World pledges to save 'Mother Earth' despite Trump's snub to climate pact

[Skywalker69]

Trump Missed The Fine Print, Only The Next President Can Pull Out Of The Paris Agreement in 2021

 

The whole world made a big deal out of President Donald Trump’s announcement yesterday that the United States would be pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement. What the mainstream media failed to report however, is that the decision to leave the agreement will come down to who is President in 2021. This is confirmed in the excerpt below from the NY Times.

 

http://leftoverrights.com/trump-missed-fine-print-next-president-can-pull-paris-agreement-2021/

[halloween]

10 hours ago, Smarter Than You said:

Ever heard of this guy?

Probably a touch more knowledgable the you.

You really have no bloody idea, do you. The battery shown is discontinued as proved to be an expensive WASTE OF MONEY. In industrial terms, it is tiny.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Tesla-Discontinues-10kWh-Powerwall-Home-Battery

[selftaopath]

21 hours ago, jackh said:

Jealousy is an expected reaction from other countries in the world. Really, I promise you,  the USA does not care.  But in eight more years of Trump, you all will be begging to have the lifestyle we will enjoy soon. Sorry, you are all taking a back seat on the bus, and I am sure it hurts feeling. But, no pain, no gain as they say.

 

All this global, borderess, greenhouse  BS going on for years is a fantasy I am so relieved will be coming to an end. I for one do not care to be subjected the NWO crap. Still a lot of work to be done, but rest assured Trump is building a mighty army for this very purpose.  

 

If you want to believe in this global warming conspiracy, it's your funeral. Never happen, never will . "Mother Earth" is quite capable of taking care of herself, as she has done for millions of years. Stupid little human ants will never change, effect, or control anything about it. Go ahead and spend billions of $$$, only to go into the bank accounts of Merkel, Soros, Clinton, Obama, etc. That is all it is.......a pyramid scheme. Fall for it at your own peril. I'm not buying any of it. 

 

Should I mention I am enjoying quite a bout of flatulence as I write this and I don't have a bit of quilt! 

Please read:

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/psychoanalyzing-donald-trump

[selftaopath]

21 hours ago, phantomfiddler said:

Pathetic anti-Trump propaganda ! What depths will these lefty ar*eholes leave unplumbed ?

Anti-45 or pro mental health?

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/psychoanalyzing-donald-trump

[Roadman]

A view from the other side of the world

 

So why is it bad for the US?

Firstly, it puts the country on an isolationist path from the other nations of the world. It may not matter that Nicaragua and Syria are out, but the US is now out of step with the rest of the G7, and now, China. The withdrawal has been roundly condemned in diplomatic terms by the UN, France, Italy and Germany. It is also pushing the EU and China closer together in a common cause.

Former president Barack Obama had put the US in a global leadership role, together with China, at the Paris Climate Agreement. Now Trump, in "acting like a CEO", has surrendered this leadership role to China and the EU. It undermines the US's standing in the world. 

It will now sink in the respect of the world and be marginalised in any climate talks unless there is a change in attitude of the leadership, or a change in leadership. Very damaging in global diplomacy.

The decision, with the reduction of environmental protection regulations for "drill, baby, drill", also surrenders the huge potential in clean energy jobs in the US. 

China and India are moving - both of them much, much faster than anyone expected. China's closing down coal mines at rapid speed. These countries are moving much faster into electrical mobility in the big cities than anyone thought. So don't underestimate China and India. They're fast catching up with the United States.

And in the end, if the US is not vigilant, all the fantastic new jobs in the renewable energies will simply go to China and India. The total number of clean energy jobs threatened in the states that supported Trump are estimated at 1.2 million - much more than in the dying dinosaur fossil fuel industry.

By 2025, many of the jobs in these sectors will not be there. This is recognised by oil giants Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips.

If ever there was a decision contrary to the US's business and economic interests, this may be it. Corporate America already knows this. That's why many leading US companies like General Electric and 3M urged the president to stay in the Paris Agreement, which would allow the US a greater say in how the agreement evolves. This withdrawal puts American businesses last.

Fortunately, there is huge pushback within the US, most notably the state of California. It has been joined by the states of New York, Oregon and Washington. 

Riding the latest high-tech boom and an overall state-wide surge, California has leapfrogged France and Brazil to become the world's sixth-largest economy, representing 5.3 per cent of global GDP – and high growth in renewable jobs. Congratulations to Governor Jerry Brown. This is the great hope.

