Why do you oppose cutting co2 emissions?

[Old Rocks]

Feel the sting for a bit here...

Laughing here. Mr Hanson might be one of the world's leading climate scientists, and whatever he has to say on that matter is well worth listening to. His political opinion, how best for humanity to chart a course out of the quandary, is worth as much as yours, or mine, that is, a bucket of spit. So, even assuming that letter is genuine, not yet another instance of fake news peddling, there is no sting, none at all. He can blabber about nuclear power for the next decade, I'd still consider him nutty (in this respect) and wholly misguided. The unspeakable arrogance to proclaim it is even thinkable, let alone possible, safely to store away nuclear waste for thousands, let alone hundreds of thousands of years, dooms that idea forever.

Wow. You're pretty ignorant about nuclear waste aren't you. Here's the deal about that, it is already here in the world. Every radioactive isotope ALREADY exists. Mankind didn't invent it. The isotopes that man can create exist for vanishingly small moments of time. Thus, man is merely moving the isotopes from one place to another. Add to that the fact that nuclear waste that has long half lives is basically inert, and you have a waste product that you most certainly don't want to be around, but other than directly ingesting it, for the most part is completely, and totally safe.

The only aspect of nuclear waste that is dangerous are those isotopes that have short hal lives. Those are emitting gamma radiation at prodigious rates and exposure to those materials for any period of time while they are emitting at the high rate is very dangerous. However, 6 months after the initial release of material the daughter elements that remain are poisonous, but not radioactively lethal any longer.

The people who died at Chernobyl were those who stood on the bridge and actually looked across the river at the exposed reactor, they all died, as did the hero's who worked to seal the reactor up who likewise died in their dozens and dozens. But now, it is safe to go to the area, they even have tours, and other than some areas where the radioactive material has collected, it is safe.

The new designs of nuclear reactors are incredibly safe. They have small reactors that you don't even interact with. You bury them near a city and they work for 20 years with no input. Then you dig up the block and transport it to where nobody can take a sledgehammer to it.

Really? How about a link to where one can buy one of these reactors?

 

[flacaltenn]

So -- what is the "half-life" of all that heavy metal battery waste that renewables and electric cars that is gonna go into the waste stream? Pretty sure that stuff is toxic beyond the radioactive life of plutonium last time I checked...

There are no heavy metals in lithium batteries, so just what are you talking about?

It's a toxic metal. What's it's "half-life"? And there is STILL sufficient tonnage of NiMH batteries in EVs. Don't be a jerk..

 

[Old Rocks]

Wow. You're pretty ignorant about nuclear waste aren't you. Here's the deal about that, it is already here in the world. Every radioactive isotope ALREADY exists. Mankind didn't invent it.

Sophistry. For example, there's essentially no naturally occurring plutonium on earth, and it only exists in the universe as a little blip here and there. Mankind pretty much did invent all kinds of isotopes here on earth.

The isotopes that man can create exist for vanishingly small moments of time.

24,000 years, as with Pu-239, apparently being "vanishingly small".

Thus, man is merely moving the isotopes from one place to another.

That's crap. There essentially wasn't any Co-60, or Sr-90, or Cs-137 here either, until humans created it.

Add to that the fact that nuclear waste that has long half lives is basically inert, and you have a waste product that you most certainly don't want to be around, but other than directly ingesting it, for the most part is completely, and totally safe.

The only aspect of nuclear waste that is dangerous are those isotopes that have short hal lives. Those are emitting gamma radiation at prodigious rates and exposure to those materials for any period of time while they are emitting at the high rate is very dangerous. However, 6 months after the initial release of material the daughter elements that remain are poisonous, but not radioactively lethal any longer.

Then go stand in the Fukushima reactor building. Plenty of lethal stuff there. Sr-90 and Cs-137, 30 year half lives. Co-60, 5 years.

The people who died at Chernobyl were those who stood on the bridge and actually looked across the river at the exposed reactor, they all died, as did the hero's who worked to seal the reactor up who likewise died in their dozens and dozens. But now, it is safe to go to the area, they even have tours, and other than some areas where the radioactive material has collected, it is safe.

So it's safe, except where it isn't.

