Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[flacaltenn]

Despite the efforts by conservatives, this country will not fail. We will accept science. We will pursue all of the opportunities inherent in the complete retooling of the world's energy system. We will stay ahead of the declining supplies and rising costs of fossil fuels. We will rebuild civilization where it needs to be given the new and different climate we have forced on our planet.

But, throughout it all, we will do it to the steady drone of their whining. The constant negativity of those with inadequate faith in mankind. Against their pull of ignorance based limitations. Because, simply, that's what mankind has always done.

The title of media biased conservatives may be modern, but what they preach has been preached through the millennia. Nothing new. They are the drag that doers always overcome with the energy of discovery.

They didn't become irrelevent. That's what they've always been.

Yes, despite your best efforts to fuck this wonderful country up you will fail. There's too many good smart people to let a bunch of morons like you run this place.

That was pure entertainment..

 

[orogenicman]

Todd -

Still waiting for you to admit that wind is cheaper.

Why it is so damn difficult for you, I cannot imagine.

Hang in there Toddster --- you are correct. The accounting for the cost of wind is bogus by any means --- because it doesn't include the costs of spent fuel from the PRIMARY GENERATORS or the cost of labor and maintenance for the primary generators as they try to cycle up and down to follow the screwy wind patterns..

Almost all those simplistic comparisons are shams. Disgusting lying shams -- just like the morons who push this nonsense..

I noticed you had nothing to say about the comparative costs of fuel for conventional power plants, as opposed to the cost of fuel for alternatives such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric. Any comment on those costs? Any comment on the comparative costs of eliminating waste products of the various methods of power generation? Any comment on the comparative costs of generating the fuel needed to run the various methods of power generation (including environmental and health and safety implications)?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How often does Todd or any other realistic poster have to point out to you that wind and solar are intermittent power sources that HAVE to be backed up by an on-demand alternative? When will wind and solar costs realistically add this dimension rather than penalize fossil fuel by adding in idling time?

Would you open a restaurant without knowing if you had dependable power? What wouldthe cost of that be? Check the economies of contries that have habitual rolling blackouts.

How many times does it have to be said that no one is expecting the current solar and wind technology to replace every conventional energy source available today? And why shouldn't fossil fuel (with the exception of natural gas) be penalized? It is the primary (though not the sole reason) reason why the push for alternative energy sources is happening in the first place.

But let's look at what we have in place already, shall we? Is there ANY evidence whatsoever that the current solar and wind resources we have online today has resulted in shortages, permanently rising prices, blackouts or other downtime on the grid? Any at all? Why don't you folks have a problem with other alternative sources (like hydroelectric) that have been online for over 100 years, but get bent out of shape when any other source is considered?

And why shouldn't fossil fuel (with the exception of natural gas) be penalized?

Because our economy needs cheap, reliable energy, not expensive, unreliable, "green" energy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd -

Still waiting for you to admit that wind is cheaper.

Why it is so damn difficult for you, I cannot imagine.

Hang in there Toddster --- you are correct. The accounting for the cost of wind is bogus by any means --- because it doesn't include the costs of spent fuel from the PRIMARY GENERATORS or the cost of labor and maintenance for the primary generators as they try to cycle up and down to follow the screwy wind patterns..

Almost all those simplistic comparisons are shams. Disgusting lying shams -- just like the morons who push this nonsense..

I noticed you had nothing to say about the comparative costs of fuel for conventional power plants, as opposed to the cost of fuel for alternatives such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric. Any comment on those costs? Any comment on the comparative costs of eliminating waste products of the various methods of power generation? Any comment on the comparative costs of generating the fuel needed to run the various methods of power generation (including environmental and health and safety implications)?

I noticed you had nothing to say about the comparative costs of fuel for conventional power plants, as opposed to the cost of fuel for alternatives such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric.

Free fuel is great.
That's why wind and solar don't need any taxpayer subsidy, right?

 

[orogenicman]

Hang in there Toddster --- you are correct. The accounting for the cost of wind is bogus by any means --- because it doesn't include the costs of spent fuel from the PRIMARY GENERATORS or the cost of labor and maintenance for the primary generators as they try to cycle up and down to follow the screwy wind patterns..

Almost all those simplistic comparisons are shams. Disgusting lying shams -- just like the morons who push this nonsense..

