Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bert

To All The Environmental Idiots in the US & Canada

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, nobody said:

People don't understand this simple concept.  The country is so bad at science that when someone puts science next to something they think it can't be disputed.  The funny thing, is science is all about disputing everything.

The engineering science says that the most efficient wind and solar facility only produce electricity 35-40% of the time.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2021 at 8:07 PM, easilyscan said:

Thank you.

Something I read around 2015. In 1980, worldwide, there was 1 living wage job created for every 3 children born. 35 years later, 1 job for every 16 children.

 

 

 

 

Yet we almost encourage poor people to have several kids.  

Share this post


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

His belief that more windmills and solar farms are the magic bullet solution to global climate change is as stupid as Trump’s belief that it is all a hoax.  

Nuclear power is an interesting conundrum. Could be something of a magic bullet. On the other hand it’s absolutely catastrophic when something goes wrong and even under the most optimal circumstances no one knows what to do with the waste.

But, from an oil and gas guy, I see it as a diversionary tactic :dunno:

Share this post


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

The engineering science says that the most efficient wind and solar facility only produce electricity 35-40% of the time.  

At least that can be directly measured.  These climate models that are literally never correct are being used to make policy decisions because "science!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Nuclear power is an interesting conundrum. Could be something of a magic bullet. On the other hand it’s absolutely catastrophic when something goes wrong and even under the most optimal circumstances no one knows what to do with the waste.

But, from an oil and gas guy, I see it as a diversionary tactic :dunno:

Not true we use like 20% of the energy from nuclear and the only time you’ve ever heard of anything is from facilities built pre 1980. We’ve spent trillions on green energy since 1980 had we focused those resources into nuclear we would all have fission reactors in our house and it would be absolutely safe and zero carbon emissions. As a matter of fact deaths related to each type of injury shows nuclear as the lowest by a large margin

think about this we have had nuclear ships for how long now?  Ever hear of an issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Not true we use like 20% of the energy from nuclear and the only time you’ve ever heard of anything is from facilities built pre 1980. We’ve spent trillions on green energy since 1980 had we focused those resources into nuclear we would all have fission reactors in our house and it would be absolutely safe and zero carbon emissions. As a matter of fact deaths related to each type of injury shows nuclear as the lowest by a large margin

think about this we have had nuclear ships for how long now?  Ever hear of an issue?

Fission reactors in our houses?? C’mon now.

But a real conversation on nuclear, sure let’s have that. It’s the diversion from the oil and gas folks who don’t actually think anyone will go for it that I’m not too interested in.

Share this post


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

Fission reactors in our houses?? C’mon now.

But a real conversation on nuclear, sure let’s have that. It’s the diversion from the oil and gas folks who don’t actually think anyone will go for it that I’m not too interested in.

you dont think 50 years of research could have produced that?

the first Air conditioner wasnt invented til the 1930's and now its easy and mainstream

when we as a country work on things to improve them we have no limits

 

Share this post


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

you dont think 50 years of research could have produced that?

the first Air conditioner wasnt invented til the 1930's and now its easy and mainstream

when we as a country work on things to improve them we have no limits

 

I think it’s volatile by its very nature and produces toxic waste that can’t be stored safely anywhere, yet alone under your kitchen sink.

But it would be awful tempting. Is there actual science to back up this claim that newfangled reactors would never melt down? And what about the waste?

Share this post


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

I think it’s volatile by its very nature and produces toxic waste that can’t be stored safely anywhere, yet alone under your kitchen sink.

But it would be awful tempting. Is there actual science to back up this claim that newfangled reactors would never melt down? And what about the waste?

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/09/first-modular-nuclear-reactor-design-certified-in-the-us/

 

we might not have them in every house, but maybe every city has a location

as far as waste, I am not sure, but I know this, plastic used to be an issue for waste

 

Share this post


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

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/09/first-modular-nuclear-reactor-design-certified-in-the-us/

 

we might not have them in every house, but maybe every city has a location

as far as waste, I am not sure, but I know this, plastic used to be an issue for waste

 

Plastic still is. However it is not the most toxic substance ever known to man :dunno:

Share this post


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

Nuclear power is an interesting conundrum. Could be something of a magic bullet. On the other hand it’s absolutely catastrophic when something goes wrong and even under the most optimal circumstances no one knows what to do with the waste.

But, from an oil and gas guy, I see it as a diversionary tactic :dunno:

What is a diversionary tactic?  Myself and Skibum are the biggest oil and gas guys on this board an we both support nuclear energy.  Biden, AOC, Whitmer, etc are against nuclear as much as they are against fossil fuels.

This is the real inconvenient truth the world actually faces.   ttps://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Difficult-Truth-About-Decarbonization.html

 

Share this post


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

Plastic still is. However it is not the most toxic substance ever known to man :dunno:

Much like the batteries in all the electric cars Biden wants us to start using.

Share this post


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

What is a diversionary tactic?  Myself and Skibum are the biggest oil and gas guys on this board an we both support nuclear energy.  Biden, AOC, Whitmer, etc are against nuclear as much as they are against fossil fuels.

