Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are full of shit on this issue, Todd. Nuclear costs about three times per kw/hr more than utility scale solar. It cost about 4 times as much as utility scale wind.I've heard MANY climate scientists advocate for nuclear power, but it obviously has drawbacks. If other means are available - like wind, solar, etc - that don't risk events like Fukushima or Chernobyl - than perhaps they are the preferable route.
Claiming that you can judge whether or not climate scientists think AGW is a threat by their opinion on nuclear power is pretty bullshit Todd.
Claiming that you can judge whether or not climate scientists think AGW is a threat by their opinion on nuclear power is pretty bullshit Todd.
If they run around saying, "CO2 is gonna kills us all, flood the coasts and look at all the insurance claims!!"
but still say nuclear is too dangerous, that makes me think that AGW is just the latest try to get their pre-existing watermelon agenda implemented.
If other means are available - like wind, solar, etc -
Yeah, other less reliable, more expensive means.
What happened to Obama's "all of the above"?
Streamline the approval process, make a few standard designs available for quick construction, eliminate decades of NIMBY blue tape and delays and have the Feds insure the plants.
Sounds like an easy way to increase reliable, CO2 free power with a tiny footprint, compared to the huge areas needed to build comparable amounts of solar or wind capacity.
That would show they were serious and not bullshitting about the dangers of CO2.
Wind has a very small footprint. They grow wheat right up to the bases of the mills east of The Dalles, Oregon. And were solar put on the roofs of our warehouses, malls, and industrial buildings, we could power cities without any distribution losses. We do not need the nukes. Period.I've heard MANY climate scientists advocate for nuclear power, but it obviously has drawbacks. If other means are available - like wind, solar, etc - that don't risk events like Fukushima or Chernobyl - than perhaps they are the preferable route.
Claiming that you can judge whether or not climate scientists think AGW is a threat by their opinion on nuclear power is pretty bullshit Todd.
Claiming that you can judge whether or not climate scientists think AGW is a threat by their opinion on nuclear power is pretty bullshit Todd.
If they run around saying, "CO2 is gonna kills us all, flood the coasts and look at all the insurance claims!!"
but still say nuclear is too dangerous, that makes me think that AGW is just the latest try to get their pre-existing watermelon agenda implemented.
If other means are available - like wind, solar, etc -
Yeah, other less reliable, more expensive means.
What happened to Obama's "all of the above"?
Streamline the approval process, make a few standard designs available for quick construction, eliminate decades of NIMBY blue tape and delays and have the Feds insure the plants.
Sounds like an easy way to increase reliable, CO2 free power with a tiny footprint, compared to the huge areas needed to build comparable amounts of solar or wind capacity.
That would show they were serious and not bullshitting about the dangers of CO2.
Using up land does not make it less reliable. Solar and wind require no fuel.
That is pure idiocy. Far too expensive. Renewables, solar and wind, are now the cheapest. Grid scale storage, being installed as we post, will make renewables 24/7.How do you manage to conclude that fighting against AGW is an enormous hoax by scientists and politicians to make money but that the oil companies haven't the slightest concern about potential losses of hundreds of billions of dollars, if not their very existence?
How do you manage to conclude that fighting against AGW is an enormous hoax by scientists and politicians to make money
Is there any plan to fight AGW that doesn't include billions in grants for studies and trillions in extra taxes for politicians?
If they really thought it was a serious threat, they'd push for a couple of hundred new nuclear power plants.
But, for some reason, they don't like large amounts of reliable power.
Wind has a very small footprint. They grow wheat right up to the bases of the mills east of The Dalles, Oregon. And were solar put on the roofs of our warehouses, malls, and industrial buildings, we could power cities without any distribution losses. We do not need the nukes. Period.I've heard MANY climate scientists advocate for nuclear power, but it obviously has drawbacks. If other means are available - like wind, solar, etc - that don't risk events like Fukushima or Chernobyl - than perhaps they are the preferable route.
Claiming that you can judge whether or not climate scientists think AGW is a threat by their opinion on nuclear power is pretty bullshit Todd.
Claiming that you can judge whether or not climate scientists think AGW is a threat by their opinion on nuclear power is pretty bullshit Todd.
If they run around saying, "CO2 is gonna kills us all, flood the coasts and look at all the insurance claims!!"
but still say nuclear is too dangerous, that makes me think that AGW is just the latest try to get their pre-existing watermelon agenda implemented.
If other means are available - like wind, solar, etc -
Yeah, other less reliable, more expensive means.
What happened to Obama's "all of the above"?
Streamline the approval process, make a few standard designs available for quick construction, eliminate decades of NIMBY blue tape and delays and have the Feds insure the plants.
Sounds like an easy way to increase reliable, CO2 free power with a tiny footprint, compared to the huge areas needed to build comparable amounts of solar or wind capacity.
That would show they were serious and not bullshitting about the dangers of CO2.
Wind has a very small footprint. They grow wheat right up to the bases of the mills east of The Dalles, Oregon. And were solar put on the roofs of our warehouses, malls, and industrial buildings, we could power cities without any distribution losses. We do not need the nukes. Period.I've heard MANY climate scientists advocate for nuclear power, but it obviously has drawbacks. If other means are available - like wind, solar, etc - that don't risk events like Fukushima or Chernobyl - than perhaps they are the preferable route.
