Discussion:
The growing backlash against wind turbines and solar panels
Add Reply
Chom Noamsky
2019-04-12 16:07:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Resistance to wind and solar development has been quietly and steadily
growing. The number of suitable sites, i.e., where there is nobody
around to object, are next to zero. Then you have the ungodly amount of
transmission lines needed to connect them all up. It's a really
terrible use of land.

Support for nuclear is on the rise though. One big reason is because you
can generate *reliable* power on 1/500th the amount of land.

***

* U.S. cities and states have risen up against the spread of solar
panels and wind turbines.

* One expert says at least 225 government entities across the U.S. have
put up barriers to renewable energy development.

* Those supporting renewables rely on the “vacant-land myth” to push
their green agenda, the expert said.

https://www.dailycaller.com/2019/04/11/us-green-energy-land-myth/
JTEM is Remarkably Flexible
2019-04-12 16:41:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Resistance to wind and solar development has been quietly and steadily
growing. The number of suitable sites, i.e., where there is nobody
around to object, are next to zero. Then you have the ungodly amount of
transmission lines needed to connect them all up. It's a really
terrible use of land.
That's my biggest problem. Real estate in the northeastern U.S. is
shocking, it's so expensive, so when I see a bunch of solar panels
along the highway I get VERY angry, because it means some corrupt
"Business" type got some corrupt politician to give him some
sweetheart deal on the land...

"But... but... IT'S FOR THE POLAR BEARS!"
Post by Chom Noamsky
Support for nuclear is on the rise though. One big reason is because you
can generate *reliable* power on 1/500th the amount of land.
Honestly, when your "Alternatives" are so bad that they made nuclear
competitive again, that's nature's way of telling you that you're wrong.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/184121933558
Unum
2019-04-12 18:06:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Resistance to wind and solar development has been quietly and steadily
growing.  The number of suitable sites, i.e., where there is nobody around to
object, are next to zero.  Then you have the ungodly amount of transmission
lines needed to connect them all up.  It's a really terrible use of land.
Nope, there's a gigantic amount of perfectly suitable available land.
Post by Chom Noamsky
Support for nuclear is on the rise though. One big reason is because you can
generate *reliable* power on 1/500th the amount of land.
https://theintercept.com/2019/02/06/south-caroline-green-new-deal-south-carolina-nuclear-energy/

South Carolina, in a bid to expand its generation of nuclear power in recent
years, dropped $9 billion on a single project — and has nothing to show for
it.
Chom Noamsky
2019-04-12 21:13:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Resistance to wind and solar development has been quietly and steadily
growing.  The number of suitable sites, i.e., where there is nobody
around to object, are next to zero.  Then you have the ungodly amount
of transmission lines needed to connect them all up.  It's a really
terrible use of land.
Nope, there's a gigantic amount of perfectly suitable available land.
Not according to the people who actually live in these places.
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Support for nuclear is on the rise though. One big reason is because
you can generate *reliable* power on 1/500th the amount of land.
https://theintercept.com/2019/02/06/south-caroline-green-new-deal-south-carolina-nuclear-energy/
South Carolina, in a bid to expand its generation of nuclear power in recent
years, dropped $9 billion on a single project — and has nothing to show for
it.
"In Sweden, nuclear power has demonstrated its ability to rapidly
decarbonize the electricity system"

