What does that have to do with climate change?
Nuclear power is a viable solution to some of the problem of AWG.
I’ve been trying to discuss that but if you want to attack me and take personal shots at, me then I’m justified in defending myself.
Or we can just get back to discussing nuclear power and what actually doomed the WPPSS project.
Nuclear power is only a possible solution for the perceived problems of AGW if the plants they would replace are contributing to global warming. In other words, it is peripheral to the topic, but not really on the topic.
But the doomed WPPSS nuclear project is not on topic. What was on topic was that environmentalists, who presumably care about stopping global warming, are intimately complicit with the difficulties that the nuclear power industry faces. You personally are expressing every excuse you can imagine why nuclear power, even the newest, safest designs, should not be built. Therefore, if nuclear power is a partial solution to global warming, then you are part of the problem.
Ah, still making it personal.
You brought up WPPSS with an unsupported allegation inducting environmentalists which you admitted ( without realizing it and probably unknowingly) to scapegoating the actual problems behind nuclear power which is inherent engineering and construction cost that is almost entirely up front. Has little if anything to do with environmentalists.
Zantax had an answer to every question about these new small reactors, so he wins the argument if the implementation actually delivers as promised (which is always suspect).
Whatever man. I cannot account for how you take disagreement with your posts. I have not attacked you at all; I have only attacked your position. But if you are going to take everything I say personally, perhaps you should just ignore me instead of picking a fight.
Now, how about we drop this and move on? (No reply required.)
Feel free to stop any time but I still think the discussion has merit. The idea that environmentalists are somehow sabotaging the future of nuclear energy is pretty hollow. These projects are failing for economic reasons even with massive government support.
Of course they are having economic difficulties. Lawsuits over permits (often filed against the Agencies that issue them) and the delays that causes, costs a LOT of money. Even the threat of a lawsuit will cause an Agency to delay issuance of a permit and demand “further study” of the project.
But more to topic, what would the magnitude of lessening of global warming be if every fossil fuel power plant on Earth was replaced with a nuclear plant? If the proponents of the CO2 theory are right, even a 100% reduction in CO2 emissions from all industrial countries were to be achieved, the status quo projected temperature increase by 2100 would only be reduced 0.2 C.
And even that would be easily wiped out by any unforeseen rise in either birth rates or standards of living.
Our regulatory history with nuke power is pretty poor.
Anyone following political development in Brasil? Presidential candidate Jair Bolsnaro is now favored to win the presidency. Environmental policies include eliminating the Ministry of Environment, reversing land protections for indigenous peoples and opening up these lands (the rainforests) to mining and agriculture (beef industry) and withdrawing from the Paris Agreement.
Man caused Climate change is a hoax. We’re very lucky to live during a inter-glacial warm period.
But feel free to stop using oil… Just think if all eco wacks did that…
If “green” energy is so great, why’s it so expensive? Shouldn’t Cal have the cheapest electricity of all states?.. But we don’t.
Oh, and I notice dust on bird poo on many solar panels, so that may add another 10 years before they produce more energy than it took to make them…
…Oh, wait, they don’t last 40 years, oh, well…
Of course I disagree, but even the hoaxers apparently are onboard with the planet warming by seven degrees by century’s end. Accepting that it is an important policy exercise to war game what that kind of world look like, what challenges it presents and what measures it would take to respond to those actions.
When I was a kid, the world was going to end form some climate disaster or another, “by the year 2000”… …
Why did the earth warm up the last 6 times?
…planet warming by seven degrees by century’s end"
What no link?
[quote=“Cratic3947, post:239, topic:13872”]If
“green” energy is so great, why’s it so expensive? Shouldn’t Cal have the cheapest electricity of all states?.. But we don’t.
Electricity rates in California are very expensive. There is a green energy proposition in Arizona here, but I am going to vote no on it. I don’t really like that proposition, and I don’t find it really necessary. The Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station produces about 35 percent of the electric power in Arizona here.
The left is worried the perimeter of the flat earth (Antartica) ringing the flat earth, will melt and ocean will fall off the edge.
When I was a kid that form was going to be an ice age. I’m glad it’s going to be warming instead. Food grows much better when its not covered by a glacier.