California, China sign climate deal after Trump's Paris exit

[AaronY]

The entire project has at least as large a carbon footprint as nuclear. It's like the Tesla and other hybrid or electric cars; sure they make the owner feel like they are helping the planet and saving money, but in reality they are spending more and the processes for creating that vehicle are at least as contaminated if not more so than those for creating gas powered vehicles. But I get the sentiment, it's just we aren't children so feeling better about ourselves shouldn't be the goal but it's a very marketable emotion and folks fall for it.

Would you want to live near a nuclear power plant?

I would not care at all knowing how rare the accidents are. Read the opposite of what you're saying about it: https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...lobal-warming/
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/o...ear-power.html

Most of the stuff written against it is from shrieking liberal pussyhat/Greenpeace type morons from what I've seen so surprised you're against it.

[spurraider21]

I would not care at all knowing how rare the accidents are. Read the opposite of what you're saying about it: https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...lobal-warming/
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/o...ear-power.html

Most of the stuff written against it is from shrieking liberal pussyhat/Greenpeace type morons from what I've seen so surprised you're against it.

the main issue is cost, which the ScientificAmerican piece you posted talks about...

so what i dont get is when CN says "why dont we just use nuclear instead of a distribution of wealth scheme" when in reality, we'd need to redistribute a load of money to get poorer countries on a nuclear path, and that's provided that we are confident we've come to a point where we wont have to power down the reactors in the face of a heat wave or other cir stances. disposal and storage of waste also doesn't have any great long term solutions yet. it's not a perfected craft by any stretch.

again, like i said, i do see nuclear as the path we end up on, but it's not something we can willy nilly just do, and the only thing holding us back so far is greenpeace fear-mongering.

or we can just do what they did in futurama and cancel global warming with nuclear winter by just blowing up a bunch of bombs

[AaronY]

I assume he was talking about nuclear here in the US tbh

[spurraider21]

I assume he was talking about nuclear here in the US tbh

when he talked about "globalist wealth redistribution" i figured he was talking about the international effort

[DMC]

so what you're saying is that when i call you PA, i am being PA... but when you call me PA, you are not being PA

Yes. You did it again.

[hater]

Lol Rick Perry in China. There should be a reality show on his travels

[pgardn]

The entire project has at least as large a carbon footprint as nuclear. It's like the Tesla and other hybrid or electric cars; sure they make the owner feel like they are helping the planet and saving money, but in reality they are spending more and the processes for creating that vehicle are at least as contaminated if not more so than those for creating gas powered vehicles. But I get the sentiment, it's just we aren't children so feeling better about ourselves shouldn't be the goal but it's a very marketable emotion and folks fall for it.

Would you want to live near a nuclear power plant?

So you are saying the process for creating... What about AFTER that. And the big problem with these cars will be recycling batteries as I understand it. As far as putting in the air, no. Did changing to unleaded gasoline in the US have any discernible desirable effects? It's not like we automatically poop on these ideas.

Who wants to live by a sewage treatment plant, but by-God they are all over?

[DMC]

and the courts didn't let him block the funding

tee hee

That's irrelevant. The point was that it's still a state decision.

[DMC]

So you are saying the process for creating... What about AFTER that. And the big problem with these cars will be recycling batteries as I understand it. As far as putting in the air, no. Did changing to unleaded gasoline in the US have any discernible desirable effects?

Who wants to live by a sewage treatment plant, but by-God they are all over?

We create sewage regardless. We don't create nuclear radiation regardless.

What about after it? How do you build the batteries, where do you recycle them? Are those locations and processes environmentally friendly?

You're just moving the problem to another, less visible site.

[Mark Celibate]

Most of the stuff written against it is from shrieking liberal pussyhat/Greenpeace type morons from what I've seen so surprised you're against it.

Not every issue is either black or white...or exclusively Right or Left in this case

[pgardn]

We create sewage regardless. We don't create nuclear radiation regardless.

What about after it? How do you build the batteries, where do you recycle them? Are those locations and processes environmentally friendly?

You're just moving the problem to another, less visible site.

But is the problem you have created more desirable? Unleaded gasoline has worked as far as Pb pollution so yes these things can work. If you want out of the air this could work. You still have to power them via plants unless you can use solar charging stations which is being planned.

If then goal is getting out of the air it's a plus.

Nuclear could be very useful in certain situations. Saying who wants to live by them is not really relevant. People live by lots of nasty , it still gets built. Whoever lives down river or down prevailing wind in any city knows this.

Personall I like the wind turbines down in the gulf planes in Texas. Great idea. Something to look at.

[DMC]

But is the problem you have created more desirable? Unleaded gasoline has worked as far as Pb pollution so yes these things can work. If you want out of the air this could work. You still have to power them via plants unless you can use solar charging stations which is being planned.

If then goal is getting out of the air it's a plus.

Nuclear could be very useful in certain situations. Saying who wants to live by them is not really relevant. People live by lots of nasty , it still gets built. Whoever lives down river or down prevailing wind in any city knows this.