Claiming that you can judge whether or not climate scientists think AGW is a threat by their opinion on nuclear power is pretty bullshit Todd.
Claiming that you can judge whether or not climate scientists think AGW is a threat by their opinion on nuclear power is pretty bullshit Todd.
If they run around saying, "CO2 is gonna kills us all, flood the coasts and look at all the insurance claims!!"
but still say nuclear is too dangerous, that makes me think that AGW is just the latest try to get their pre-existing watermelon agenda implemented.
If other means are available - like wind, solar, etc -
Yeah, other less reliable, more expensive means.
What happened to Obama's "all of the above"?
Streamline the approval process, make a few standard designs available for quick construction, eliminate decades of NIMBY blue tape and delays and have the Feds insure the plants.
Sounds like an easy way to increase reliable, CO2 free power with a tiny footprint, compared to the huge areas needed to build comparable amounts of solar or wind capacity.
That would show they were serious and not bullshitting about the dangers of CO2.
Wind has a very small footprint. They grow wheat right up to the bases of the mills east of The Dalles, Oregon. And were solar put on the roofs of our warehouses, malls, and industrial buildings, we could power cities without any distribution losses. We do not need the nukes. Period.I've heard MANY climate scientists advocate for nuclear power, but it obviously has drawbacks. If other means are available - like wind, solar, etc - that don't risk events like Fukushima or Chernobyl - than perhaps they are the preferable route.
Claiming that you can judge whether or not climate scientists think AGW is a threat by their opinion on nuclear power is pretty bullshit Todd.
Claiming that you can judge whether or not climate scientists think AGW is a threat by their opinion on nuclear power is pretty bullshit Todd.
If they run around saying, "CO2 is gonna kills us all, flood the coasts and look at all the insurance claims!!"
but still say nuclear is too dangerous, that makes me think that AGW is just the latest try to get their pre-existing watermelon agenda implemented.
If other means are available - like wind, solar, etc -
Yeah, other less reliable, more expensive means.
What happened to Obama's "all of the above"?
Streamline the approval process, make a few standard designs available for quick construction, eliminate decades of NIMBY blue tape and delays and have the Feds insure the plants.
Sounds like an easy way to increase reliable, CO2 free power with a tiny footprint, compared to the huge areas needed to build comparable amounts of solar or wind capacity.
That would show they were serious and not bullshitting about the dangers of CO2.
See Westie. See Westie run. See Westie run away from the truth. See Westie run away from the truth by telling lies. When presented with the contention that wheat may be grown right up to the base of a wind turbine tower, what does Westie do? He gives you pictures of towers in the desert. Honest? No.
and so forth and so on.
See Westie. See Westie run. See Westie run away from the truth. See Westie run away from the truth by telling lies. When presented with the contention that wheat may be grown right up to the base of a wind turbine tower, what does Westie do? He gives you pictures of towers in the desert. Honest? No.
and so forth and so on.
I don't see where I ran, and your pictures only show that windfarms have a HUGE footprint, so thanks for the assist!
A true Trumpanzee. When the lie is exposed, double down on it even when you own eyes show it to be a lie.See Westie. See Westie run. See Westie run away from the truth. See Westie run away from the truth by telling lies. When presented with the contention that wheat may be grown right up to the base of a wind turbine tower, what does Westie do? He gives you pictures of towers in the desert. Honest? No.
and so forth and so on.
I don't see where I ran, and your pictures only show that windfarms have a HUGE footprint, so thanks for the assist!
A true Trumpanzee. When the lie is exposed, double down on it even when you own eyes show it to be a lie.See Westie. See Westie run. See Westie run away from the truth. See Westie run away from the truth by telling lies. When presented with the contention that wheat may be grown right up to the base of a wind turbine tower, what does Westie do? He gives you pictures of towers in the desert. Honest? No.
and so forth and so on.
I don't see where I ran, and your pictures only show that windfarms have a HUGE footprint, so thanks for the assist!
So, Westie, you believe the people who are looking at the wind turbine photographs I posted to be so stupid that they simply do not realize what they're looking at?
You do realize this is just 0.002 deg C, over 70 years, don't you?I haven't noticed the ocean getting warmer
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png
The oceans are taking in most of the heat.
No, I don't
Good math Billy. Why don't you show us your work.
It would also show the rapid swings in temperature that are far greater and faster than the average he is trying to make look scary because his graph implys' that we are only rising in temperature, which is a lie.You do realize this is just 0.002 deg C, over 70 years, don't you?I haven't noticed the ocean getting warmer
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png
The oceans are taking in most of the heat.
No, I don't
Good math Billy. Why don't you show us your work.
Why don't you use plots that AREN'T smoothed with a "61 month" filter? They look even LESS scary than the 0.5degC change over a 120 yrs that you showed there.
Real funny, Mr. Westwall. Now you are emulating Silly Billy, and pulling stinky 'facts' out of your ass. Here is a picture of turbines in a wheat field;
Now just where is that huge footprint?
