSK

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

Right.

Big problem. Something we can't get rid of, and lasts basically forever (well, about ten X longer than human civilization in history) Furthermore, we don't have enough fissionable material that we can mine, in the Earth's crust, to generate our power needs for more than a century or so, if that.

Bad trade-off IMHO

Fusion is a game changer though. That's what we need, and research has slowed to a crawl in this country. Maybe we're planning on letting some other country develop it first, then bombing them and stealing it? Hey, it worked for oil!

-DSK

You really do make shit up

 

Uranium is a relatively common element in the crust of the Earth (very much more than in the mantle). It is a metal approximately as common as tin or zinc, and it is a constituent of most rocks and even of the sea.

 

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

I don't know if you are genuinely that stooo-pid or if you are just trying to puff yourself up. Either way, same end result..... not the truth.

They call Sen Schumer the "minority" leader for a reason. He does not control the voting in the Senate.

Goddam Democrats do EVERYTHING bad, they make my beer evaporate too!

-DSK

i will fucking  go apeshit if they make my beer evaporate..........;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Fusion is a game changer though.

Is it really, though? 

Oh, let me guess: they'll have it figured out in another decade or two...

 

36 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Landfills.

They seem good at storing all the rest of our garbage for centuries.

They are equally good for eternal whatifs and extending study periods.

You mean that nuclear waste underground storage that they were talking about building, within another decade or two, back when I asked the dude that question? 

Didn't that get cancelled, in the end?  Oh, right, it did.

So I'll take that as a "no, nobody's managed to solve it yet."

In fact, I'll take it as "we're further away from solving it than we were back then."

 

31 minutes ago, The Joker said:

You really do make shit up

 

Uranium is a relatively common element in the crust of the Earth (very much more than in the mantle). It is a metal approximately as common as tin or zinc, and it is a constituent of most rocks and even of the sea.

 

He's making shit up?!? 

Tell me: how much would it cost to extract uranium from those sources?  Already, as it stands, even high-grade ore has to be enriched, to make fuel out of it. 

At what point are we going to be using more energy to extract & enrich, than we get out of using it? 

 

Gotta love how nuke proponents claim solar & wind & geothermal are pie-in-the-sky unrealistic... while proposing we run on fuckin' unicorn farts. 

 

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

Is it really, though? 

Oh, let me guess: they'll have it figured out in another decade or two...

 

You mean that nuclear waste underground storage that they were talking about building, within another decade or two, back when I asked the dude that question? 

Didn't that get cancelled, in the end?  Oh, right, it did.

So I'll take that as a "no, nobody's managed to solve it yet."

In fact, I'll take it as "we're further away from solving it than we were back then."

 

That's politics, not engineering.

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

I don't know if you are genuinely that stooo-pid or if you are just trying to puff yourself up. Either way, same end result..... not the truth.

They call Sen Schumer the "minority" leader for a reason. He does not control the voting in the Senate.

Goddam Democrats do EVERYTHING bad, they make my beer evaporate too!

-DSK

They turned on the "Engine Failsafe Mode" warning light in my car last week.

Fuckers.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Saorsa said:
23 minutes ago, frenchie said:

You mean that nuclear waste underground storage that they were talking about building, within another decade or two, back when I asked the dude that question? 

Didn't that get cancelled, in the end?  Oh, right, it did.

So I'll take that as a "no, nobody's managed to solve it yet."

In fact, I'll take it as "we're further away from solving it than we were back then."

 

That's politics, not engineering.

Correct..... there is no engineering solution, and your politics are to push for it anyway.

And you probably resent being called stupid, here's a perfect example though

-DSK

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

You really do make shit up

 

Uranium is a relatively common element in the crust of the Earth (very much more than in the mantle). It is a metal approximately as common as tin or zinc, and it is a constituent of most rocks and even of the sea.

 

Nope, sorry. As much as you'd like to believe in unicorns and rainbow kittens, there is such a thing as reality.