Trump wishes to make America great again, but his withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement - although bad for the planet - is disastrous for the US: he is rapidly making America insignificant again.

 

Is Jerry Brown at 79 to old to  stand for the presidency next time around? It is going to take some one special to return the US from the cesspit it is currently being dragged into. The US needs to wake up big time...friendships will be getting realigned to and among the better corporate citizens on the block. The US is slipping from respected to tolerated at an alarming rate...below tolerated is not somewhere the US needs to be. 

[Briggsy]

Trump pulled out because he needed to needle and best the other G7 and NATO leaders. "I'll show them," he thought. This is how he interacts with everybody. He doesn't care either way about the effects of climate change.

[ResandePohm]

On 6/3/2017 at 10:17 AM, jackh said:

Jealousy is an expected reaction from other countries in the world. Really, I promise you,  the USA does not care.  But in eight more years of Trump, you all will be begging to have the lifestyle we will enjoy soon. Sorry, you are all taking a back seat on the bus, and I am sure it hurts feeling. But, no pain, no gain as they say.

 

All this global, borderess, greenhouse  BS going on for years is a fantasy I am so relieved will be coming to an end. I for one do not care to be subjected the NWO crap. Still a lot of work to be done, but rest assured Trump is building a mighty army for this very purpose.  

 

If you want to believe in this global warming conspiracy, it's your funeral. Never happen, never will . "Mother Earth" is quite capable of taking care of herself, as she has done for millions of years. Stupid little human ants will never change, effect, or control anything about it. Go ahead and spend billions of $$$, only to go into the bank accounts of Merkel, Soros, Clinton, Obama, etc. That is all it is.......a pyramid scheme. Fall for it at your own peril. I'm not buying any of it. 

 

Should I mention I am enjoying quite a bout of flatulence as I write this and I don't have a bit of quilt! 

You need to rethink your standpoint before calling Global Warming BS

[boomerangutang]

                               I'm part way through watching a Netflix movie about 3 Swedes who are attempting to sail through the NW passage in a small sailboat.  History shows that, since the 16th century onwards, many stout seamen have tried to take boats through there, and all have failed - until relatively recently, with large ice-breaking ships.   I think the Swedes will make it, though I haven't yet watched the full movie.  

 

                                 If the NW passage is open, at least part of the year, that's as much indication as any, that GW is real.  Even skeptics will have to agree, though I know they'll find soggy excuses as to why it's no big deal.

 

                                They may even trot out silly logic, like Rand Paul was doing today on a news interview, about how, "the Earth has gone through many periods of climate change in its 3.5 billion year history."   As usual, they completely miss the point.   Scientists aren't talking about CC in relation to the past billions of years, they're concerned about it as it affects what happens now and the near future.   

 

                      To die-hard deniers, I offer this analogy:    If your daughter is murdered tonight.  It won't make much sense for me to say, "Well, what's the big deal?  Girls have died for 300,000 years.  Should we apprehend the murderer?   Why waste the time? For as long as there have been humans, girls have died.  It's no big deal.  Get over it."

[maewang99]

if you're gonna "save Mother Earth".....

the Paris agreement is a fraud.  

 

those are the words of James Hansen. 

[Scott]

Numerous off-topic posts have been removed along with replies.   Also removed are quotes that violate Fair Use Policy.  

 

If members quote more than 3 lines don't bother to respond because it will be removed along with your reply.  

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, Roadman said:

A view from the other side of the world

 

So why is it bad for the US?

Firstly, it puts the country on an isolationist path from the other nations of the world. It may not matter that Nicaragua and Syria are out, but the US is now out of step with the rest of the G7, and now, China. The withdrawal has been roundly condemned in diplomatic terms by the UN, France, Italy and Germany.

 

The decision, with the reduction of environmental protection regulations for "drill, baby, drill", also surrenders the huge potential in clean energy jobs in the US. 

 

And in the end, if the US is not vigilant, all the fantastic new jobs in the renewable energies will simply go to China and India. The total number of clean energy jobs threatened in the states that supported Trump are estimated at 1.2 million - much more than in the dying dinosaur fossil fuel industry.

 

Fortunately, there is huge pushback within the US, most notably the state of California. It has been joined by the states of New York, Oregon and Washington. 

: he is rapidly making America insignificant again.

 

 

If America becomes isolationist- IMO a good thing. They need to sort themselves out before their debt drags them down into bankruptcy. They need to stop paying out for everyone else, stop immigration and put more Americans to work.

 

G7- bunch of elites that care only about money and power. Get rid of them. Put citizens first, not last.

