2014 set to be hottest year ever

ginjawarrior said:

My job is as close to carbon neutral as can be

My house is lit by led lights and my appliances are all energy efficient, and its well insulated

However that's not enough, the main drive has to be large scale, that is why I'm a strong supporter of nuclear power as the answer to AGW. We have technology to build nuclear power plants that can "burn" the long lived nuclear "waste" leaving only short lived waste (few hundred years)

But my position is one that's stuck between the feckless climate deniers and the feckless green "nimbys"

Hopefully soon both sides will get their heads out of their arises and start fixing problem

Click to expand...

So you haven't done anything really.
A couple of light bulbs that you had no choice in, a few appliances that are new, and a house that's well insulated. These are the things that everyone has done since the cost of electricity has ballooned. In other words, you did all of those things under self interest so that you could pay less.

Is your job one that you created? If not then you don't get to take credit for its "Greeness"
I will assume you drive to work?

Nuclear power? Sure, too dangerous. Already got parts of the world that are inhabitable due to such great ideas.
Thorium reactors might be your only bet. But big nuclear business will have it so regulated that it won't be a viable option. And oBama will sign such legislation if he has the chance, anything for big business.

Being a supporter of Nuclear energy doesn't do jack shit to lessen your carbon footprint one bit.

NoDrama said:

So you haven't done anything really.
A couple of light bulbs that you had no choice in, a few appliances that are new, and a house that's well insulated. These are the things that everyone has done since the cost of electricity has ballooned. In other words, you did all of those things under self interest so that you could pay less.

Is your job one that you created? If not then you don't get to take credit for its "Greeness"
I will assume you drive to work?

Nuclear power? Sure, too dangerous. Already got parts of the world that are inhabitable due to such great ideas.
Thorium reactors might be your only bet. But big nuclear business will have it so regulated that it won't be a viable option. And oBama will sign such legislation if he has the chance, anything for big business.

Being a supporter of Nuclear energy doesn't do jack shit to lessen your carbon footprint one bit.

Click to expand...

Is that the best you've got? Lol that was a good little rant, I see I've pissed you off nicely

Nuclear power is one of the safest power sources we have. Now I know you'll shrilly point to Chernobyl (a badly designed reactor that the technicians blew up with fecklessness) and Fukushima (one of worlds oldest reactors hit by one of biggest earthquakes in modern history then a fucking tsunami) but rest of world old fleet are working perfectly safely. And any new reactors built should be new generation where its walk away safe

You say it won't cut my footprint but you just have to look to France who heavily use nuclear and their footprint is about world average

Now I'm not against people like yourself slapping up a few solar panels for that warm "feel good" idea that your solving something . but realistically its a tiny band aid on a wound that needs open surgery

You also have to look at land use the solar panels in your PIC (I haven't yet googled to see if you stole PIC) are on the ground rather than rooftop. To power entire united states your looking at a land use comparable to the state of arizon. There's ecological problems with that, same with many other renewables. Nuclear provides power using a minute fraction of the land

As I said it has to be large scale so big business and government involvement will be mandatory, just need to get past the "nimbys" irrational fear and "deniers” idiotic stance

ginjawarrior said:

Is that the best you've got? Lol that was a good little rant, I see I've pissed you off nicely

Nuclear power is one of the safest power sources we have. Now I know you'll shrilly point to Chernobyl (a badly designed reactor that the technicians blew up with fecklessness) and Fukushima (one of worlds oldest reactors hit by one of biggest earthquakes in modern history then a fucking tsunami) but rest of world old fleet are working perfectly safely. And any new reactors built should be new generation where its walk away safe

You say it won't cut my footprint but you just have to look to France who heavily use nuclear and their footprint is about world average

Now I'm not against people like yourself slapping up a few solar panels for that warm "feel good" idea that your solving something . but realistically its a tiny band aid on a wound that needs open surgery

You also have to look at land use the solar panels in your PIC (I haven't yet googled to see if you stole PIC) are on the ground rather than rooftop. To power entire united states your looking at a land use comparable to the state of arizon. There's ecological problems with that, same with many other renewables. Nuclear provides power using a minute fraction of the land

As I said it has to be large scale so big business and government involvement will be mandatory, just need to get past the "nimbys" irrational fear and "deniers” idiotic stance

Click to expand...

There is no problem with the climate that we should or even could "solve".

I also saw NOTHING in ND's post that would make anyone suspect he's mad. It was a clearly written rebuttal with no name calling. That's the new thing now, anyone who responds is having a "rant" or "meltdown". You people bore me with your unoriginality, more Kynes and undertheice, please.

MuyLocoNC said:

There is no problem with the climate that we should or even could "solve".

I also saw NOTHING in ND's post that would make anyone suspect he's mad. It was a clearly written rebuttal with no name calling. That's the new thing now, anyone who responds is having a "rant" or "meltdown". You people bore me with your unoriginality, more Kynes and undertheice, please.

Click to expand...

yeah, no doubt that you want to hear more from the guy who can't do exponents and calls white supremacist phillipe rushton a "respected academic".

you birds of a feather are like that.