If you bothered to spend as much as three minutes Googling, you wouldn't look so darn dumb.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium

Less than a 135 year supply. Here's the key paragraph:

"According to data from the International Atomic Energy Agency, world production of mined uranium has peaked twice in the past: once, circa 1960 in response to stockpiling for military use, and again in 1980, in response to stockpiling for use in commercial nuclear power. Up until about 1990, the mined uranium production was in excess of consumption by power plants. But since 1990, consumption by power plants has outstripped the uranium being mined; the deficit being made up by liquidation of the military (through decommissioning of nuclear weapons) and civilian stockpiles. Uranium mining has increased since the mid-1990s, but is still less than the consumption by power plants.[46] "

Of course this is from those goddam pointy-head faggots at the U.N whom you hate-hate-hate so why believe what they say?

How can this be true if uranium is such a common element, I mean dang the shit is even found in seawater. Can you figure it out? I suspect if the world's best nuclear physicists don't have a good answer (good in terms of "an answer you and your elk like to believe"), you won't either.

-DSK

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

Anyone solve the nuclear waste problem, yet? 

I remember in high school, we had a dude come from Point Lepreau, gave a presentation about CANDU & suchlike.  One of those pre-recruiting type of things, to encourage us highschoolers to go into nuclear physics. 

During the question & answer period at the end, I asked about the waste issue (I'd been to Cold Lake the previous summer, and had time to read up, and think about Nuclear power some...); he didn't have much of an answer.  Basically just predicted we'd have that issue solved in the next couple of decades.  I think he might have mentionned breeder reactors or something like that. 

Mainly, I remember how I wanted to ask a follow-up question, but he didn't call on me after that, and it was real obvious to everyone there that I'd made him... uncomfortable. 

Anyways.  That was over 35 years ago.  They've had their couple of decades.  They solve it yet? 

What is the issue?

If you check out the TED video I posted, he pointed out the nuclear waste can be contained to a very small area.  With other power sources, the waste just spews into the environment.  

 

 

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

You really do make shit up

 

Uranium is a relatively common element in the crust of the Earth (very much more than in the mantle). It is a metal approximately as common as tin or zinc, and it is a constituent of most rocks and even of the sea.

Zinc is about 75 ppm in the earth's crust and uranium is about 2 ppm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, jzk said:

What is the issue?

If you check out the TED video I posted, he pointed out the nuclear waste can be contained to a very small area.  With other power sources, the waste just spews into the environment.  

 

 

Solar, wind and geothermal create waste? 

 

...do tell.

 

 

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

There have been evolutionary changes in every technology.  That is an appropriate way to bring about change.  If we were to restart widespread use of Nuclear power we wouldn't be building to old designs.  There has been plenty of research and development in the area.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/advanced-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx

 

But really not enough.  Outside of the lab, what "advanced reactors" have been implemented?

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

Solar, wind and geothermal create waste? 

 

...do tell.

 

 

What are solar panels made of?  How long do they last?  Where do they go after that?  What happens to the environment where you install the solar panels?  

How long do the windmills last?  What is their impact on wildlife? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, J28 said:

You drank Obama kool-aid.  It made you stoopid.

That was intelligent.

Read the reports on economic growth under Obama and the little don and get back to me.

Little don is trying to bully the fed.  The fed is trying to unwind the bonds they own.  They bought bonds in an unusual policy to save us from GWB's mismanagement.  During one of the largest expansions in time should we be adding debt (ala little don) and getting the fed back to the norm or pour on more stimulation so the 1% can continue in inundate the GOP with their ill gotten gains?

Republican President's mismanage economic matters based on political opportunism rather than sound economic theory.   

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been an idea put forth to stockpile the waste in one common area, a played out mine for instance, and use the low level heat from the waste to provide power much in the way that the Cooper Basin project in Australia uses the low level heat from granite.  Granite, including your kitchen counters, is a reasonable beta emitter.

Just now, jzk said:

What are solar panels made of?  How long do they last?  Where do they go after that?  What happens to the environment where you install the solar panels?  

How long do the windmills last?  What is their impact on wildlife? 

solar panels are made of sand. They recycle very well.  If installed in deserts, amazingly the shade allows for an increase in biological activity.  

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

Is it really, though? 

Oh, let me guess: they'll have it figured out in another decade or two...