I noticed you had nothing to say about the comparative costs of fuel for conventional power plants, as opposed to the cost of fuel for alternatives such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric. Any comment on those costs? Any comment on the comparative costs of eliminating waste products of the various methods of power generation? Any comment on the comparative costs of generating the fuel needed to run the various methods of power generation (including environmental and health and safety implications)?

I noticed you had nothing to say about the comparative costs of fuel for conventional power plants, as opposed to the cost of fuel for alternatives such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric.

Free fuel is great.
That's why wind and solar don't need any taxpayer subsidy, right?

Are you suggesting that conventional power generation isn't or has never been subsidized?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I noticed you had nothing to say about the comparative costs of fuel for conventional power plants, as opposed to the cost of fuel for alternatives such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric. Any comment on those costs? Any comment on the comparative costs of eliminating waste products of the various methods of power generation? Any comment on the comparative costs of generating the fuel needed to run the various methods of power generation (including environmental and health and safety implications)?

I noticed you had nothing to say about the comparative costs of fuel for conventional power plants, as opposed to the cost of fuel for alternatives such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric.

Free fuel is great.
That's why wind and solar don't need any taxpayer subsidy, right?

Are you suggesting that conventional power generation isn't or has never been subsidized?

No.

 

[flacaltenn]

Todd -

Still waiting for you to admit that wind is cheaper.

Why it is so damn difficult for you, I cannot imagine.

Hang in there Toddster --- you are correct. The accounting for the cost of wind is bogus by any means --- because it doesn't include the costs of spent fuel from the PRIMARY GENERATORS or the cost of labor and maintenance for the primary generators as they try to cycle up and down to follow the screwy wind patterns..

Almost all those simplistic comparisons are shams. Disgusting lying shams -- just like the morons who push this nonsense..

I noticed you had nothing to say about the comparative costs of fuel for conventional power plants, as opposed to the cost of fuel for alternatives such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric. Any comment on those costs? Any comment on the comparative costs of eliminating waste products of the various methods of power generation? Any comment on the comparative costs of generating the fuel needed to run the various methods of power generation (including environmental and health and safety implications)?

Wouldn't take wind if they PAID ME.. Solar is what it is..

A commercial nuclear plant generates just 0.7 ounce of waste to power a household for a year.. CERTAINLY we should be able to handle that economically.. That's about one AA battery sized wastestream.

Not interested in phoney accounting.. I'm looking at making energy PLENTIFUL and RELIABLE...

 

[PMZ]

Despite the efforts by conservatives, this country will not fail. We will accept science. We will pursue all of the opportunities inherent in the complete retooling of the world's energy system. We will stay ahead of the declining supplies and rising costs of fossil fuels. We will rebuild civilization where it needs to be given the new and different climate we have forced on our planet.

But, throughout it all, we will do it to the steady drone of their whining. The constant negativity of those with inadequate faith in mankind. Against their pull of ignorance based limitations. Because, simply, that's what mankind has always done.

The title of media biased conservatives may be modern, but what they preach has been preached through the millennia. Nothing new. They are the drag that doers always overcome with the energy of discovery.

They didn't become irrelevent. That's what they've always been.

We will stay ahead of the declining supplies and rising costs of fossil fuels.

Yes we will. LOL!

You're not saying that the cost of American natural gas is representative of what all fossil fuels cost are you? On top of that, you need to add on the taxpayer cost of relocating significant pieces of civilization to adapt to our new climate. Or, you can close your eyes, and keep your head in the dark place.

 

[PMZ]

We don't have any solution for nuclear waste yet.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Despite the efforts by conservatives, this country will not fail. We will accept science. We will pursue all of the opportunities inherent in the complete retooling of the world's energy system. We will stay ahead of the declining supplies and rising costs of fossil fuels. We will rebuild civilization where it needs to be given the new and different climate we have forced on our planet.

But, throughout it all, we will do it to the steady drone of their whining. The constant negativity of those with inadequate faith in mankind. Against their pull of ignorance based limitations. Because, simply, that's what mankind has always done.

The title of media biased conservatives may be modern, but what they preach has been preached through the millennia. Nothing new. They are the drag that doers always overcome with the energy of discovery.

They didn't become irrelevent. That's what they've always been.

We will stay ahead of the declining supplies and rising costs of fossil fuels.