 

Being condemned by the UN, France, Italy and Germany is like being savaged by a very old poodle with no teeth.

 

No jobs will be lost in the US because they pulled out. Companies make things if there is a profit in it. If it's profitable to make alternate energy infrastructure they will make it.

 

Trump is trying to bring jobs back to the US.

 

Frankly, if California, New York, Oregon and Washington seceded, IMO middle America would be very happy.

[Skywalker69]

4 hours ago, Roadman said:

A view from the other side of the world

 

So why is it bad for the US?

Firstly, it puts the country on an isolationist path from the other nations of the world. It may not matter that Nicaragua and Syria are out, but the US is now out of step with the rest of the G7, and now, China. The withdrawal has been roundly condemned in diplomatic terms by the UN, France, Italy and Germany. It is also pushing the EU and China closer together in a common cause.

Former president Barack Obama had put the US in a global leadership role, together with China, at the Paris Climate Agreement. Now Trump, in "acting like a CEO", has surrendered this leadership role to China and the EU. It undermines the US's standing in the world. 

It will now sink in the respect of the world and be marginalised in any climate talks unless there is a change in attitude of the leadership, or a change in leadership. Very damaging in global diplomacy.

The decision, with the reduction of environmental protection regulations for "drill, baby, drill", also surrenders the huge potential in clean energy jobs in the US. 

China and India are moving - both of them much, much faster than anyone expected. China's closing down coal mines at rapid speed. These countries are moving much faster into electrical mobility in the big cities than anyone thought. So don't underestimate China and India. They're fast catching up with the United States.

And in the end, if the US is not vigilant, all the fantastic new jobs in the renewable energies will simply go to China and India. The total number of clean energy jobs threatened in the states that supported Trump are estimated at 1.2 million - much more than in the dying dinosaur fossil fuel industry.

By 2025, many of the jobs in these sectors will not be there. This is recognised by oil giants Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips.

If ever there was a decision contrary to the US's business and economic interests, this may be it. Corporate America already knows this. That's why many leading US companies like General Electric and 3M urged the president to stay in the Paris Agreement, which would allow the US a greater say in how the agreement evolves. This withdrawal puts American businesses last.

Fortunately, there is huge pushback within the US, most notably the state of California. It has been joined by the states of New York, Oregon and Washington. 

Riding the latest high-tech boom and an overall state-wide surge, California has leapfrogged France and Brazil to become the world's sixth-largest economy, representing 5.3 per cent of global GDP – and high growth in renewable jobs. Congratulations to Governor Jerry Brown. This is the great hope.

Trump wishes to make America great again, but his withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement - although bad for the planet - is disastrous for the US: he is rapidly making America insignificant again.

 

Is Jerry Brown at 79 to old to  stand for the presidency next time around? It is going to take some one special to return the US from the cesspit it is currently being dragged into. The US needs to wake up big time...friendships will be getting realigned to and among the better corporate citizens on the block. The US is slipping from respected to tolerated at an alarming rate...below tolerated is not somewhere the US needs to be. 

US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined, report shows

 

Last year, solar energy employed 43 per cent of the Electric Power Generation sector's workforce, while traditional fossil fuels combined made up just 22 per cent, according to report

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-solar-power-employs-more-people-more-oil-coal-gas-combined-donald-trump-green-energy-fossil-fuels-a7541971.html

 

 

Solar Employs More People In U.S. Electricity Generation Than Oil, Coal And Gas Combined

 

In the United States, more people were employed in solar power last year than in generating electricity through coal, gas and oil energy combined. According to a new report from the U.S. Department of Energy, solar power employed 43 percent of the Electric Power Generation sector's workforce in 2016, while fossil fuels combined accounted for just 22 percent. It's a welcome statistic for those seeking to refute Donald Trump's assertion that green energy projects are bad news for the American economy.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/01/25/u-s-solar-energy-employs-more-people-than-oil-coal-and-gas-combined-infographic/#111d10332800

[RickBradford]

Quote

 

Solar Employs More People In U.S. Electricity Generation Than Oil, Coal And Gas Combined

 

According to a new report from the U.S. Department of Energy, solar power employed 43 percent of the Electric Power Generation sector's workforce in 2016, while fossil fuels combined accounted for just 22 percent. It's a welcome statistic for those seeking to refute Donald Trump's assertion that green energy projects are bad news for the American economy.

 

This has to be one of the dumbest conclusions ever reached. It states that employing more people to generate less energy is good for the American economy.