http://www.sfen.org/nuclear4climate/in-sweden-nuclear-power-has-demonstrated-its-ability-to-rapidly-decarbonize-the
Unum
2019-04-12 22:11:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Resistance to wind and solar development has been quietly and steadily
growing.  The number of suitable sites, i.e., where there is nobody around
to object, are next to zero.  Then you have the ungodly amount of
transmission lines needed to connect them all up.  It's a really terrible
use of land.
Nope, there's a gigantic amount of perfectly suitable available land.
Not according to the people who actually live in these places.
Actually it was just Koch and Exxon funded Manhattan Institute senior
fellow Robert Bryce.
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Support for nuclear is on the rise though. One big reason is because you
can generate *reliable* power on 1/500th the amount of land.
https://theintercept.com/2019/02/06/south-caroline-green-new-deal-south-carolina-nuclear-energy/
South Carolina, in a bid to expand its generation of nuclear power in recent
years, dropped $9 billion on a single project — and has nothing to show for
it.
"In Sweden, nuclear power has demonstrated its ability to rapidly decarbonize
the electricity system"
http://www.sfen.org/nuclear4climate/in-sweden-nuclear-power-has-demonstrated-its-ability-to-rapidly-decarbonize-the
Yawn, "deployed between 1970 and 1990" after the OPEC oil crises.

"in recent years, Sweden’s nuclear reactors have become starkly unprofitable.
On June 10, it cost 3.8 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) to operate these
reactors, on average. But operators only received around 2.6 cents/kWh for
their nuclear electricity"
Chom Noamsky
2019-04-13 18:49:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Resistance to wind and solar development has been quietly and
steadily growing.  The number of suitable sites, i.e., where there
is nobody around to object, are next to zero.  Then you have the
ungodly amount of transmission lines needed to connect them all up.
It's a really terrible use of land.
Nope, there's a gigantic amount of perfectly suitable available land.
Not according to the people who actually live in these places.
Actually it was just Koch and Exxon funded Manhattan Institute senior
fellow Robert Bryce.
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Support for nuclear is on the rise though. One big reason is because
you can generate *reliable* power on 1/500th the amount of land.
https://theintercept.com/2019/02/06/south-caroline-green-new-deal-south-carolina-nuclear-energy/
South Carolina, in a bid to expand its generation of nuclear power in recent
years, dropped $9 billion on a single project — and has nothing to show for
it.
"In Sweden, nuclear power has demonstrated its ability to rapidly
decarbonize the electricity system"
http://www.sfen.org/nuclear4climate/in-sweden-nuclear-power-has-demonstrated-its-ability-to-rapidly-decarbonize-the
Yawn, "deployed between 1970 and 1990" after the OPEC oil crises.
"in recent years, Sweden’s nuclear reactors have become starkly unprofitable.
On June 10, it cost 3.8 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) to operate these
reactors, on average. But operators only received around 2.6 cents/kWh for
their nuclear electricity"
I guess he's a liar, eh?

"Nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change"

-- James Hansen


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-the-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change
Unum
2019-04-13 20:45:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Resistance to wind and solar development has been quietly and steadily
growing.  The number of suitable sites, i.e., where there is nobody
around to object, are next to zero.  Then you have the ungodly amount of
transmission lines needed to connect them all up. It's a really terrible
use of land.
Nope, there's a gigantic amount of perfectly suitable available land.
Not according to the people who actually live in these places.
Actually it was just Koch and Exxon funded Manhattan Institute senior
fellow Robert Bryce.
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Support for nuclear is on the rise though. One big reason is because you
can generate *reliable* power on 1/500th the amount of land.
https://theintercept.com/2019/02/06/south-caroline-green-new-deal-south-carolina-nuclear-energy/
South Carolina, in a bid to expand its generation of nuclear power in recent
years, dropped $9 billion on a single project — and has nothing to show for
it.
"In Sweden, nuclear power has demonstrated its ability to rapidly
decarbonize the electricity system"
http://www.sfen.org/nuclear4climate/in-sweden-nuclear-power-has-demonstrated-its-ability-to-rapidly-decarbonize-the
Yawn, "deployed between 1970 and 1990" after the OPEC oil crises.
"in recent years, Sweden’s nuclear reactors have become starkly unprofitable.
On June 10, it cost 3.8 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) to operate these
reactors, on average. But operators only received around 2.6 cents/kWh for
their nuclear electricity"
I guess he's a liar, eh?
Maybe he's just full of shit, like chumpsky.
Chom Noamsky
2019-04-13 22:12:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Maybe he's just full of shit, like chumpsky.
Yer saying the man who "diagnosed" man-made global warming is full of shit?
Unum
2019-04-14 22:22:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Maybe he's just full of shit, like chumpsky.
Yer saying the man who "diagnosed" man-made global warming is full of shit?
Actually it was just Koch and Exxon funded Manhattan Institute senior
fellow Robert Bryce.
Chom Noamsky
2019-04-15 17:23:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Maybe he's just full of shit, like chumpsky.
Yer saying the man who "diagnosed" man-made global warming is full of shit?
Actually it was just Koch and Exxon funded Manhattan Institute senior
fellow Robert Bryce.
So now these people are villains for something Dr James Hansen said and
supports?