 

You mean that nuclear waste underground storage that they were talking about building, within another decade or two, back when I asked the dude that question? 

Didn't that get cancelled, in the end?  Oh, right, it did.

So I'll take that as a "no, nobody's managed to solve it yet."

In fact, I'll take it as "we're further away from solving it than we were back then."

 

He's making shit up?!? 

Tell me: how much would it cost to extract uranium from those sources?  Already, as it stands, even high-grade ore has to be enriched, to make fuel out of it. 

At what point are we going to be using more energy to extract & enrich, than we get out of using it? 

 

Gotta love how nuke proponents claim solar & wind & geothermal are pie-in-the-sky unrealistic... while proposing we run on fuckin' unicorn farts. 

 

I am not claiming to be a proponent only pointing out that we will not run out of potential fuel.  

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

What are solar panels made of?  How long do they last?  Where do they go after that?  What happens to the environment where you install the solar panels?  

How long do the windmills last?  What is their impact on wildlife? 

In another example of leaving the US behind, the government of Colombia is testing the installation of solar panels to cover mine tailing ponds to reduce the evaporation from their ponds by 80%, reducing the amount of fresh water the mining operations need to pump from underground and provide power for the mining operation.  Or, in other words, win, win, win.  

Friggin' brown people and their backward ways.  

 

Now, rhetorically, how about:

How long does a coal-fired steam-generation plant last?  What is its impact on wildlife?  

How long does a nuclear plant last?  Where do they go after that?  What happens to the environment where you install a nuclear plant?

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

You really do make shit up

 

Uranium is a relatively common element in the crust of the Earth (very much more than in the mantle). It is a metal approximately as common as tin or zinc, and it is a constituent of most rocks and even of the sea.

 

So, dear Joker, here we go again.  This is exactly what we discussed in a previous thread about your lack of research.  Can you at least cite the websites that you lift information from verbatim?  So that we know they're pro-nuclear websites that have just a slightly vested interest in fabricating statistics?

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx

 

 

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

But really not enough.  Outside of the lab, what "advanced reactors" have been implemented?

Tried getting permits?

Nuclear is too scary.  Remember, Germany is shutting all theirs down.

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

So, dear Joker, here we go again.  This is exactly what we discussed in a previous thread about your lack of research.  Can you at least cite the websites that you lift information from verbatim?  So that we know they're pro-nuclear websites that have just a slightly vested interest in fabricating statistics?

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx

 

 

You need to counter it with an anti-nuclear website that has some information on availability. 

Would Scientific American work for you?  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Olsonist said:
4 hours ago, The Joker said:

You really do make shit up

 

Uranium is a relatively common element in the crust of the Earth (very much more than in the mantle). It is a metal approximately as common as tin or zinc, and it is a constituent of most rocks and even of the sea.

Zinc is about 75 ppm in the earth's crust and uranium is about 2 ppm.

I wondered if he wrote that sentence, so I Googled uranium availability.

That sentence comes, word for word, from first link other than Wiki.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I took an Astronomy class, Cosmic Evolution. The prof (Cal physics, Cal Tech PhD) covered stellar nucleosynthesis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis.

Awesome class, brilliant prof. It's a beautiful theory which matches up well with measurements of elemental abundance.

Recoverable uranium is determined by how much people will pay for it and those reserves are not equally distributed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_reserves

 

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

Correct..... there is no engineering solution, and your politics are to push for it anyway.

And you probably resent being called stupid, here's a perfect example though

-DSK

There are engineering solutions.  But, no matter what is proposed you stretch for another whatif.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

I wondered if he wrote that sentence, so I Googled uranium availability.

That sentence comes, word for word, from first link other than Wiki.  

Did you find this one?  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/

Here ya go,

Clicking links must be toooo haarrrdd

Steve Fetter, dean of the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy, supplies an answer:
If the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has accurately estimated the planet's economically accessible uranium resources, reactors could run more than 200 years at current rates of consumption.

Most of the 2.8 trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity generated worldwide from nuclear power every year is produced in light-water reactors (LWRs) using low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel. About 10 metric tons of natural uranium go into producing a metric ton of LEU, which can then be used to generate about 400 million kilowatt-hours of electricity, so present-day reactors require about 70,000 metric tons of natural uranium a year.