 

The same report stated that those 43% of workers in the solar industry generated 373,807 units of electricity, while the 22% in fossil fuels generated 1,037,755 units.

 

Roughly speaking, that shows fossil is 5 times as efficient as solar by this particular measure. Needing more people in employment to generate less energy is not a good thing for economies, it is a bad thing.

 

I could create employment for millions by banning cars and trucks, and mandating that all goods be transferred by mule-cart or bicycle. That takes us back to North Korean standards, not forward to a better future.

 

There may be many reasons for celebrating solar power, but meaningless job creation isn't one of them.

[halloween]

28 minutes ago, Skywalker69 said:

US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined, report shows

 

Last year, solar energy employed 43 per cent of the Electric Power Generation sector's workforce, while traditional fossil fuels combined made up just 22 per cent, according to report

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-solar-power-employs-more-people-more-oil-coal-gas-combined-donald-trump-green-energy-fossil-fuels-a7541971.html

 

 

Solar Employs More People In U.S. Electricity Generation Than Oil, Coal And Gas Combined

 

In the United States, more people were employed in solar power last year than in generating electricity through coal, gas and oil energy combined. According to a new report from the U.S. Department of Energy, solar power employed 43 percent of the Electric Power Generation sector's workforce in 2016, while fossil fuels combined accounted for just 22 percent. It's a welcome statistic for those seeking to refute Donald Trump's assertion that green energy projects are bad news for the American economy.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/01/25/u-s-solar-energy-employs-more-people-than-oil-coal-and-gas-combined-infographic/#111d10332800

I'm sorry to point this out, but the whole basis of the article is BS. Most of those counted as employed in the solar industry are construction workers installing home solar or building solar power stations. Any rational report would acknowledge that they are construction industry workers employed for a short period on solar projects.

[thaibeachlovers]

14 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

This has to be one of the dumbest conclusions ever reached. It states that employing more people to generate less energy is good for the American economy.

 

The same report stated that those 43% of workers in the solar industry generated 373,807 units of electricity, while the 22% in fossil fuels generated 1,037,755 units.

 

Roughly speaking, that shows fossil is 5 times as efficient as solar by this particular measure. Needing more people in employment to generate less energy is not a good thing for economies, it is a bad thing.

 

I could create employment for millions by banning cars and trucks, and mandating that all goods be transferred by mule-cart or bicycle. That takes us back to North Korean standards, not forward to a better future.

 

There may be many reasons for celebrating solar power, but meaningless job creation isn't one of them.

Good to see you again.

[Skywalker69]

12 minutes ago, halloween said:

I'm sorry to point this out, but the whole basis of the article is BS.

Quote

Most of those counted as employed in the solar industry are construction workers installing home solar or building solar power stations.

 

Quote

Any rational report would acknowledge that they are construction industry workers employed for a short period on solar projects.

So is this jobs or not?

[halloween]

Just now, Skywalker69 said:

So is this jobs or not?

Are workers building a car factory in the automobile industry? Just because a dog was born in a stable doesn't make it a horse.

[Skywalker69]

28 minutes ago, halloween said:

Are workers building a car factory in the automobile industry? Just because a dog was born in a stable doesn't make it a horse.

It creats jobs, peiod! Isn´t it what it´s all about? 

[halloween]

2 minutes ago, Skywalker69 said:

It creats jobs, peiod! Isn´t it what it´s all about? 

Try to be rational. The claim is that solar is creating more jobs than fossil fuels without any mention that they are short term construction jobs. If they were building coal fired power stations, there would be a big increase in construction jobs too, but it is not a reason to choose coal over solar, or vice versa.

This is the sort of thinking that drives politicians, because there are thousands of the uninformed calling for solar and batteries with absolutely no idea of the problems involved.

[Skywalker69]

23 minutes ago, halloween said:

Try to be rational. The claim is that solar is creating more jobs than fossil fuels without any mention that they are short term construction jobs. If they were building coal fired power stations, there would be a big increase in construction jobs too, but it is not a reason to choose coal over solar, or vice versa.

This is the sort of thinking that drives politicians, because there are thousands of the uninformed calling for solar and batteries with absolutely no idea of the problems involved.

BOOM! CA Gov. Brown Has Had ENOUGH! Says This President’s Recklessness Will “Galvanize … The Whole World”—Trump Is LIVID

 

Donald Trump went to some rather bizarre efforts to make his announcement in the Rose Garden that the United States will be pulling out of the Paris climate agreement seem like a celebratory moment.