UncleBuck said:

yeah, no doubt that you want to hear more from the guy who can't do exponents and calls white supremacist phillipe rushton a "respected academic".

you birds of a feather are like that.

Click to expand...

Didn't I just clearly say I wanted more Kynes? Thanks for explaining something that needed no explanation.

MuyLocoNC said:

Didn't I just clearly say I wanted more Kynes? Thanks for explaining something that needed no explanation.

Click to expand...

You forgot to say "meltdown".

MuyLocoNC said:

You forgot to say "meltdown".

Click to expand...

lol, you quoted your own post.

no need for me to point out the meltdown, that is self-explanatory when you end up quoting your own posts.

MuyLocoNC said:

You forgot to say "meltdown".

Click to expand...

Actually, I decided that's my new thing. You scream meltdown, I quote my own posts. It's more interesting than 99.99% of your material.

MuyLocoNC said:

There is no problem with the climate that we should or even could "solve".

Click to expand...

that would be your opinion from which as far as I can tell comes from an incredibly limited understanding of the facts...

I also saw NOTHING in ND's post that would make anyone suspect he's mad. It was a clearly written rebuttal with no name calling. That's the new thing now, anyone who responds is having a "rant" or "meltdown". You people bore me with your unoriginality, more Kynes and undertheice, please.

Click to expand...

So nothing substantial to add?

No clearly written rebuttals?

Just a plea for other posters to come help?

Need a cookie?

MuyLocoNC said:

I quote my own posts.

Click to expand...

which is even more hilarious than you screaming for racists to come help you!

ginjawarrior said:

Is that the best you've got? Lol that was a good little rant, I see I've pissed you off nicely

Nuclear power is one of the safest power sources we have. Now I know you'll shrilly point to Chernobyl (a badly designed reactor that the technicians blew up with fecklessness) and Fukushima (one of worlds oldest reactors hit by one of biggest earthquakes in modern history then a fucking tsunami) but rest of world old fleet are working perfectly safely. And any new reactors built should be new generation where its walk away safe

You say it won't cut my footprint but you just have to look to France who heavily use nuclear and their footprint is about world average

Now I'm not against people like yourself slapping up a few solar panels for that warm "feel good" idea that your solving something . but realistically its a tiny band aid on a wound that needs open surgery

You also have to look at land use the solar panels in your PIC (I haven't yet googled to see if you stole PIC) are on the ground rather than rooftop. To power entire united states your looking at a land use comparable to the state of arizon. There's ecological problems with that, same with many other renewables. Nuclear provides power using a minute fraction of the land

As I said it has to be large scale so big business and government involvement will be mandatory, just need to get past the "nimbys" irrational fear and "deniers” idiotic stance

Click to expand...

How does supporting nuclear power make your carbon footprint smaller? Why won't you answer this question? Because you just argued that it does. You support it all you want, but if tomorrow we still have global warming, then it didn't work.

As far as Nuclear power, Let me ask you a question, how are you going to get rid of all the old ones? What are you going to do with them? You gonna magically make them disappear? Is your name Copperfield?

Nuclear energy one of the safer power options? How many people have died from solar panel use? Wind Turbine use? Gas plant use? Coal plant use? Do you have any figures?
Nuclear power is the kind of disaster that just keeps on giving for a thousand years, the way we do it is a disaster, it will never be a viable option. too many people get reminded of the terrible consequences every day. Just because the news isn't telling you that life in the Pacific ocean is dying in huge numbers doesn't mean it isn't happening. When the government raises the minimum safe daily radiation limit to 10,000 times its previous limit, do you think they are making that decision in your best interest?

Just about every energy source is SAFER than Nuclear, but a few are much dirtier, except Solar. Solar is the only viable option. Panels on every rooftop will solve all energy problems.

NoDrama said:

How does supporting nuclear power make your carbon footprint smaller? Why won't you answer this question? Because you just argued that it does. You support it all you want, but if tomorrow we still have global warming, then it didn't work.

Click to expand...

you do understand the only carbon costs involved with nuclear is building of reactors? Once they're up and running they are carbon free..
Now obviously I can't go out in my backyard and knock one up on my own but I'll happily support one being built in my neighbourhood and will vote for candidate who supports them ( main reason I will never vote green)

As far as Nuclear power, Let me ask you a question, how are you going to get rid of all the old ones? What are you going to do with them? You gonna magically make them disappear? Is your name Copperfield?

Click to expand...

This must be one of stupidest questions I've heard in a while...

Keep using them until its time to decommission them....

What were you planning on doing with them?

I've already mentioned upthread that we can "burn" long lived "waste" from them

Nuclear energy one of the safer power options? How many people have died from solar panel use? Wind Turbine use? Gas plant use? Coal plant use? Do you have any figures?

Click to expand...

Yes of course


Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)

Coal – global average 170,000 (50% global electricity)

Coal – China 280,000 (75% China’s electricity)

Coal – U.S. 15,000 (44% U.S. electricity)

Oil 36,000 (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)

Natural Gas 4,000 (20% global electricity)

Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy)

Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity)

Wind 150 (~ 1% global electricity)

Hydro – global average 1,400 (15% global electricity)

Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

Now let's see if you can be grown up enough to believe it...