According to the NEA, identified uranium resources total 5.5 million metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain undiscovered—a roughly 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in total. Further exploration and improvements in extraction technology are likely to at least double this estimate over time.

Using more enrichment work could reduce the uranium needs of LWRs by as much as 30 percent per metric ton of LEU. And separating plutonium and uranium from spent LEU and using them to make fresh fuel could reduce requirements by another 30 percent. Taking both steps would cut the uranium requirements of an LWR in half.

Two technologies could greatly extend the uranium supply itself. Neither is economical now, but both could be in the future if the price of uranium increases substantially. First, the extraction of uranium from seawater would make available 4.5 billion metric tons of uranium—a 60,000-year supply at present rates. Second, fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors, which generate more fuel than they consume, would use less than 1 percent of the uranium needed for current LWRs. Breeder reactors could match today's nuclear output for 30,000 years using only the NEA-estimated supplies.

Incidentally, reprocessing spent fuel is an engineering solution.

 

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

That's politics, not engineering.

Failed dimensional analysis did you?

16 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Incidentally, reprocessing spent fuel is an engineering solution.

Chemically separating out plutonium sounds like an excellent idea. What could possibly go wrong?

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

Failed dimensional analysis did you?

Chemically separating out plutonium sounds like an excellent idea. What could possibly go wrong?

Why, we could start a Nuclear Weapons program if that were remotely possible.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, jzk said:

I do not "do" democracy.  I do a democratic constitutional republic.  I never rejected efficiency.  Be as energy efficient as you please.  You will get no obstruction from me.  If you want to invest in research, have at it.  But what I think you really want to do is invest with my money.  Nice.

AOC is the impediment.  Getting rid of fossil fuel and nuclear within 12 years would be a disaster.  If you really believe in climate change, then you should be very pro nuclear.  Unless you are just anti-human.

Good. You are starting to "negotiate." That's called the "democratic" process. It's not the "democratic constitutional republic" process, because that is a made-up hair splitting term, and this is politics, not hairdressing.

So you are onboard with increasing efficiency and do not want to cancel nuclear power immediately. 

You appear to be angered by the government "investing with your money", but I don't think you know the implications of what you so cavalierly write. For example, is investing in NIH truly detrimental to your best interests? The answer, and I don't really give a shit about your opinion, is NO. The NIH is responsible for more lives saved than all the stupid tax breaks Republicans have given to rich people and big oil in the last 30 years. So, you DO agree with investment of your money, and you are not smart enough to determine where it should be spent, because you often say dumb things and don't listen/read well.

I have no desire to "get rid of" internal combustion engines or nuclear power. I've said this before, and will say it again. The New Green Deal is NOT  binding, and does not make any irrevocable changes. It is a change in direction and focus of regulation and taxation and wealth distribution from our current systems which have created societal inequity, poor health outcomes and environmental damage.

It means investing less of your money in sustaining the current energy companies dominance of the sector, allowing new technologies to flourish, new industries to compete, and perhaps encourage America to gain predominance in the field which may be very lucrative given global trends. It invests in R&D, and makes sure that workers in these new industries are given a living wage. 

Now, to continue your exercise in "democracy", are you in favor of big oil companies receiving your tax money so they can continue to enjoy a monopoly in the energy sector? They seek to suppress emerging technologies, and would have America fall behind in the race to innovate and create new processes, technologies and markets: would you grant them this benefit while giving them your tax dollars? Or would you like some of that money to be spent finding ways to dump less toxins into our lakes, streams and air while maintaining or improving our current level of economic output and individual freedoms? R&D is ALWAYS a risk, yet look what happens when Americans innovate... whole new markets and revenue streams are created out of whole cloth and we grow richer as a country.

Are you for or against infrastructure improvements? 

Seems you may be only opposed to a couple of items in The New Green Deal, but aren't familiar with the "democratic process". By "negotiating", you can find "common ground". Insulting your "opponents", when they are so closely aligned to your goals, is bad business and bad citizenship.