Personall I like the wind turbines down in the gulf planes in Texas. Great idea. Something to look at.

i'm ok with things that don't cost billions to try and the worst that can happen is a lot of noise and a few dead birds. Nuclear power works great, but the ramifications of an accident are far and above anything from other sources. Acute issues vs chronic. I almost always prefer the chronic ones.

It's not about where you want to live. It's about trust. Do you trust the plant? I know if I live near a sewage treatment facility that I don't have to be concerned with the half life of .

[leemajors]

But is the problem you have created more desirable? Unleaded gasoline has worked as far as Pb pollution so yes these things can work. If you want out of the air this could work. You still have to power them via plants unless you can use solar charging stations which is being planned.

If then goal is getting out of the air it's a plus.

Nuclear could be very useful in certain situations. Saying who wants to live by them is not really relevant. People live by lots of nasty , it still gets built. Whoever lives down river or down prevailing wind in any city knows this.

Personall I like the wind turbines down in the gulf planes in Texas. Great idea. Something to look at.

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

They tried to store waste in boxes and tanks lined with aluminum foil. I believe they also had a "bottomless pit" they dumped waste into. Needless to say there are underground radioactive plumes moving towards or already leaking into the Columbia River.

[AaronY]

Not every issue is either black or white...or exclusively Right or Left in this case

What he is saying doesn't jibe with any of the facts I've read tho and the "would I live next door" stuff sounded like hippy stuff since there are like 100 nuclear plants operating around the country without any incident

[spurraider21]

Not every issue is either black or white...or exclusively Right or Left in this case

For you everything is exclusively jew or gentile tbh

[Mark Celibate]

For you everything is exclusively jew or gentile tbh

still searching far and wide for a solid climate change Jew pic tbh

[pgardn]

i'm ok with things that don't cost billions to try and the worst that can happen is a lot of noise and a few dead birds. Nuclear power works great, but the ramifications of an accident are far and above anything from other sources. Acute issues vs chronic. I almost always prefer the chronic ones.

It's not about where you want to live. It's about trust. Do you trust the plant? I know if I live near a sewage treatment facility that I don't have to be concerned with the half life of .

Any new technology will cost more before its mass produced. We stick with hydrocarbons because the infrastructure is firmly in place. We have known from the 1800s it causes massive problems. Go to Bejiing. The question is do you invest for the future. All these energy technologies have there place IMO. Solar and wind are infinitely cleaner for air and water which are very direct paths into biological systems.

Nuclear could be considered acute and chronic problems.

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

They tried to store waste in boxes and tanks lined with aluminum foil. I believe they also had a "bottomless pit" they dumped waste into. Needless to say there are underground radioactive plumes moving towards or already leaking into the Columbia River.

There are natural sources of radioactivity that are dangerous as well. Nuclear is a transition energy technology IMO but still worthy in certain situations. And we definitely need to think about the Navy and its Subs as well. Research facilities on college campuses... Hospitals... and on...

Its also a concentration issue. You have radioactive elements in your body. Nuclear is definitely a very high concentration problem. But one could theoretically take stuff from a hospital and poison large parts of cities.

The South Texas Nuclear plant supplies us energy. Remove it, your bill goes up. We then go to hydrocarbons. They will be the cheapest now. It's not an easy problem.

[CosmicCowboy]

Old Jerry wants to run for Prez in 2020

[CosmicCowboy]

The entire project has at least as large a carbon footprint as nuclear. It's like the Tesla and other hybrid or electric cars; sure they make the owner feel like they are helping the planet and saving money, but in reality they are spending more and the processes for creating that vehicle are at least as contaminated if not more so than those for creating gas powered vehicles. But I get the sentiment, it's just we aren't children so feeling better about ourselves shouldn't be the goal but it's a very marketable emotion and folks fall for it.


Would you want to live near a nuclear power plant?

Electric cars being "green" is a ing joke. A power plant burns carbon based fuel to produce electricity at less than 40% efficiency so they can plug their "green" car in.

[clambake]

but i can't see a power plant from here.


thats for affordable housing.

[CosmicCowboy]

but i can't see a power plant from here.


thats for affordable housing.

[DMC]

What he is saying doesn't jibe with any of the facts I've read tho and the "would I live next door" stuff sounded like hippy stuff since there are like 100 nuclear plants operating around the country without any incident

You didn't answer the question though. Nuclear plants, like most plants, lack transparency in how they operate, what problems they do find, what they do about it. Instead, you're expected to just get on with your life and trust this company/agency has your best interests in mind. Whether the fear is warranted or not, you're at the mercy of a profit driven corporation and a federal agency that subcontracts to the lowest bidder.

[pgardn]

Electric cars being "green" is a ing joke. A power plant burns carbon based fuel to produce electricity at less than 40% efficiency so they can plug their "green" car in.

So what puts more in the air. The power plant charging an electric car. Or the gasoline vehicle that puts into the air, and the transport of bringing that fuel to the gas station?

[ducks]

Cal should not be part of the USA

[RandomGuy]

Old Jerry wants to run for Prez in 2020

Jerry would kick the out of any clown that might emerge from the GOP clown car. Don't underestimate the damage Donald "Fraud University" Trump is doing to the GOP brand.