Nuclear power is the kind of disaster that just keeps on giving for a thousand years, the way we do it is a disaster, it will never be a viable option.

Click to expand...

Hysterical twaffle

too many people get reminded of the terrible consequences every day. Just because the news isn't telling you that life in the Pacific ocean is dying in huge numbers doesn't mean it isn't happening. When the government raises the minimum safe daily radiation limit to 10,000 times its previous limit, do you think they are making that decision in your best interest?

Click to expand...

yet more hysterical twaffle

Just about every energy source is SAFER than Nuclear,

Click to expand...

Citation needed

but a few are much dirtier, except Solar. Solar is the only viable option. Panels on every rooftop will solve all energy problems.

Click to expand...

So you've gone and gotten your "feel good" solar panels and you think they will "solve all energy problems" lol

What is USA energy usage and how many panels will you need to fulfill that?

Work it out in square milage then compare it to Arizona

ginjawarrior said:

Just a plea for other posters to come help?

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

which is even more hilarious than you screaming for racists to come help you!

Click to expand...

As CLEARLY stated and now repeated for these two halfwits, more Kynes and undertheice to break through the BOREDOM and lack of originality. There was no call for help.

I crap chunks of stool scarier than both of you knuckleheads.

MuyLocoNC said:

As CLEARLY stated and now repeated for these two halfwits, more Kynes and undertheice to break through the BOREDOM and lack of originality. There was no call for help.

I crap chunks of stool scarier than both of you knuckleheads.

Click to expand...

So nothing substantial to add?

No clearly written rebuttals?

Yet another plea for other posters to come help?

Are you sure you don't need a cookie? They've got chocolate chips in...

ginjawarrior said:

So nothing substantial to add?

No clearly written rebuttals?

Yet another plea for other posters to come help?

Are you sure you don't need a cookie? They've got chocolate chips in...

Click to expand...

Aww, how cute. He thinks he's under my skin. There, there, little guy. Being caught red-handed as a UB parrot and bootlicker isn't the end of the world. No need to double down and use his Hannityesque repetition.

damn you guys just got pizowned.

UncleBuck said:

What is USA energy usage and how many panels will you need to fulfill that?

Work it out in square milage then compare it to Arizona

Click to expand...

Already did it.
http://www.dlr.de/tt/Portaldata/41/Resources/dokumente/institut/system/projects/Ecobalance_of_a_Solar_Electricity_Transmission.pdf

the number of solar panels needed to supply the entire world’s energy needs would fill just 25,000 square miles – or an area only slightly larger than the state of West Virginia.

Know why you put panels on the ground? You won't get killed when you fall off a 30 foot roof. Thats also why the study only took into account roof top panels. If it had used ground based, then it would have been nearly 0.

WOOPS


Solar doesn't kill birds or cause other damage to flying things like turbines. Solar doesn't have any disposal problems. Solar is the greenest of all power production methods, also the most reliable.

I've been here talking to nodrama what's your purpose in this thread?

MuyLocoNC said:

Aww, how cute. He thinks he's under my skin. There, there, little guy. Being caught red-handed as a UB parrot and bootlicker isn't the end of the world. No need to double down and use his Hannityesque repetition.

Click to expand...

So nothing substantial to add?

No clearly written rebuttals?

If you want a cookie its alright to ask....

ginjawarrior said:

I've been here talking to nodrama what's your purpose in this thread?

Click to expand...

How does support of Nuclear energy make your carbon footprint smaller? Its the 3rd time I have had to ask you this question, but you keep answering me with why nuclear energy is better, not how your enthusiasm for something creates a direct benefit to the pollution your lifestyle causes.

I support Penguins, but it hasn't made any effect on them.

NoDrama said:

Already did it.
http://www.dlr.de/tt/Portaldata/41/Resources/dokumente/institut/system/projects/Ecobalance_of_a_Solar_Electricity_Transmission.pdf

the number of solar panels needed to supply the entire world’s energy needs would fill just 25,000 square miles – or an area only slightly larger than the state of West Virginia.

Click to expand...

OK page number? And energy figures on page? American average, European or world average? Your not linking a 186 page PDF without having read it have you?

If that daunts you I get my numbers from here
http://www.withouthotair.com/c30/page_231.shtml

Know why you put panels on the ground? You won't get killed when you fall off a 30 foot roof. Thats also why the study only took into account roof top panels. If it had used ground based, then it would have been nearly 0.

Click to expand...

I'll let you answer that one...

NoDrama said:

Solar Panels on every rooftop will solve all energy problems.

Click to expand...

WOOPS

Click to expand...

woops indeed...

Solar doesn't kill birds or cause other damage to flying things like turbines. Solar doesn't have any disposal problems. Solar is the greenest of all power production methods, also the most reliable.

Click to expand...

You don't think covering the land with 10's of thousands of square miles is going to effect the local wildlife? Is it green to use that land in that way