The new designs of nuclear reactors are incredibly safe. They have small reactors that you don't even interact with. You bury them near a city and they work for 20 years with no input. Then you dig up the block and transport it to where nobody can take a sledgehammer to it.

Vaporware. The new miracle reactors have been promised for decades, and they never arrive. Yet the ideologues still swear by them.

The reality-based crowd understand that nuclear power is not cost effective. It has to be safe, but to be safe, it costs too much. Renewables and new storage options are a more cost effective path.

I will demolish your first claim and the rest of your horse poo will follow along with it.

"Cowan described, for example, how some of the neutrons released during the fission of uranium 235 were captured by the more abundant uranium 238, which became uranium 239 and, after emitting two electrons, turned into plutonium 239. More than two tons of this plutonium isotope were generated within the Oklo deposit. Although almost all this material, which has a 24,000-year halflife, has since disappeared (primarily through natural radioactive decay), some of the plutonium itself underwent fission, as attested by the presence of its characteristic fission products. The abundance of those lighter elements allowed scientists to deduce that fission reactions must have gone on for hundreds of thousands of years. From the amount of uranium 235 consumed, they calculated the total energy released, 15,000 megawatt-years, and from this and other evidence were able to work out the average power output, which was probably less than 100 kilowatts—say, enough to run a few dozen toasters."


The Workings of an Ancient Nuclear Reactor

The Workings of an Ancient Nuclear Reactor

Two billion years ago parts of an African uranium deposit spontaneously underwent nuclear fission. The details of this remarkable phenomenon are just now becoming clear

So, two billion years ago, two tons of U235 were created naturally in an uranium deposit. With a half life of 24,000 years. And there are still traces of this highly radioactive isotope after two billion years. How long is the garbage we are creating going to last?

 

[Old Rocks]

So -- what is the "half-life" of all that heavy metal battery waste that renewables and electric cars that is gonna go into the waste stream? Pretty sure that stuff is toxic beyond the radioactive life of plutonium last time I checked...

There are no heavy metals in lithium batteries, so just what are you talking about?

It's a toxic metal. What's it's "half-life"? And there is STILL sufficient tonnage of NiMH batteries in EVs. Don't be a jerk..

Jerk yourself. I have nickel plated tools. Are they toxic? One of which I have used for over 50 years.

 

[flacaltenn]

Feel the sting for a bit here...

Laughing here. Mr Hanson might be one of the world's leading climate scientists, and whatever he has to say on that matter is well worth listening to. His political opinion, how best for humanity to chart a course out of the quandary, is worth as much as yours, or mine, that is, a bucket of spit. So, even assuming that letter is genuine, not yet another instance of fake news peddling, there is no sting, none at all. He can blabber about nuclear power for the next decade, I'd still consider him nutty (in this respect) and wholly misguided. The unspeakable arrogance to proclaim it is even thinkable, let alone possible, safely to store away nuclear waste for thousands, let alone hundreds of thousands of years, dooms that idea forever.

Wow. You're pretty ignorant about nuclear waste aren't you. Here's the deal about that, it is already here in the world. Every radioactive isotope ALREADY exists. Mankind didn't invent it. The isotopes that man can create exist for vanishingly small moments of time. Thus, man is merely moving the isotopes from one place to another. Add to that the fact that nuclear waste that has long half lives is basically inert, and you have a waste product that you most certainly don't want to be around, but other than directly ingesting it, for the most part is completely, and totally safe.

The only aspect of nuclear waste that is dangerous are those isotopes that have short hal lives. Those are emitting gamma radiation at prodigious rates and exposure to those materials for any period of time while they are emitting at the high rate is very dangerous. However, 6 months after the initial release of material the daughter elements that remain are poisonous, but not radioactively lethal any longer.

The people who died at Chernobyl were those who stood on the bridge and actually looked across the river at the exposed reactor, they all died, as did the hero's who worked to seal the reactor up who likewise died in their dozens and dozens. But now, it is safe to go to the area, they even have tours, and other than some areas where the radioactive material has collected, it is safe.

The new designs of nuclear reactors are incredibly safe. They have small reactors that you don't even interact with. You bury them near a city and they work for 20 years with no input. Then you dig up the block and transport it to where nobody can take a sledgehammer to it.