 

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

What are solar panels made of?  How long do they last?  Where do they go after that?  What happens to the environment where you install the solar panels?  

How long do the windmills last?  What is their impact on wildlife? 

How long do nuke plants last, what happens to ... etc.

Quit dancing around.  You fucked up.  Why can't you just admit it & move on?

This fuckin place, sometimes...

 

41 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

According to the NEA, identified uranium resources total 5.5 million metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain undiscovered—a roughly 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in total. Further exploration and improvements in extraction technology are likely to at least double this estimate over time.

Using more enrichment work could reduce the uranium needs of LWRs by as much as 30 percent per metric ton of LEU. And separating plutonium and uranium from spent LEU and using them to make fresh fuel could reduce requirements by another 30 percent. Taking both steps would cut the uranium requirements of an LWR in half.

And if we builda bunch of new plants...?

41 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Incidentally, reprocessing spent fuel is an engineering solution.

Which political considerations pretty much prevent.

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

So, dear Joker, here we go again.  This is exactly what we discussed in a previous thread about your lack of research.  Can you at least cite the websites that you lift information from verbatim?  So that we know they're pro-nuclear websites that have just a slightly vested interest in fabricating statistics?

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx

 

 

My research was fine.  

Are we going to run out of fuel in the near future as Steam claimed or not

My point was no

Your cite confirmed that 

Yet you are busting my chops while ignoring the complete LIE put out by steam

Here we go again indeed  only those that lean right are required to dot every i and cross every t 

 

 

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

Good. You are starting to "negotiate." That's called the "democratic" process. It's not the "democratic constitutional republic" process, because that is a made-up hair splitting term, and this is politics, not hairdressing.

So you are onboard with increasing efficiency and do not want to cancel nuclear power immediately. 

You appear to be angered by the government "investing with your money", but I don't think you know the implications of what you so cavalierly write. For example, is investing in NIH truly detrimental to your best interests? The answer, and I don't really give a shit about your opinion, is NO. The NIH is responsible for more lives saved than all the stupid tax breaks Republicans have given to rich people and big oil in the last 30 years. So, you DO agree with investment of your money, and you are not smart enough to determine where it should be spent, because you often say dumb things and don't listen/read well.

I have no desire to "get rid of" internal combustion engines or nuclear power. I've said this before, and will say it again. The New Green Deal is NOT  binding, and does not make any irrevocable changes. It is a change in direction and focus of regulation and taxation and wealth distribution from our current systems which have created societal inequity, poor health outcomes and environmental damage.

It means investing less of your money in sustaining the current energy companies dominance of the sector, allowing new technologies to flourish, new industries to compete, and perhaps encourage America to gain predominance in the field which may be very lucrative given global trends. It invests in R&D, and makes sure that workers in these new industries are given a living wage. 

Now, to continue your exercise in "democracy", are you in favor of big oil companies receiving your tax money so they can continue to enjoy a monopoly in the energy sector? They seek to suppress emerging technologies, and would have America fall behind in the race to innovate and create new processes, technologies and markets: would you grant them this benefit while giving them your tax dollars? Or would you like some of that money to be spent finding ways to dump less toxins into our lakes, streams and air while maintaining or improving our current level of economic output and individual freedoms? R&D is ALWAYS a risk, yet look what happens when Americans innovate... whole new markets and revenue streams are created out of whole cloth and we grow richer as a country.

Are you for or against infrastructure improvements? 

Seems you may be only opposed to a couple of items in The New Green Deal, but aren't familiar with the "democratic process". By "negotiating", you can find "common ground". Insulting your "opponents", when they are so closely aligned to your goals, is bad business and bad citizenship.

 

Why does  "common ground" sound like ," You get foolish needless wasteful programs and I get the bills" when it comes from the left?

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Did you find this one?  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/

Here ya go,

Clicking links must be toooo haarrrdd

Steve Fetter, dean of the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy, supplies an answer:
If the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has accurately estimated the planet's economically accessible uranium resources, reactors could run more than 200 years at current rates of consumption.