Yes we will. LOL!

You're not saying that the cost of American natural gas is representative of what all fossil fuels cost are you? On top of that, you need to add on the taxpayer cost of relocating significant pieces of civilization to adapt to our new climate. Or, you can close your eyes, and keep your head in the dark place.

You're not saying that the cost of American natural gas is representative of what all fossil fuels cost are you?

No, I'm saying it's funny when I can refute your whining with a simple graph.

On top of that, you need to add on the taxpayer cost of relocating significant pieces of civilization to adapt to our new climate.

Sounds cool, where are we doing that?
Or is that just happening in the dark place?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We don't have any solution for nuclear waste yet.

We could reprocess it, but that would make sense.

 

[orogenicman]

We don't have any solution for nuclear waste yet.

We could reprocess it, but that would make sense.

The vast bulk of nuclear waste cannot be reprocessed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We don't have any solution for nuclear waste yet.

We could reprocess it, but that would make sense.

The vast bulk of nuclear waste cannot be reprocessed.

The high level, "spent" fuel waste can.

The low level stuff cannot.

 

[PMZ]

I hate to burst your bubble but you didn't refute a thing about fossil fuel prices as supply gets more and more limited and costly to obtain and demand continues up.

And, we've been making significant nuclear fuel waste for 50 years and haven't solved it yet. Must be it's a problem.

 

[orogenicman]

We could reprocess it, but that would make sense.

The vast bulk of nuclear waste cannot be reprocessed.

The high level, "spent" fuel waste can.

The low level stuff cannot.

The vast bulk of nuclear waste is low level waste. That's the problem.

 

[westwall]

Despite the efforts by conservatives, this country will not fail. We will accept science. We will pursue all of the opportunities inherent in the complete retooling of the world's energy system. We will stay ahead of the declining supplies and rising costs of fossil fuels. We will rebuild civilization where it needs to be given the new and different climate we have forced on our planet.

But, throughout it all, we will do it to the steady drone of their whining. The constant negativity of those with inadequate faith in mankind. Against their pull of ignorance based limitations. Because, simply, that's what mankind has always done.

The title of media biased conservatives may be modern, but what they preach has been preached through the millennia. Nothing new. They are the drag that doers always overcome with the energy of discovery.

They didn't become irrelevent. That's what they've always been.

We will stay ahead of the declining supplies and rising costs of fossil fuels.

Yes we will. LOL!

You're not saying that the cost of American natural gas is representative of what all fossil fuels cost are you? On top of that, you need to add on the taxpayer cost of relocating significant pieces of civilization to adapt to our new climate. Or, you can close your eyes, and keep your head in the dark place.

The problem little boy is you can't point to anything that says climate change is occurring. In fact quite the opposite is true. I understand that you are following the Goebbels method of propaganda but just because you keep saying something doesn't make it true.

 

[westwall]

The vast bulk of nuclear waste cannot be reprocessed.

The high level, "spent" fuel waste can.

The low level stuff cannot.

The vast bulk of nuclear waste is low level waste. That's the problem.

Why? Let's see your geology creds at work here. Tell us about radioactive waste...

 

[freedombecki]

Has anyone else noticed progress here? The deniers have given up denying AGW and are now denying sustainable energy.

Denying AGW requires the denial of science while sustainable energy denial denies engineering, venture capitalism, and mankind's demonstrated ability to progress.

Bottom line? I can't imagine how conservatives benefit mankind. They are a 100 percent liability. Easiest path for them but worse than useless for us.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The vast bulk of nuclear waste cannot be reprocessed.

The high level, "spent" fuel waste can.

The low level stuff cannot.

The vast bulk of nuclear waste is low level waste. That's the problem.

Yes, there is a lot of low level (low radioactivity) waste.
That's not why we were working on Yucca Mountain.

The dangerous stuff is the spent fuel and can be reprocessed

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I hate to burst your bubble but you didn't refute a thing about fossil fuel prices as supply gets more and more limited and costly to obtain and demand continues up.

And, we've been making significant nuclear fuel waste for 50 years and haven't solved it yet. Must be it's a problem.

you didn't refute a thing about fossil fuel prices as supply gets more and more limited and costly to obtain

It's awful, the supply continues to shrink and the price continues to rise.

We're doomed!!!