Really? How about a link to where one can buy one of these reactors?

Same place you buy "grid scale storage" I guess. Check ETSY on the web.. LOL..

List of small nuclear reactor designs - Wikipedia

 

[flacaltenn]

So -- what is the "half-life" of all that heavy metal battery waste that renewables and electric cars that is gonna go into the waste stream? Pretty sure that stuff is toxic beyond the radioactive life of plutonium last time I checked...

There are no heavy metals in lithium batteries, so just what are you talking about?

It's a toxic metal. What's it's "half-life"? And there is STILL sufficient tonnage of NiMH batteries in EVs. Don't be a jerk..

Jerk yourself. I have nickel plated tools. Are they toxic? One of which I have used for over 50 years.

Only jerk in sight is you. Go check the disposal guide for NiMH batteries.

 

[Old Rocks]

Feel the sting for a bit here...

Laughing here. Mr Hanson might be one of the world's leading climate scientists, and whatever he has to say on that matter is well worth listening to. His political opinion, how best for humanity to chart a course out of the quandary, is worth as much as yours, or mine, that is, a bucket of spit. So, even assuming that letter is genuine, not yet another instance of fake news peddling, there is no sting, none at all. He can blabber about nuclear power for the next decade, I'd still consider him nutty (in this respect) and wholly misguided. The unspeakable arrogance to proclaim it is even thinkable, let alone possible, safely to store away nuclear waste for thousands, let alone hundreds of thousands of years, dooms that idea forever.

Wow. You're pretty ignorant about nuclear waste aren't you. Here's the deal about that, it is already here in the world. Every radioactive isotope ALREADY exists. Mankind didn't invent it. The isotopes that man can create exist for vanishingly small moments of time. Thus, man is merely moving the isotopes from one place to another. Add to that the fact that nuclear waste that has long half lives is basically inert, and you have a waste product that you most certainly don't want to be around, but other than directly ingesting it, for the most part is completely, and totally safe.

The only aspect of nuclear waste that is dangerous are those isotopes that have short hal lives. Those are emitting gamma radiation at prodigious rates and exposure to those materials for any period of time while they are emitting at the high rate is very dangerous. However, 6 months after the initial release of material the daughter elements that remain are poisonous, but not radioactively lethal any longer.

The people who died at Chernobyl were those who stood on the bridge and actually looked across the river at the exposed reactor, they all died, as did the hero's who worked to seal the reactor up who likewise died in their dozens and dozens. But now, it is safe to go to the area, they even have tours, and other than some areas where the radioactive material has collected, it is safe.

The new designs of nuclear reactors are incredibly safe. They have small reactors that you don't even interact with. You bury them near a city and they work for 20 years with no input. Then you dig up the block and transport it to where nobody can take a sledgehammer to it.

Really? How about a link to where one can buy one of these reactors?

Same place you buy "grid scale storage" I guess. Check ETSY on the web.. LOL..

List of small nuclear reactor designs - Wikipedia

List of designs. Not working reactors. Not units for sale.

Tesla’s Battery Revolution Just Reached Critical Mass

Tesla Motors Inc. is making a huge bet that millions of small batteries can be strung together to help kick fossil fuels off the grid. The idea is a powerful one—one that’s been used to help justify the company’s $5 billion factory near Reno, Nev.—but batteries have so far only appeared in a handful of true, grid-scale pilot projects.

That changes this week.

Three massive battery storage plants—built by Tesla, AES Corp., and Altagas Ltd.—are all officially going live in southern California at about the same time. Any one of these projects would have been the largest battery storage facility ever built. Combined, they amount to 15 percent of the battery storage installed planet-wide last year.

Ribbons will be cut and executives will take their bows. But this is a revolution that’s just getting started, Tesla Chief Technology Officer J.B. Straubel said in an interview on Friday. “It’s sort of hard to comprehend sometimes the speed all this is going at,” he said. “Our storage is growing as fast as we can humanly scale it.”

Tesla built the world's biggest battery power plant in just three months.

Grid scale storage being built, sold, and installed as we speak. And you can buy those small reactors, where?