Most of the 2.8 trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity generated worldwide from nuclear power every year is produced in light-water reactors (LWRs) using low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel. About 10 metric tons of natural uranium go into producing a metric ton of LEU, which can then be used to generate about 400 million kilowatt-hours of electricity, so present-day reactors require about 70,000 metric tons of natural uranium a year.

According to the NEA, identified uranium resources total 5.5 million metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain undiscovered—a roughly 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in total. Further exploration and improvements in extraction technology are likely to at least double this estimate over time.

Using more enrichment work could reduce the uranium needs of LWRs by as much as 30 percent per metric ton of LEU. And separating plutonium and uranium from spent LEU and using them to make fresh fuel could reduce requirements by another 30 percent. Taking both steps would cut the uranium requirements of an LWR in half.

Two technologies could greatly extend the uranium supply itself. Neither is economical now, but both could be in the future if the price of uranium increases substantially. First, the extraction of uranium from seawater would make available 4.5 billion metric tons of uranium—a 60,000-year supply at present rates. Second, fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors, which generate more fuel than they consume, would use less than 1 percent of the uranium needed for current LWRs. Breeder reactors could match today's nuclear output for 30,000 years using only the NEA-estimated supplies.

Incidentally, reprocessing spent fuel is an engineering solution.

 

You seem to be suffering under the delusion that I offered an opinion or argument about how large a supply we have.

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

"One of the biggest problems that we have is 200 million Americans make less than $20,000 a year. That’s 40 percent of this country." - AOC

 

In 2014, 38% of Americans earned less than $20,000 according to the government.

And according to this article, the number of job losses in Seattle isn't as bad as your doom-sayers would have you believe. Your nattering nabobs of negativity are quoting a UW study published in 2017. This SAME TEAM revisited the data in December 2018, and have revised their opinion. So please, try to be up to date with your facts.

Sorry to embarrass you again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, warbird said:

Why does  "common ground" sound like ," You get foolish needless wasteful programs and I get the bills" when it comes from the left?

So you are arguing that tax benefits to oils companies to continue their hegemony is in your benefit? That growth and expansion of our economy is bad, and research and development are contrary to the American way?

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

You seem to be suffering under the delusion that I offered an opinion or argument about how large a supply we have.

No but you piled on the attack on me. When the only point I was making was we are not running out in the near future. 

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

No but you piled on the attack on me. When the only point I was making was we are not running out in the near future. 

Oooooh.  I "piled on".  A new buzzword you and your elk have adopted.

There is an understood standard around here to provide a cite when quoting.

Perhaps you were unaware of such a thing.

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

Oooooh.  I "piled on".  A new buzzword you and your elk have adopted.

There is an understood standard around here to provide a cite when quoting.

Perhaps you were unaware of such a thing.

Could you point out the cite in Steams post.  The one I was responding to.  

In other words thanks  for confirming what we all know

Different standards based on how a poster’s political leanings are  perceived. 

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

In 2014, 38% of Americans earned less than $20,000 according to the government.

And according to this article, the number of job losses in Seattle isn't as bad as your doom-sayers would have you believe. Your nattering nabobs of negativity are quoting a UW study published in 2017. This SAME TEAM revisited the data this year, and have reversed their opinion. So please, try to be up to date with your facts.

Sorry to embarrass you again.

JZK isn't particularly good at staying up to date with science

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

Could you point out the cite in Steams post.  The one I was responding to.  

In other words thanks  for confirming what we all know

Different standards based on how a poster’s political leanings are  perceived. 

I saw what you included in your post and did a Google search to see what I could find regarding uranium availability.  My sense was it is not as plentiful as you made it seem.  Imagine my surprise, when I clicked on the first link (other than a Wiki page) to find the exact sentence you posted.  You didn't cite it, and I pointed that out.

Now, in reading Steam's post, it was clear to me he was expressing his opinion.  I've never asked someone to provide a cite for an opinion, unless the opinion contains questionable data/information.  

You are perfectly free to feel butthurt.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

JZK wants us to think that the National Review is a credible course (to fact-check AOC). 

It is not.  

Lesson - the media of the Reich lies as a matter of course, and is even worse than the corporate MSM. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites