Fossil Fuels are Not the Enemy

[traxiii]

There's no reason to assume diesel fuel supply would be interrupted in a grid blackout, but if you want to consider it, sure. The plant I worked at had somewhere around a quarter of a million gallons of diesel stored onsite, in underground tanks. We had enough to run every diesel generator on site for weeks at full loading. Our backup pumper truck could get water up to the fuel pool for weeks with the amount of fuel we had for it, especially considering you wouldn't need to run it constantly to keep water levels high enough.
I'm not sure what our makeup rate was, and I haven't worked there in a few years now, but it wasn't much. All we had to deal with was evaporation. I doubt anyone turned the pumps off just to see what would happen, that sort of thing can get you in trouble with the NRC.
I'm not sure what you included this graph for, it's not particularly illuminating. Yes, spent nuclear fuel generates waste heat for some time after it's pulled from a reactor. It is low enough within a couple of years that the fuel no longer needs any form of active cooling, and it can be removed from the pool, placed in dry cask storage, and left on a concrete pad until, as you put it earlier, the heat death of the universe. A good rule of thumb for decay heat is that for fuel that was just in a reactor, or still is in the event of a shutdown, is the decay heat in the fuel will be about 10% of the full power of the reactor. So if you have a 1000MW reactor and shut it down the fuel will continue to put out about 100MW of heat.
As a final note I find it hard to believe you've researched anything about nuclear power when you say something to the effect of "all the plants going critical at the same time, and no way to stop it". All criticality means in a reactor is that the power level is exactly stable, or more accurately that the neutron population inside the reactor is not increasing or decreasing. When the reactor is shutdown it's dropped to a really low level and is decreasing slowly but steadily, and is called 'subcritical'. When the neutron population is increasing, like when you change power levels in the operating reactor, the reactor is supercritical, and this is only bad when it's not intended or controlled. Chernobyl blew up because they went extremely supercritical and the reactor changed power extremely quickly and to far too high of a level, causing a steam explosion in their core.
Every U.S. reactor is capable of being shutdown, and therefore subcritical just by inserting all of their control rods. There's no feasible situation where a U.S. reactor can go critical and have no way of stopping it from a grid power loss.

They all have containment structures, unlike Chernobyl, but that has nothing to do with what is being designed out there now. Nuclear is the answer. New techniques and technologies are being developed and deployed, unfortunately, mostly by other countries, not the United States. If we took half the money we have given faux-green, solar and wind in subsidies, and spent it on research and deployment of new nuclear technologies, we would be well on our way to a truly clean energy source. These include reactors that use spent fuel from older tech. reactors for fuel, and are safe and stable. Check out the writing of former anti-nuke activist Michael Shellenberger and his group Environmental Progress. Read up on Thorium, Molten Salt reactors and more. The answer to the power problem is there, it just needs funding, but the "greenies" and the establishment would rather take away our choices and give our money to their cronies.

In the mean time there is well over 50 years worth of oil and 100 years worth of natural gas in known reserves, and more found every year, with only a fraction of the earth being explored. We have plenty of time to develop these technologies if we spend money on the right things.

Sponsored

 

[traxiii]

I agree. I am 55 and my son is 21. My son has no interest in automobiles, but is extremely enthusiastic about automation. He hopes that city transportation becomes more automated and will gladly relocate to such a place. My wife’s friends (in their 50’s) do not understand why I still drive a car with a manual transmission. Most of her friends are hoping to see self-driving vehicles in the near future. Remember the Wedway People Mover of the mid-70’s? With Wedway, the seemingly harmless amusement ride presented an experience with self-driven EV transportation technology while you outwardly observed potential urban planning for the cities of tomorrow. The first time I experienced the ride at the age of 11, I remember that I was taken in by the awe and wonder of the moment. A little later myself and the family had a seat for a bite to eat in the same area of the amusement park, and I remember a conversation concerning the ride. My father (muscle car enthusiast) said to my brother (5 years older than me and also a muscle car fan) something to the effect that Wedway is not your friend and that someday very large corporations will be making the rules and telling you how to live.

The only "self-driven" car I would ever be interested in would be a hot female chauffeur driving me around in my Shelby after my legs stop working.

 

[Burkey]

I really wish this was nothing more than satire.

 

[traxiii]

When Lithium, Cadmium and rare earth metals mining operations stop using child, and or slave laborers.
When they find something besides petroleum based plastic they make half their cars out of. "Hippocrates"
When they figure out a way to put out Lithium battery fires, rather than just cooling them with thousands of gallons of water to keep the road from disintegrating underneath them.
When they start building clean Nuclear power plants to charge them, rather than relying on slave labor built solar panels from Communist China or giant turbines that have their giant blades buried in land fills after their short lifespans.
When coal and oil fired power plants aren't needed to fill the gap for when its dark, cloudy, snows, or the wind doesn't blow.
When they figure out how to keep their giant turbine blades from chopping up the great birds of prey, eagles, hawks, owls, condors, etc.
When they stop covering the desert with giant patches of solar panels that ruin the habitat of desert tortoise and other critters.
When they stop the giant mirror type solar tower systems from vaporizing birds in mid-flight.
When they stop lying about "global warming""climate change", "carbon dioxide", and quit changing the historical data to try and support their nonsense. (Yes, the climate changes, it has never in history stayed constant. The Earth has been warmer, and cooler, and CO2 has been 15 times as prevalent and when Earth's great explosion of life happened, it was 10 times the 400ppm it is today. Humans are a very small source of it, Just think where all the coal and oil we use came from. It came from trees and other plants that took CO2 from the air and converted it to their growth. Which over time was converted by the Earth into hydrocarbons for us to use and re-release the CO2 into the atmosphere to be used by plants and converted again. Man didn't make it, we only released what was once in the air before, by plants.)
Then and only then will I support EV for anything other than golf carts.

 

[Burkey]

When they stop lying about "global warming""climate change", "carbon dioxide", and quit changing the historical data to try and support their nonsense. (Yes, the climate changes, it has never in history stayed constant. The Earth has been warmer, and cooler, and CO2 has been 15 times as prevalent and when Earth's great explosion of life happened, it was 10 times the 400ppm it is today. Humans are a very small source of it, Just think where all the coal and oil we use came from. It came from trees and other plants that took CO2 from the air and converted it to their growth. Which over time was converted by the Earth into hydrocarbons for us to use and re-release the CO2 into the atmosphere to be used by plants and converted again. Man didn't make it, we only released what was once in the air before, by plants.)
Then and only then will I support EV for anything other than golf carts.

This part highlights just how poorly you understand what’s going on and how poorly you grasp the history of this planet.

 

[K4fxd]

This part highlights just how poorly you understand what’s going on and how poorly you grasp the history of this planet.

He gets it, you sir have drank the kool-aid

 

[Burkey]

He gets it, you sir have drank the kool-aid

It’s called having a basic understanding of the scientific principals involved, looking at the objections and then working out why and how the objections have been disproven. The only people drinking the Kool-aid are those who haven’t actually looked at the science properly, or those who are easily convinced/manipulated by reading blogs and shit that echo the sentiments they want to hear.
I can listen to fuckwits like Tony Heller for about 10 seconds before I spot the flaws in his assertions. The average mouth-breather just absorbs his BS, without bothering to fact-check any of it.
Climate “skeptics” indeed. Lol.
Literally the LEAST sceptical group of people you could ever encounter, outside of young Earth creationists and flat earthers.

 

[traxiii]

It’s called having a basic understanding of the scientific principals involved, looking at the objections and then working out why and how the objections have been disproven. The only people drinking the Kool-aid are those who haven’t actually looked at the science properly, or those who are easily convinced/manipulated by reading blogs and shit that echo the sentiments they want to hear.
I can listen to fuckwits like Tony Heller for about 10 seconds before I spot the flaws in his assertions. The average mouth-breather just absorbs his BS, without bothering to fact-check any of it.
Climate “skeptics” indeed. Lol.
Literally the LEAST sceptical group of people you could ever encounter, outside of young Earth creationists and flat earthe

It's funny, because if you actually listened to what people like Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Green Peace, Michael Shellenberger, who also started out a big Greenie, as well as Tony Heller and many other are saying, you might open your mind.
Tony is a scientist in the true sense of the word, with degrees in Geology, Electrical Engineering, Computer Science and Geochemistry as well as being a wildlife photographer, someone who testified to Congress in support of Wilderness, and is a former Wilderness Ranger. He has worked for both government and private research facilities in both Geology and Computer Science. If you actually read his credentials https://realclimatescience.com/who-is-tony-heller/ you would be impressed. But, you my "friend" have read too many hit piece articles on the man, and have no idea what really happened in the past and what government and educational institutions have done to monkey with the data.
I would love to see you prove that temperature records from the 1930s and '40s that were published a mere 25 or 30 years ago in their own publications, somehow got cooler every couple of years because it doesn't fit the narrative they use to provide their continuing funding. You need to go back and read the data published before the "warming" scare and see that it has been altered, just like they remover the medieval warm period.

 

[Burkey]

It's funny, because if you actually listened to what people like Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Green Peace, Michael Shellenberger, who also started out a big Greenie, as well as Tony Heller and many other are saying, you might open your mind.
Tony is a scientist in the true sense of the word, with degrees in Geology, Electrical Engineering, Computer Science and Geochemistry as well as being a wildlife photographer, someone who testified to Congress in support of Wilderness, and is a former Wilderness Ranger. He has worked for both government and private research facilities in both Geology and Computer Science. If you actually read his credentials https://realclimatescience.com/who-is-tony-heller/ you would be impressed. But, you my "friend" have read too many hit piece articles on the man, and have no idea what really happened in the past and what government and educational institutions have done to monkey with the data.
I would love to see you prove that temperature records from the 1930s and '40s that were published a mere 25 or 30 years ago in their own publications, somehow got cooler every couple of years because it doesn't fit the narrative they use to provide their continuing funding. You need to go back and read the data published before the "warming" scare and see that it has been altered, just like they remover the medieval warm period.

I’m sorry, but Tomy Heller is an absolute fuckwit who uses simple tactics to trick his audience of scientifcially illiterate followers.
Moore you say? The same guy who said you can drink Glyphosate but refused to do so when asked if he’d like to try some? THAT guy? Lol.
Science isn’t established by opinion. It’s established by research. What you or I think has no bearing on the veracity of the science.
Your ignorance isn’t proof of your position, it just show me that you don’t know certain things. If you did, you wouldn’t have made the claims you made.

 

[Burkey]

It's funny, because if you actually listened to what people like Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Green Peace, Michael Shellenberger, who also started out a big Greenie, as well as Tony Heller and many other are saying, you might open your mind.
Tony is a scientist in the true sense of the word, with degrees in Geology, Electrical Engineering, Computer Science and Geochemistry as well as being a wildlife photographer, someone who testified to Congress in support of Wilderness, and is a former Wilderness Ranger. He has worked for both government and private research facilities in both Geology and Computer Science. If you actually read his credentials https://realclimatescience.com/who-is-tony-heller/ you would be impressed. But, you my "friend" have read too many hit piece articles on the man, and have no idea what really happened in the past and what government and educational institutions have done to monkey with the data.
I would love to see you prove that temperature records from the 1930s and '40s that were published a mere 25 or 30 years ago in their own publications, somehow got cooler every couple of years because it doesn't fit the narrative they use to provide their continuing funding. You need to go back and read the data published before the "warming" scare and see that it has been altered, just like they remover the medieval warm period.

Here’s your “scientist” mate, Heller (and others) making an absolute mess of something that’s really quite simple.
I wonder how many of his viewers actually bothered to fact-check his claims?
Did he deliberately mislead his audience or is he just not qualified to be speaking on the topic in the first place?

 

[Shadow277]

It’s called having a basic understanding of the scientific principals involved, looking at the objections and then working out why and how the objections have been disproven. The only people drinking the Kool-aid are those who haven’t actually looked at the science properly, or those who are easily convinced/manipulated by reading blogs and shit that echo the sentiments they want to hear.
I can listen to fuckwits like Tony Heller for about 10 seconds before I spot the flaws in his assertions. The average mouth-breather just absorbs his BS, without bothering to fact-check any of it.
Climate “skeptics” indeed. Lol.
Literally the LEAST sceptical group of people you could ever encounter, outside of young Earth creationists and flat earthers.