Like usual, an old millwright has to educate an engineer. Same ol', same ol'. LOL

 

[flacaltenn]

Tesla Motors Inc. is making a huge bet that millions of small batteries can be strung together to help kick fossil fuels off the grid. The idea is a powerful one—one that’s been used to help justify the company’s $5 billion factory near Reno, Nev.—but batteries have so far only appeared in a handful of true, grid-scale pilot projects.

What's wrong with this "announcement"? I count at LEAST 3 misrepresentations. And I've discussed them with you. Here's a start --

1) Batteries not being an energy source -- kicks NO ONE "off the grid".. .

List the other 2..

Did you get the toxicology report on NiMH? Good.. What's the "half-life" of that toxic waste stream?

 

[flacaltenn]

Feel the sting for a bit here...

Laughing here. Mr Hanson might be one of the world's leading climate scientists, and whatever he has to say on that matter is well worth listening to. His political opinion, how best for humanity to chart a course out of the quandary, is worth as much as yours, or mine, that is, a bucket of spit. So, even assuming that letter is genuine, not yet another instance of fake news peddling, there is no sting, none at all. He can blabber about nuclear power for the next decade, I'd still consider him nutty (in this respect) and wholly misguided. The unspeakable arrogance to proclaim it is even thinkable, let alone possible, safely to store away nuclear waste for thousands, let alone hundreds of thousands of years, dooms that idea forever.

Wow. You're pretty ignorant about nuclear waste aren't you. Here's the deal about that, it is already here in the world. Every radioactive isotope ALREADY exists. Mankind didn't invent it. The isotopes that man can create exist for vanishingly small moments of time. Thus, man is merely moving the isotopes from one place to another. Add to that the fact that nuclear waste that has long half lives is basically inert, and you have a waste product that you most certainly don't want to be around, but other than directly ingesting it, for the most part is completely, and totally safe.

The only aspect of nuclear waste that is dangerous are those isotopes that have short hal lives. Those are emitting gamma radiation at prodigious rates and exposure to those materials for any period of time while they are emitting at the high rate is very dangerous. However, 6 months after the initial release of material the daughter elements that remain are poisonous, but not radioactively lethal any longer.

The people who died at Chernobyl were those who stood on the bridge and actually looked across the river at the exposed reactor, they all died, as did the hero's who worked to seal the reactor up who likewise died in their dozens and dozens. But now, it is safe to go to the area, they even have tours, and other than some areas where the radioactive material has collected, it is safe.

The new designs of nuclear reactors are incredibly safe. They have small reactors that you don't even interact with. You bury them near a city and they work for 20 years with no input. Then you dig up the block and transport it to where nobody can take a sledgehammer to it.

Really? How about a link to where one can buy one of these reactors?

Same place you buy "grid scale storage" I guess. Check ETSY on the web.. LOL..

List of small nuclear reactor designs - Wikipedia

List of designs. Not working reactors. Not units for sale.

Tesla’s Battery Revolution Just Reached Critical Mass

Tesla Motors Inc. is making a huge bet that millions of small batteries can be strung together to help kick fossil fuels off the grid. The idea is a powerful one—one that’s been used to help justify the company’s $5 billion factory near Reno, Nev.—but batteries have so far only appeared in a handful of true, grid-scale pilot projects.

That changes this week.

Three massive battery storage plants—built by Tesla, AES Corp., and Altagas Ltd.—are all officially going live in southern California at about the same time. Any one of these projects would have been the largest battery storage facility ever built. Combined, they amount to 15 percent of the battery storage installed planet-wide last year.

Ribbons will be cut and executives will take their bows. But this is a revolution that’s just getting started, Tesla Chief Technology Officer J.B. Straubel said in an interview on Friday. “It’s sort of hard to comprehend sometimes the speed all this is going at,” he said. “Our storage is growing as fast as we can humanly scale it.”

Tesla built the world's biggest battery power plant in just three months.

Grid scale storage being built, sold, and installed as we speak. And you can buy those small reactors, where?

Like usual, an old millwright has to educate an engineer. Same ol', same ol'. LOL

Small reactors are gonna be a Russian product -- because of jerks like you.. Look at the list I gave you more carefully. MANY under construction. SEVERAL operational.

From the article..