You people are insane.
Unum
2019-04-15 18:23:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Maybe he's just full of shit, like chumpsky.
Yer saying the man who "diagnosed" man-made global warming is full of shit?
Actually it was just Koch and Exxon funded Manhattan Institute senior
fellow Robert Bryce.
So now these people are villains for something Dr James Hansen said and supports?
Nope, just full of shit.
You people are insane.
So there's not really a "growing backlash against wind turbines and solar
panels" and chumpsky lied as usual.
Chom Noamsky
2019-04-16 19:37:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Maybe he's just full of shit, like chumpsky.
Yer saying the man who "diagnosed" man-made global warming is full of shit?
Actually it was just Koch and Exxon funded Manhattan Institute senior
fellow Robert Bryce.
So now these people are villains for something Dr James Hansen said and supports?
Nope, just full of shit.
Hansen is full of shit?
Post by Unum
You people are insane.
So there's not really a "growing backlash against wind turbines and solar
panels" and chumpsky lied as usual.
"... at least 225 government entities across the U.S. have put up
barriers to renewable energy development."
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2019-04-16 20:24:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Maybe he's just full of shit, like chumpsky.
Yer saying the man who "diagnosed" man-made global warming is full of shit?
Actually it was just Koch and Exxon funded Manhattan Institute senior
fellow Robert Bryce.
So now these people are villains for something Dr James Hansen said and supports?
Nope, just full of shit.
Hansen is full of shit?
Post by Unum
You people are insane.
So there's not really a "growing backlash against wind turbines and solar
panels" and chumpsky lied as usual.
"... at least 225 government entities across the U.S. have put up
barriers to renewable energy development."
laughing, 225 entities please define?
Unum
2019-04-17 15:54:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Maybe he's just full of shit, like chumpsky.
Yer saying the man who "diagnosed" man-made global warming is full of shit?
Actually it was just Koch and Exxon funded Manhattan Institute senior
fellow Robert Bryce.
So now these people are villains for something Dr James Hansen said and supports?
Nope, just full of shit.
Hansen is full of shit?
Post by Unum
You people are insane.
So there's not really a "growing backlash against wind turbines and solar
panels" and chumpsky lied as usual.
"... at least 225 government entities across the U.S. have put up
barriers to renewable energy development."
laughing, 225 entities please define?
"One expert says", lol. But hey, its the Daily Caller so nothing.
gordo
2019-04-14 17:25:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Resistance to wind and solar development has been quietly and steadily
growing.  The number of suitable sites, i.e., where there is nobody
around to object, are next to zero.  Then you have the ungodly amount of
transmission lines needed to connect them all up. It's a really terrible
use of land.
Nope, there's a gigantic amount of perfectly suitable available land.
Not according to the people who actually live in these places.
Actually it was just Koch and Exxon funded Manhattan Institute senior
fellow Robert Bryce.
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Support for nuclear is on the rise though. One big reason is because you
can generate *reliable* power on 1/500th the amount of land.
https://theintercept.com/2019/02/06/south-caroline-green-new-deal-south-carolina-nuclear-energy/
South Carolina, in a bid to expand its generation of nuclear power in recent
years, dropped $9 billion on a single project — and has nothing to show for
it.
"In Sweden, nuclear power has demonstrated its ability to rapidly
decarbonize the electricity system"
http://www.sfen.org/nuclear4climate/in-sweden-nuclear-power-has-demonstrated-its-ability-to-rapidly-decarbonize-the
Yawn, "deployed between 1970 and 1990" after the OPEC oil crises.
"in recent years, Sweden’s nuclear reactors have become starkly unprofitable.
On June 10, it cost 3.8 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) to operate these
reactors, on average. But operators only received around 2.6 cents/kWh for
their nuclear electricity"
I guess he's a liar, eh?
Maybe he's just full of shit, like chumpsky.
No Dr Hansen is correct if nuclear was cheaper and people were not so
afraid of another meltdown.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Chom Noamsky
2019-04-15 17:21:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gordo
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Resistance to wind and solar development has been quietly and steadily
growing.  The number of suitable sites, i.e., where there is nobody
around to object, are next to zero.  Then you have the ungodly amount of
transmission lines needed to connect them all up. It's a really terrible
use of land.
Nope, there's a gigantic amount of perfectly suitable available land.
Not according to the people who actually live in these places.
Actually it was just Koch and Exxon funded Manhattan Institute senior
fellow Robert Bryce.
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Support for nuclear is on the rise though. One big reason is because you
can generate *reliable* power on 1/500th the amount of land.
https://theintercept.com/2019/02/06/south-caroline-green-new-deal-south-carolina-nuclear-energy/
South Carolina, in a bid to expand its generation of nuclear power in recent
years, dropped $9 billion on a single project — and has nothing to show for
it.
"In Sweden, nuclear power has demonstrated its ability to rapidly
decarbonize the electricity system"
http://www.sfen.org/nuclear4climate/in-sweden-nuclear-power-has-demonstrated-its-ability-to-rapidly-decarbonize-the
Yawn, "deployed between 1970 and 1990" after the OPEC oil crises.
"in recent years, Sweden’s nuclear reactors have become starkly unprofitable.
On June 10, it cost 3.8 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) to operate these
reactors, on average. But operators only received around 2.6 cents/kWh for
their nuclear electricity"
I guess he's a liar, eh?
Maybe he's just full of shit, like chumpsky.
No Dr Hansen is correct if nuclear was cheaper and people were not so
afraid of another meltdown.
Even with the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents, nuclear power kills
fewer people per TWh generated than wind.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/worlds-safest-source-energy/
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2019-04-15 17:37:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gordo
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Resistance to wind and solar development has been quietly and steadily
growing.  The number of suitable sites, i.e., where there is nobody
around to object, are next to zero.  Then you have the ungodly amount of
transmission lines needed to connect them all up. It's a really terrible
use of land.
Nope, there's a gigantic amount of perfectly suitable available land.
Not according to the people who actually live in these places.
Actually it was just Koch and Exxon funded Manhattan Institute senior
fellow Robert Bryce.
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Support for nuclear is on the rise though. One big reason is because you
can generate *reliable* power on 1/500th the amount of land.
https://theintercept.com/2019/02/06/south-caroline-green-new-deal-south-carolina-nuclear-energy/
South Carolina, in a bid to expand its generation of nuclear power in recent
years, dropped $9 billion on a single project — and has nothing to show for
it.
"In Sweden, nuclear power has demonstrated its ability to rapidly
decarbonize the electricity system"
http://www.sfen.org/nuclear4climate/in-sweden-nuclear-power-has-demonstrated-its-ability-to-rapidly-decarbonize-the
Yawn, "deployed between 1970 and 1990" after the OPEC oil crises.
"in recent years, Sweden’s nuclear reactors have become starkly unprofitable.
On June 10, it cost 3.8 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) to operate these
reactors, on average. But operators only received around 2.6 cents/kWh for
their nuclear electricity"
I guess he's a liar, eh?
Maybe he's just full of shit, like chumpsky.
No Dr Hansen is correct if nuclear was cheaper and people were not so
afraid of another meltdown.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
The expense for fukushima clean up is something the industry is running from, seriously with all the HUGE tech advances in robots these days you figure fukushima would have been cleaned up by now

If the industry wants to expand, the u.s. tax payer better be prepared to increase the emergency fund to realistically deal with the mess. I know chompers want to sweep it under the carpet and pretend the cleanup is not a problem, and not associated with the power generation in the first place but i dont think reasonable thinkers will fall for that double standard
R Kym Horsell
2019-04-15 18:16:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by gordo
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Resistance to wind and solar development has been quietly and steadily
growing. The number of suitable sites, i.e., where there is nobody
around to object, are next to zero. Then you have the ungodly amount of
transmission lines needed to connect them all up. It's a really terrible
use of land.
Nope, there's a gigantic amount of perfectly suitable available land.
Not according to the people who actually live in these places.
Actually it was just Koch and Exxon funded Manhattan Institute senior
fellow Robert Bryce.
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Support for nuclear is on the rise though. One big reason is because you
can generate *reliable* power on 1/500th the amount of land.
https://theintercept.com/2019/02/06/south-caroline-green-new-deal-south-carolina-nuclear-energy/
South Carolina, in a bid to expand its generation of nuclear power in recent
years, dropped $9 billion on a single project - and has nothing to show for
it.
"In Sweden, nuclear power has demonstrated its ability to rapidly
decarbonize the electricity system"
http://www.sfen.org/nuclear4climate/in-sweden-nuclear-power-has-demonstrated-its-ability-to-rapidly-decarbonize-the
Yawn, "deployed between 1970 and 1990" after the OPEC oil crises.
"in recent years, Sweden's nuclear reactors have become starkly unprofitable.
On June 10, it cost 3.8 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) to operate these
reactors, on average. But operators only received around 2.6 cents/kWh for
their nuclear electricity"
I guess he's a liar, eh?
Maybe he's just full of shit, like chumpsky.
No Dr Hansen is correct if nuclear was cheaper and people were not so
afraid of another meltdown.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
The expense for fukushima clean up is something the industry is running from, seriously with all the HUGE tech advances in robots these days you figure fukushima would have been cleaned up by now
By coincidence they just *started* a major phase of the cleanup in the past
24 hrs.
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
If the industry wants to expand, the u.s. tax payer better be prepared to increase the emergency fund to realistically deal with the mess. I know chompers want to sweep it under the carpet and pretend the cleanup is not a problem, and not associated with the power generation in the first place but i dont think reasonable thinkers will fall for that double standard
--
You know if someone gets naked and runs around a tree at a little
more than 186,000 miles per second, Albert Einstein's theory is that
they could kiss their own ass.
-- BeamMeUpScotty at readnews.com, 17 Oct 2013
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2019-04-12 21:49:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Resistance to wind and solar development has been quietly and steadily
growing. The number of suitable sites, i.e., where there is nobody
around to object, are next to zero. Then you have the ungodly amount of
transmission lines needed to connect them all up. It's a really
terrible use of land.
Support for nuclear is on the rise though. One big reason is because you
can generate *reliable* power on 1/500th the amount of land.
***
* U.S. cities and states have risen up against the spread of solar
panels and wind turbines.
* One expert says at least 225 government entities across the U.S. have
put up barriers to renewable energy development.
* Those supporting renewables rely on the “vacant-land myth” to push
their green agenda, the expert said.
https://www.dailycaller.com/2019/04/11/us-green-energy-land-myth/
Laughing, more propaganda from the pro nuke advertising push brought to you by tax payer dollars and subsidized technology.
JTEM is Remarkably Flexible
2019-04-13 00:11:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Laughing, more propaganda from the pro nuke advertising push
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx

I'm not pro nuke. But the fact remains that after a 30 year stretch
where nobody wanted anything to do with nuclear power, old
plants have been granted new leases on life and new plants are
coming online!

Check out the Brits:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station

Again, nuclear power was pretty much dead in the water for some three
decades, but even if it couldn't compete with coal it CAN compete with
and win against solar & wind...

This is reality. The numbers don't lie. Nuclear is back, and it's back
because wind & solar can't get the job done.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/184139172193
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2019-04-13 01:37:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JTEM is Remarkably Flexible
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Laughing, more propaganda from the pro nuke advertising push
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx
I'm not pro nuke. But the fact remains that after a 30 year stretch
where nobody wanted anything to do with nuclear power, old
plants have been granted new leases on life and new plants are
coming online!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station
Again, nuclear power was pretty much dead in the water for some three
decades, but even if it couldn't compete with coal it CAN compete with
and win against solar & wind...
This is reality. The numbers don't lie. Nuclear is back, and it's back
because wind & solar can't get the job done.
You have this misconception that your bs has relevance, as your whining about land use is a tip off that you and chom are clueless sun hating trolls.

Of course his whining is contradictory, chom claims that some are smart for tapping the fossil fuels buried under the ground, yet utilizing the sun for energy production is the subject of his dumb ass bs. The topper is his "ungodly amount of transmission lines" is a joke, like he really flipping cares about the topic other than having his future projected profits off of fossil fuel investments threatened.

And you complaining about land use is another flipping joke, dude shut the hell up you have been told many times about dual land use etc.

U.S. president #45 has spent alot of tax payer money pushing for nuclear come on now you are an idiot.
JTEM is Remarkably Flexible
2019-04-13 02:05:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by JTEM is Remarkably Flexible
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx
I'm not pro nuke. But the fact remains that after a 30 year stretch
where nobody wanted anything to do with nuclear power, old
plants have been granted new leases on life and new plants are
coming online!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station
Again, nuclear power was pretty much dead in the water for some three
decades, but even if it couldn't compete with coal it CAN compete with
and win against solar & wind...
This is reality. The numbers don't lie. Nuclear is back, and it's back
because wind & solar can't get the job done.
You have
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I had forgotten what you are, and that
I somehow sought an exchange. This is not a debate. Nuclear power is
growing, it's growing fast, and this is despite the fact that we don't have the
fuel to keep an expanded fleet of nuclear power plants operating. And
we're not seeing this massive investment because wind & solar are filling
the gap, we're seeing it because wind & solar failed.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/184139172193
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2019-04-13 02:27:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JTEM is Remarkably Flexible
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by JTEM is Remarkably Flexible
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx
I'm not pro nuke. But the fact remains that after a 30 year stretch
where nobody wanted anything to do with nuclear power, old
plants have been granted new leases on life and new plants are
coming online!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station
Again, nuclear power was pretty much dead in the water for some three
decades, but even if it couldn't compete with coal it CAN compete with
and win against solar & wind...
This is reality. The numbers don't lie. Nuclear is back, and it's back
because wind & solar can't get the job done.
You have
I'm sorry,
Not accepted, the numbers show a pretty big increase in subsidies for the nuclear industry, which is obviously spending lots of marketing efforts to change public perception. IOW you are saying the marketing push is slightly working but it obviously desperately needs the help of dumb asses like you who think your rants have relevance.
JTEM is Remarkably Flexible
2019-04-13 04:08:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Not
Again, seriously, you are not capable of a rational conversation on
any level, much less an adult one, and I never meant to imply that
I was interested in attempting one with the likes of you.

The facts remain the facts regardless of trolling: Nuclear was dead
in the water for more than a generation, and now it's experiencing
a resurgence. And it's NOT doing so because wind & solar are just
so gosh darn great, it's doing so because wind & solar suck out
loud and can't plug the gap left by the artificial reduction in coal.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/184136929743
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2019-04-13 05:19:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JTEM is Remarkably Flexible
Not
Again,
Over a billion u.s. tax payer dollars in 2019 for the nuclear gravy train, the pro nuke lobby is strong. Even with all that marketing from public relations companies, along dumb ass rants from losers like you, the public approval is below 50.
The reason chompers noted the "rise", would be public relations efforts are having a slight impact in drowning out information about the pathetically slow progress at fukushima.
Post by JTEM is Remarkably Flexible
seriously, you are not capable of a rational conversation on
any level, much less an adult one, and I never meant to imply that
I was interested in attempting one with the likes of you.
The facts remain the facts regardless of trolling: Nuclear was dead
in the water for more than a generation, and now it's experiencing
a resurgence. And it's NOT doing so because wind & solar are just
so gosh darn great, it's doing so because wind & solar suck out
loud and can't plug the gap left by the artificial reduction in coal.
You mean the industry was in deep shit and needed the assistance of tax payers across the globe to fund R&D so we can be assured when there is another fuckup it aint as bad as the last one.
Post by JTEM is Remarkably Flexible
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/184136929743
JTEM is Remarkably Flexible
2019-04-13 11:05:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Over a billion u.s. tax payer dollars in 2019 for the nuclear gravy train
That's less than the subsidies on EVs for ONE manufacturer! It's like
$7,500 per car for the first 200,000 units! Per manufacturer, so that's
over $1 billion each...







-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/184139172193
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2019-04-13 17:32:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JTEM is Remarkably Flexible
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Over a billion u.s. tax payer dollars in 2019 for the nuclear gravy train
That's
Marketing by the industry is pushing to increase public acceptance at the same time the nuclear industry is lobbying like crazy to keep its gravy train going.

Which begs the question of why not apply your same cynical attitude to the billions of dollars used to save the nuclear industry?

Oh yeah thats right, you want to have a special place where your bs is never questioned, and your piss poor logic is goes unchecked.

Dude shut up
Post by JTEM is Remarkably Flexible
less than the subsidies on EVs for ONE manufacturer! It's like
$7,500 per car for the first 200,000 units! Per manufacturer, so that's
over $1 billion each...
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/184139172193
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2019-04-15 17:50:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 9:08:29 PM UTC-7, JTEM is Remarkably Flexible wrote:" Nuclear was dead in the water for more than a generation, and now it's experiencing a resurgence."


So you and chompers are drooling hoping to cash in on the subsidized nuclear gravy train
Bret Cahill
2019-04-13 02:33:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Resistance to wind and solar development has been quietly and steadily
growing.
It just ain't got no political power.
Post by Chom Noamsky
The number of suitable sites, i.e., where there is nobody
around to object, are next to zero.
Them corn stalks & cows have their own anti-wind turbine anti-solar caucus in Congress.
Post by Chom Noamsky
Then you have the ungodly amount of
transmission lines needed to connect them all up.
Horrors! Terrorists need to simultaneously hit multiple targets!
Post by Chom Noamsky
It's a really
terrible use of land.
Them cows and corn stalks simply will not share eben 1 m^2 land wif a wind turbine!
Post by Chom Noamsky
Support for nuclear is on the rise though.
Then tell them Japanese to site their reactors 100 m above sea lebel.
Bret Cahill
2019-04-15 23:11:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Just last week pro carbon activists broke into 2 wind farms and a solar thermal array and photographed the dead birds:

https://www.yahoo.com/activism/carbon-activists-eat-dead-vultures-666.html
R Kym Horsell
2019-04-15 23:42:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
https://www.yahoo.com/activism/carbon-activists-eat-dead-vultures-666.html
It's all part of Naychas bewdiful circle.
An healthier than what they'd normlee be gettin outta supermarket dumpsters.
--
The dangerous man is the one who has only one idea, because then he'll
fight and die for it.
-- Francis Crick
Loading...