Climate change is real. It changes 4 times a year.

 

[K4fxd]

Science isn’t established by opinion. It’s established by research

Why do the so called climate scientists need a "consensus?" If it was confirmed science a consensus would not be needed.

Michael Crichton wrote a book called State of Fear that weaves a fictional tale around the climate change BS. He references many governmental sources. Those sources are now either changed or no longer accessible.

I read the book when it came out and checked the sources, I re read it a few years ago and the info is gone.

 

[Burkey]

Why do the so called climate scientists need a "consensus?" If it was confirmed science a consensus would not be needed.

Michael Crichton wrote a book called State of Fear that weaves a fictional tale around the climate change BS. He references many governmental sources. Those sources are now either changed or no longer accessible.

I read the book when it came out and checked the sources, I re read it a few years ago and the info is gone.

The theory of Gravity is accepted by scientific consensus and was revised as new information came to hand.
Would you like to try and prove how it actually works? Are you ABSOLUTELY certain that it works by the methods you’ve seen described? Are you SURE? Any chance we might learn something new in the future?

This would work better if you understood that science is a process, rather than a declaration of absolute certainty.
Want to dispute germ theory whilst you’re going or are you happy that the scientists have a firm enough grip of it?
It’s funny how people only ever take issue with the scientific disciplines and findings that challenge their perceptions.

 

[traxiii]

I’m sorry, but Tomy Heller is an absolute fuckwit who uses simple tactics to trick his audience of scientifcially illiterate followers.
Moore you say? The same guy who said you can drink Glyphosate but refused to do so when asked if he’d like to try some? THAT guy? Lol.
Science isn’t established by opinion. It’s established by research. What you or I think has no bearing on the veracity of the science.
Your ignorance isn’t proof of your position, it just show me that you don’t know certain things. If you did, you wouldn’t have made the claims you made.

Science is not spitting out hundreds of climate model predictions based on wishful thinking and hunches. Most of your so called research is a never ending series of claims and computer models that NEVER come close to the predicting the future and can't explain the actual data from the past. So many wild claims and scare tactics like "the temperature will rise by 5 degrees in 30 years" only to be off by 4.3 out of 5, "The world will end in 13 years", "Glacier National Park will be glacier free by 2020" bullshit. They had to take the signs down at the park over a year ago because the glaciers have been actually growing the last few years. If their research was correct, their predictions would be correct, but they aren't, They Are WRONG! You Are WRONG! and your name calling is way out of line.

Just look at the historical data dude, your side is putting it's finger on the scale and admitted as such in the "climategate" email scandal. Your buddy, the dimwit J.F. Kerry admitted last week that if the U.S. was at zero carbon emissions it would not change the temperature one bit. But that is not stopping them from throwing money away, putting people out of work and burdening the people that they claim to want to help Poor and middle class are being subjected to higher taxes and energy prices, all to give money to their buddies, institutions and politicians that support their socialistic ideals.

 

[traxiii]

The theory of Gravity is accepted by scientific consensus and was revised as new information came to hand.
Would you like to try and prove how it actually works? Are you ABSOLUTELY certain that it works by the methods you’ve seen described? Are you SURE? Any chance we might learn something new in the future?

This would work better if you understood that science is a process, rather than a declaration of absolute certainty.
Want to dispute germ theory whilst you’re going or are you happy that the scientists have a firm enough grip of it?
It’s funny how people only ever take issue with the scientific disciplines and findings that challenge their perceptions.

Burkey, I think you are either a troll, mentally challenged or brainwashed. You must have had your access to actual research and real data blocked by a government that wants to put you in your place on a commune working for them.

I find it very difficult that anyone into Mustangs enough to be a member of this can support their "Green Agenda" or the elimination of petroleum products, which itself is almost impossible if you like phones, cars, trains, food, houses, and pretty much everything that makes our world awesome.

Sponsored