But for the most part, according to a BNEF analysis, the costs of new projects would need to drop by half in order to be profitable on a wider scale in California, and that’s not likely to happen for another decade. The total installed cost of a battery plant would need to fall to about $275 per kilowatt hour. While Tesla declined to provide its pricing data, the similarly sized Altagas project was expected to cost at least $40 million, or $500 per kilowatt hour. It's possible that with the remarkable scope of Tesla's Reno operations, the company will be able to establish new floors for pricing, forcing the industry to follow, BNEF's Sekine said.

$500/Kw-hr is enough for one HOME for one hour.. Dream on. To smooth the production of solar during GOOD days, you'd need 12 to 15 times that much for one home. 100 times that for a supermarket or small hospital.. That's a HELL of a LIMITED LIFETIME wastestream..

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You were around back then huh? Were your instruments made from stone knives and bear skins?

When I was your age, stone knives and bear skins hadn't been invented yet.

When I was your age, hyperbolic claims about stuff that hadn't been invented yet when I was your age, hadn't been invented yet.

 

[westwall]

Feel the sting for a bit here...

Laughing here. Mr Hanson might be one of the world's leading climate scientists, and whatever he has to say on that matter is well worth listening to. His political opinion, how best for humanity to chart a course out of the quandary, is worth as much as yours, or mine, that is, a bucket of spit. So, even assuming that letter is genuine, not yet another instance of fake news peddling, there is no sting, none at all. He can blabber about nuclear power for the next decade, I'd still consider him nutty (in this respect) and wholly misguided. The unspeakable arrogance to proclaim it is even thinkable, let alone possible, safely to store away nuclear waste for thousands, let alone hundreds of thousands of years, dooms that idea forever.

Wow. You're pretty ignorant about nuclear waste aren't you. Here's the deal about that, it is already here in the world. Every radioactive isotope ALREADY exists. Mankind didn't invent it. The isotopes that man can create exist for vanishingly small moments of time. Thus, man is merely moving the isotopes from one place to another. Add to that the fact that nuclear waste that has long half lives is basically inert, and you have a waste product that you most certainly don't want to be around, but other than directly ingesting it, for the most part is completely, and totally safe.

The only aspect of nuclear waste that is dangerous are those isotopes that have short hal lives. Those are emitting gamma radiation at prodigious rates and exposure to those materials for any period of time while they are emitting at the high rate is very dangerous. However, 6 months after the initial release of material the daughter elements that remain are poisonous, but not radioactively lethal any longer.

The people who died at Chernobyl were those who stood on the bridge and actually looked across the river at the exposed reactor, they all died, as did the hero's who worked to seal the reactor up who likewise died in their dozens and dozens. But now, it is safe to go to the area, they even have tours, and other than some areas where the radioactive material has collected, it is safe.

The new designs of nuclear reactors are incredibly safe. They have small reactors that you don't even interact with. You bury them near a city and they work for 20 years with no input. Then you dig up the block and transport it to where nobody can take a sledgehammer to it.

Safe?

Ben Lovejoy

The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is the area which was evacuated after the disaster. Entry requires a government permit, and exit requires a full body scan to show that your radiation dose is within the allowable limits.

As long as you do not go where the guides tell you not to, you will probably come out within allowable limits. There is no way it can be considered a safe area.

I've actually been there. The profusion of life there is amazing, and your info is very old. There are several hotels in the city now.

Hotel "Desiatka"
"The hotel is situated in the heart of Chornobyl town, in the former building of "ChernobylInterInform". There are two floors in this hotel. It was renovated in 2014. Simple twin and triple rooms. One restroom and shower for two rooms.

Photos of hotel "Desiatka" in Chornobyl town: "


Hotel "Pripyat"
It is located in the town of Chernobyl, in the Polupanova Street. All the rooms are simple, in the Soviet style. All the visitors are provided with the ironed starched linen stamped by Chernobyl special industrial complex, some soap and a towel. In quite a Soviet-style there are faults with toilet paper. Occasionally the hot running water might be off. The rooms are furnished with Soviet simple furniture, there is a TV (only in "lux" - and this is the only difference from the basic room) and even a radio, which seems to broadcast from the past about achievements of regional farms in Ivankov district.