This is the real inconvenient truth the world actually faces.   ttps://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Difficult-Truth-About-Decarbonization.html

 

That’s the diversionary tactic. You think it’ll never actually happen so you cite it as a reason why green energy shouldn’t be promoted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I think it’s volatile by its very nature and produces toxic waste that can’t be stored safely anywhere, yet alone under your kitchen sink.

But it would be awful tempting. Is there actual science to back up this claim that newfangled reactors would never melt down? And what about the waste?

@MTSkiBum has discussed the issue in other threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and all I am saying is that Nuclear is the most regulated and difficult form of energy to even try to get into, had we invested 50 years of resources who knows where we would be, its also infinite

 

Share this post


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

That’s the diversionary tactic. You think it’ll never actually happen so you cite it as a reason why green energy shouldn’t be promoted

That would be incorrect.  Research should continue on renewables and maybe one day they will be viable on an industrial scale.  Nuclear is proven to be viable on an industrial scale. Unfortunately, politics will prevent it from being used more widely.  Poor developing countries around the world can not afford renewables or nuclear.  This fact is totally lost on Biden/AOC and people that support the farce that is the Paris accord. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

That would be incorrect.  Research should continue on renewables and maybe one day they will be viable on an industrial scale.  Nuclear is proven to be viable on an industrial scale. Unfortunately, politics will prevent it from being used more widely.  Poor developing countries around the world can not afford renewables or nuclear.  This fact is totally lost on Biden/AOC and people that support the farce that is the Paris accord. 

Meanwhile, we’ll just keep on going with oil and gas.

Thanks for proving my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

and all I am saying is that Nuclear is the most regulated and difficult form of energy to even try to get into, had we invested 50 years of resources who knows where we would be, its also infinite

 

Valid point. It should be looked into but not as an excuse for not moving away from fossil fuels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"Cutting off the nose to spite the face" is an expression to describe a needlessly self-destructive over-reaction to a problem: "Don't cut off your nose to spite your face" is a warning against acting out of pique, or against pursuing revenge in a way that would damage oneself more than the object of one's anger.

Most of Americans are for continued green initiatives.  

What they aren't is to spend Trillions of dollars and cut jobs and kill the economy to prove a point when the rest of the world are the culprits.  Y'all wiggers are crazy.  

Share this post


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

Valid point. It should be looked into but not as an excuse for not moving away from fossil fuels.

im all for all types, I also know the two most efficient are fracking natural gas and nuclear though

 

Share this post


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

Meanwhile, we’ll just keep on going with oil and gas.

Thanks for proving my point.

Tell your party to get their head out of their collective azzes.  Also, what is your solution for developing countries? Degrowth?  You really are ignorant about the reality of world energy consumption.  You don't want to deal with real issues you simply want to throw out political talking points. 

BTW my company owns wind, solar and geothermal facilities across North America and Europe and is also developing green hydrogen technology.  The only point that has been proved is you project your biased opinions based on no facts at all. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

im all for all types, I also know the two most efficient are fracking natural gas and nuclear though

 

Fracking is what allowed the US to lead the world in emission reductions.  Natural gas at $2.00-$2.50 an MCF is what killed coal in this country.  Nat gas is the low emission solution that is currently underpinning the unpredictability for renewables and allowing them to continue to expand.    

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, KSB2424 said:

Most of Americans are for continued green initiatives.  

What they aren't is to spend Trillions of dollars and cut jobs and kill the economy to prove a point when the rest of the world are the culprits.  Y'all wiggers are crazy.  

Spider face

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, KSB2424 said:

Most of Americans are for continued green initiatives.  

What they aren't is to spend Trillions of dollars and cut jobs and kill the economy to prove a point when the rest of the world are the culprits.  Y'all wiggers are crazy.  

Cut jobs? It’s supposed to create a million plus :dunno:

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Bert said:

Tell your party to get their head out of their collective azzes.  Also, what is your solution for developing countries? Degrowth?  You really are ignorant about the reality of world energy consumption.  You don't want to deal with real issues you simply want to throw out political talking points. 

BTW my company owns wind, solar and geothermal facilities across North America and Europe and is also developing green hydrogen technology.  The only point that has been proved is you project your biased opinions based on no facts at all. 

Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining Bert. You can toy with these other focks but don’t degrade yourself in front of me :thumbsdown:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining Bert. You can toy with these other focks but don’t degrade yourself in front of me :thumbsdown:

Damn that is weak.  As expected you are not prepared to have a real discussion about the environment, the reality of global energy consumption, population growth and global development.

Typical lawyer. You are not part of the solution so you will make money off prolonging the problem.  
 

Have a good evening.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

@MTSkiBum has discussed the issue in other threads.

I’m electrical not oil/gas, but I’ve been one of the biggest nuclear wonks on this bored.  I’ve often said that until the climate alarmists embrace nuclear as the obvious solution, it will remain a religious cult whose purpose swings between anthropomorphic guild and greed, not solving a climate problem.

Natural gas is the best alternative, but here we see the cult in action.  We can’t use that, it’s still a... A... fossil fuel$#@!  Yeah but it is a lot cleaner than others.  No matter, says the cult, we are going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good!

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

@MTSkiBum has discussed the issue in other threads.

 

Nuclear is the way to go, I am not going to find my old posts, but they are still valid.

Modern nuclear reactors are safe and produce much less waste than previous designs. They are the way to go.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×