 

"California has a very imaginative and aggressive climate action policy. We have a goal of 50 percent renewable electricity by 2030. We’re already about 27 percent now, and we’ll even go beyond that."

 

http://realtimepolitics.com/2017/06/03/ca-governor-brown-president-trump/?utm_campaign=PL&utm_source=PL&utm_medium=FB

 

What brings the world forward? New technology or sticking with the old finite dirty resources?

 

What will in the end create more jobs?

[RickBradford]

If the jobs are real and long-lasting, as the US Department of Energy seems to be saying, then it is simply proof that solar energy generation takes 5 times more people to generate every kilowatt of energy than fossil fuel.

 

How that can benefit America's economy beats me. But the journalist bought it, hook, line, sinker and copy of Fishing News.

 

If the jobs are short-term construction jobs, then DoE is obfuscating the true facts for political purposes, trying to big up solar energy's "potential".

 

In that case, the journalist is a double idiot for not asking whether the jobs were real, and then for thinking that more workers producing less energy is the way to run an economy.

[halloween]

5 minutes ago, Skywalker69 said:

BOOM! CA Gov. Brown Has Had ENOUGH! Says This President’s Recklessness Will “Galvanize … The Whole World”—Trump Is LIVID

 

Donald Trump went to some rather bizarre efforts to make his announcement in the Rose Garden that the United States will be pulling out of the Paris climate agreement seem like a celebratory moment.

 

"California has a very imaginative and aggressive climate action policy. We have a goal of 50 percent renewable electricity by 2030. We’re already about 27 percent now, and we’ll even go beyond that."

 

http://realtimepolitics.com/2017/06/03/ca-governor-brown-president-trump/?utm_campaign=PL&utm_source=PL&utm_medium=FB

 

What brings the world forward? New technology or sticking with the old finite dirty resources?

 

What will in the end create more jobs?

 

Ca governor Brown is a politician. At 27% he's like a guy jumped off a 100 storey building - 27 floors down he's doing fine. But as the percentage rises, grid stability problems start. Germany was one of the front runners - just google Germany grid problems for 24 million hits.

There is nothing wrong with renewables, or any other new technology, but there is a lot wrong with relying on too many uncontrolled inputs into an electricity grid. South Australia, another front-runner, had a recent major blackout because the wind dropped and they didn't have enough fossil fuel generation on standby. And the fossil fuel stations are aging and not being replaced (who needs them, we've got solar!) leading to their own reliability problems. Meanwhile, while we get all this "free" energy, the cost of electricity continues to rise.

[Skywalker69]

8 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

If the jobs are real and long-lasting, as the US Department of Energy seems to be saying, then it is simply proof that solar energy generation takes 5 times more people to generate every kilowatt of energy than fossil fuel.

 

How that can benefit America's economy beats me. But the journalist bought it, hook, line, sinker and copy of Fishing News.

 

If the jobs are short-term construction jobs, then DoE is obfuscating the true facts for political purposes, trying to big up solar energy's "potential".

 

In that case, the journalist is a double idiot for not asking whether the jobs were real, and then for thinking that more workers producing less energy is the way to run an economy.

Is fossil fuel a finite resurs? If yes, when is it time to develope new technology? Shall we wait untill the oil is ended?

[iReason]

Trump 'does believe in climate change', as US ambassador to UN

 

"US President Donald Trump "believes the climate is changing and he believes pollutants are part of the equation," says the US ambassador to the UN".

 

"He knows "the US has to be responsible for it and that's what we're going to do," said Nikki Haley."

 

"During his election campaign, Mr Trump had said that climate change was a hoax and, since his announcement on Thursday, has avoided questions on the subject, as has White House press secretary Sean Spicer."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40147749

 

Trump acknowledges climate change — at his golf course

The billionaire, who called global warming a hoax, warns of its dire effects in his company's application to build a sea wall. (sub-title)

 

"The New York billionaire is applying for permission to erect a coastal protection works to prevent erosion at his seaside golf resort, Trump International Golf Links & Hotel Ireland, in County Clare."

 

"The statement acknowledges one Irish government study that assumes a steady rate of erosion through 2050, but argues that the study fails to account for the effects of climate change: “If the predictions of an increase in sea level rise as a result of global warming prove correct, however, it is likely that there will be a corresponding increase in coastal erosion rates not just in Doughmore Bay but around much of the coastline of Ireland."

 

"In our view, it could reasonably be expected that the rate of sea level rise might become twice of that presently occurring. … As a result, we would expect the rate of dune recession to increase.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-climate-change-golf-course-223436

 

 

A total loon. Unless or course, it's to his benefit...

[Skywalker69]

4 minutes ago, halloween said:

Ca governor Brown is a politician. At 27% he's like a guy jumped off a 100 storey building - 27 floors down he's doing fine. But as the percentage rises, grid stability problems start. Germany was one of the front runners - just google Germany grid problems for 24 million hits.

There is nothing wrong with renewables, or any other new technology, but there is a lot wrong with relying on too many uncontrolled inputs into an electricity grid. South Australia, another front-runner, had a recent major blackout because the wind dropped and they didn't have enough fossil fuel generation on standby. And the fossil fuel stations are aging and not being replaced (who needs them, we've got solar!) leading to their own reliability problems. Meanwhile, while we get all this "free" energy, the cost of electricity continues to rise.

Well guess you are proud to be in company with Syria and Nicaragua then?

[RickBradford]

11 minutes ago, Skywalker69 said:

Is fossil fuel a finite resurs? If yes, when is it time to develope new technology? Shall we wait untill the oil is ended?

We already have new technology. It's called nuclear power, and we've had it for 40 years. 

 

France gets 75% of its energy from nuclear, from a mere 58 plants dotted around the country, and has suffered no fatalities in nuclear accidents at all.

 

Who opposes nuclear? Well, Greenpeace, WWF etc etc, all the usual suspects who would rather gargle battery acid than give up their feel-good dreams of solar arrays and wind factories covering the landscape.

[sirineou]

On 6/2/2017 at 9:51 PM, SOUTHERNSTAR said:

I like the wording. The withdrawl of the US can increase the temp with 0,3 degrees in 83 years time in the worst case scenario. The whole accord only aim at lowering it by 0,5 degrees. The cost of lowering the temp by this meager number will enrich the 1% by trillions. 

for propaganda to be effective it must contain a grain of truth . in Propaganda it is not what you are told but what you are not told .

In this instance it is not the .5 degree that is important but the percentage of decline in the temperature increase. The projection in temperature growth under current conditions is 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels , a reduction of that projected growth by .5  is significant and keeps the increase below a threshold where some significant environmental events occur.

If interested to find out more about that :https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2458/why-a-half-degree-temperature-rise-is-a-big-deal/

 

 

 

 

 

[Skywalker69]

39 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

We already have new technology. It's called nuclear power, and we've had it for 40 years. 

 

France gets 75% of its energy from nuclear, from a mere 58 plants dotted around the country, and has suffered no fatalities in nuclear accidents at all.

 

Who opposes nuclear? Well, Greenpeace, WWF etc etc, all the usual suspects who would rather gargle battery acid than give up their feel-good dreams of solar arrays and wind factories covering the landscape.

Quote

 It's called nuclear power, and we've had it for 40 years. 

New?

[iReason]

37 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

We already have new technology. It's called nuclear power, and we've had it for 40 years. 

 

France gets 75% of its energy from nuclear, from a mere 58 plants dotted around the country, and has suffered no fatalities in nuclear accidents at all.

 

Who opposes nuclear? Well, Greenpeace, WWF etc etc, all the usual suspects who would rather gargle battery acid than give up their feel-good dreams of solar arrays and wind factories covering the landscape.

 

Right.

Nuclear power  to create steam. Short sighted dangerous behavior.

What could go wrong?

 

Backgrounder on Radioactive Waste

"Transuranic wastes, sometimes called TRU, account for most of the radioactive hazard remaining in high-level waste after 1,000 years.

 

"Strontium-90 and cesium-137 have half-lives of about 30 years (half the radioactivity will decay in 30 years)."

 

"Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years."

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/radwaste.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-does-the-us-do-with-nuclear-waste/

 

Brilliant.

 

Apparently, you feel good about this:

(This is just one nation of course)

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

We already have new technology. It's called nuclear power, and we've had it for 40 years. 

 

France gets 75% of its energy from nuclear, from a mere 58 plants dotted around the country, and has suffered no fatalities in nuclear accidents at all.

 

Who opposes nuclear? Well, Greenpeace, WWF etc etc, all the usual suspects who would rather gargle battery acid than give up their feel-good dreams of solar arrays and wind factories covering the landscape.

Except of course that solar and wind energy are actually being installed and used way ahead of schedule. And that's because their efficiency has progressed remarkably. In 1970 a kilowatt hour of electricity produced by a solar cell cost 72 dollars. Today that cost is 30 cents.