The rooms are of two types - 3-bed and 4-bed. The accommodation in the rooms (if it is possible) is agreed with the participants of the trip but it is still at the discretion of the commandant of the hotel.

Photos of the hotel "Pripyat" in Chernobyl:

CHORNOBYL TOUR® - Official provider of the Chornobyl zone, ChNPP, Pripyat-town. Top-quality trips.

 

[Olde Europe]

Or your apparent lack of knowledge in how the GW media circus has virtually BLACKED-OUT real discussions of 100s of other important enviro issues.

Nah, I actually know things, you are merely hyperventilating about figments of your imagination:

So, if you look closely you find the most influential broadcast networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC, as well as Fox, devoting 50 hours of broadcast on climate change, all of them combined, in all of 2016. 50 hours, and that's "BLACKED-OUT" all the other oh-so-valid environmental concerns, according to flacaltenn.

 

[Boss]

Why do you oppose cutting co2 emissions?

Why you should support cutting emissions
1. It is a green house that will change our climate in bad ways.
2. It is poisonous at high levels.

You may be too simple to comprehend this but I'll give it a shot. I oppose government measures to cut CO2 emissions because it's superficial and insignificant. All human activity is responsible for just a fraction of the CO2 in our atmosphere. Most of that activity is simply not controllable or something we can regulate. Breathing, for example, produces some amount of CO2. Our lungs process the air we breath to deliver oxygen to our blood and in that process, some oxygen and carbon bond to create CO2. This also happens when we urinate and take a dump but to a much lesser degree. Many of our activities produce considerable CO2. Basically, anytime you have sharp thermal change, it creates the conditions for carbon and oxygen to bond, thus creating CO2. So if you are jogging or playing football, you are producing more CO2 than if you are just sitting at your computer typing.

Most people live on some area of Earth where temperatures fall in the winter to a level that requires some form of heat. Anytime energy produces heat, carbon and oxygen can bond and create CO2. This is why so many industries produce CO2. Pretty much anything that will burn contains carbon. When it's burned, carbon is released and if there is oxygen present (a prerequisite for burning) then carbon and oxygen can bond, creating CO2. Are you seeing the big picture here? There isn't a way to significantly reduce man-made CO2 with 7 billion people on the planet.

Every AGW alarmist I have ever discussed this with, will argue that our rise from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is the result of the Industrial Revolution. The problem is, they are not factoring in the natural causes of CO2 which are always happening regardless of man's activities. Volcanoes and underwater thermal vents in the ocean produce more CO2 each year than man could ever dream of. It's not even relatively close. But... nature also uses a lot of CO2, that's how plants survive.

If we could interview Mother Nature and ask her what level of CO2 she prefers, she would tell you... meh, prob'ly around 500~600 ppm. How do I know this? Because plant life thrives optimally at ~600 ppm. Most commercial greenhouses maintain this level to promote healthy plant growth. So the plants (who can't lobby) like it about 600 ppm and they think 400 ppm is way too low.

Now, I really do hope that you are at least as smart as a plant... I don't know.... maybe you're not? Perhaps you have bought into a socialist trope that has very little actual scientific backing, despite it's bold claims. This is a way for socialist governments to shake down capitalists because socialism fails and they need money so they can "redistribute wealth" and make socialism wonderful. As usual, they will exploit the stupid and freak them out over this "greenhouse gas thing" when the greenhouse effect is what keeps us all alive. Yes, CO2 is one of the GHGs, it does help amplify the warming. However, it reaches an equilibrium where it will no longer intensify the amplification. So it does help warm the planet but only to a certain degree... pardon the pun.

In short, the BEST way for humans to reduce CO2 emissions... PLANT A TREE!

 

[Crick]

The combustion of fossil fuels is responsible for almost every fucking molecule of CO2 above 280 ppm.

 

[Boss]

The combustion of fossil fuels is responsible for almost every fucking molecule of CO2 above 280 ppm.

No it isn't. You can't prove this. There isn't a way to prove it.
Furthermore, it is incredibly asinine to claim it.
Did nature just stop making CO2 during this time?
Fluctuations that have been happening for 4 billion years just stopped?

This is an inane argument you must make to sound the alarms.

 

[Old Rocks]

Laughing here. Mr Hanson might be one of the world's leading climate scientists, and whatever he has to say on that matter is well worth listening to. His political opinion, how best for humanity to chart a course out of the quandary, is worth as much as yours, or mine, that is, a bucket of spit. So, even assuming that letter is genuine, not yet another instance of fake news peddling, there is no sting, none at all. He can blabber about nuclear power for the next decade, I'd still consider him nutty (in this respect) and wholly misguided. The unspeakable arrogance to proclaim it is even thinkable, let alone possible, safely to store away nuclear waste for thousands, let alone hundreds of thousands of years, dooms that idea forever.

Wow. You're pretty ignorant about nuclear waste aren't you. Here's the deal about that, it is already here in the world. Every radioactive isotope ALREADY exists. Mankind didn't invent it. The isotopes that man can create exist for vanishingly small moments of time. Thus, man is merely moving the isotopes from one place to another. Add to that the fact that nuclear waste that has long half lives is basically inert, and you have a waste product that you most certainly don't want to be around, but other than directly ingesting it, for the most part is completely, and totally safe.

The only aspect of nuclear waste that is dangerous are those isotopes that have short hal lives. Those are emitting gamma radiation at prodigious rates and exposure to those materials for any period of time while they are emitting at the high rate is very dangerous. However, 6 months after the initial release of material the daughter elements that remain are poisonous, but not radioactively lethal any longer.

The people who died at Chernobyl were those who stood on the bridge and actually looked across the river at the exposed reactor, they all died, as did the hero's who worked to seal the reactor up who likewise died in their dozens and dozens. But now, it is safe to go to the area, they even have tours, and other than some areas where the radioactive material has collected, it is safe.

The new designs of nuclear reactors are incredibly safe. They have small reactors that you don't even interact with. You bury them near a city and they work for 20 years with no input. Then you dig up the block and transport it to where nobody can take a sledgehammer to it.

Really? How about a link to where one can buy one of these reactors?

Same place you buy "grid scale storage" I guess. Check ETSY on the web.. LOL..

List of small nuclear reactor designs - Wikipedia

List of designs. Not working reactors. Not units for sale.

Tesla’s Battery Revolution Just Reached Critical Mass

Tesla Motors Inc. is making a huge bet that millions of small batteries can be strung together to help kick fossil fuels off the grid. The idea is a powerful one—one that’s been used to help justify the company’s $5 billion factory near Reno, Nev.—but batteries have so far only appeared in a handful of true, grid-scale pilot projects.

That changes this week.

Three massive battery storage plants—built by Tesla, AES Corp., and Altagas Ltd.—are all officially going live in southern California at about the same time. Any one of these projects would have been the largest battery storage facility ever built. Combined, they amount to 15 percent of the battery storage installed planet-wide last year.

Ribbons will be cut and executives will take their bows. But this is a revolution that’s just getting started, Tesla Chief Technology Officer J.B. Straubel said in an interview on Friday. “It’s sort of hard to comprehend sometimes the speed all this is going at,” he said. “Our storage is growing as fast as we can humanly scale it.”

Tesla built the world's biggest battery power plant in just three months.

Grid scale storage being built, sold, and installed as we speak. And you can buy those small reactors, where?

Like usual, an old millwright has to educate an engineer. Same ol', same ol'. LOL

Small reactors are gonna be a Russian product -- because of jerks like you.. Look at the list I gave you more carefully. MANY under construction. SEVERAL operational.

From the article..

But for the most part, according to a BNEF analysis, the costs of new projects would need to drop by half in order to be profitable on a wider scale in California, and that’s not likely to happen for another decade. The total installed cost of a battery plant would need to fall to about $275 per kilowatt hour. While Tesla declined to provide its pricing data, the similarly sized Altagas project was expected to cost at least $40 million, or $500 per kilowatt hour. It's possible that with the remarkable scope of Tesla's Reno operations, the company will be able to establish new floors for pricing, forcing the industry to follow, BNEF's Sekine said.

$500/Kw-hr is enough for one HOME for one hour.. Dream on. To smooth the production of solar during GOOD days, you'd need 12 to 15 times that much for one home. 100 times that for a supermarket or small hospital.. That's a HELL of a LIMITED LIFETIME wastestream..

$500 per kw/hr of installed storage, not the cost to the customer. And that is very much on the high side. Musk states that he will be able to bring the price down to $100 per kw/hr in less than a decade. According to Oncor, the largest utility in Texas, the break even point for grid scale batteries is $350 per kw/hr. If the batteries follow their present cost reduction curve, that threshold will be crossed in the near future.

 

[Old Rocks]

The combustion of fossil fuels is responsible for almost every fucking molecule of CO2 above 280 ppm.

No it isn't. You can't prove this. There isn't a way to prove it.
Furthermore, it is incredibly asinine to claim it.
Did nature just stop making CO2 during this time?
Fluctuations that have been happening for 4 billion years just stopped?

This is an inane argument you must make to sound the alarms.

Yes, we can prove it. Both by isotope analysis of the CO2 presently in the atmosphere, and by the fact that the CO2 should be declining as it always has in the past at this point in the Milankovic Cycles.

 

[Olde Europe]

So, it turns out the denialist crowd refuses to reduce CO₂ pollution because...

• "REAL pollution" isn't addressed by reduced burning of FFs
• nukes aren't considered to be a valid, safe, cost-effective source of electricity by some.

So, you're all happy about Trump throwing a lifeline to coal-fired plants, aren't you? Because eliminating emission standards will cut "REAL pollution", and amount to a huge competitive advantage for nuclear plants. Right?

Coal miners, all 75,000 of them, will be happy their jobs are safe, and there might be a few dozen more jobs to come, in a 150 million or so workforce. That's where the national focus rightly is, and should be.

So, what I would consider to be the Trumpy's deregulatory vandalism should be reason to rejoice.

Sec. 3. Rescission of Certain Energy and Climate-Related Presidential and Regulatory Actions. (a) The following Presidential actions are hereby revoked:

(i) Executive Order 13653 of November 1, 2013 (Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change);

(ii) The Presidential Memorandum of June 25, 2013 (Power Sector Carbon Pollution Standards);

(iii) The Presidential Memorandum of November 3, 2015 (Mitigating Impacts on Natural Resources from Development and Encouraging Related Private Investment); and

(iv) The Presidential Memorandum of September 21, 2016 (Climate Change and National Security).

(b) The following reports shall be rescinded:

(i) The Report of the Executive Office of the President of June 2013 (The President's Climate Action Plan); and

(ii) The Report of the Executive Office of the President of March 2014 (Climate Action Plan Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions).​

... because climate change will no longer dominate the airwaves, hence "REAL pollution" will be addressed henceforth. The Trumpy is on it, promoting "clean and safe development of our Nation's vast energy resources". For, he said so, in the very first paragraph of the "Presidential Executive Order on Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth".

Believe me!

 

[Boss]

The combustion of fossil fuels is responsible for almost every fucking molecule of CO2 above 280 ppm.

No it isn't. You can't prove this. There isn't a way to prove it.
Furthermore, it is incredibly asinine to claim it.
Did nature just stop making CO2 during this time?
Fluctuations that have been happening for 4 billion years just stopped?

This is an inane argument you must make to sound the alarms.

Yes, we can prove it. Both by isotope analysis of the CO2 presently in the atmosphere, and by the fact that the CO2 should be declining as it always has in the past at this point in the Milankovic Cycles.

Big talk, big words, means nothing.

Since the Milankovitch cycles are so incredibly long, we have no way of knowing what is "normal" for one, we don't even really know accurate CO2 levels in the past for more than about 100 years. We have estimates based on ice core samples but that is limited data and not representative of the entire atmosphere at any given point.

The isotope analysis argument is bogus because CO2 is CO2.... it's carbon and oxygen which are fundamental elements. Plants don't discriminate in the CO2 they process. They will use man-made CO2 or natural, whichever is available. The number of plant organisms is constantly changing. The amount of CO2 they use is constantly changing as well. So this becomes an extremely problematic thing to track and trace, or even to reasonably estimate. We just don't know.

 

[mamooth]

Only jerk in sight is you. Go check the disposal guide for NiMH batteries.

Being nickel is quite valuable, an automobile-sized NiMH battery will never be discarded. It will always be recycled.

Hence, you claims are still rather stupid.