The climate change movement: July 28, 1995 to August 14, 2020 RIP

[oil pan 4]

One would think with $4 a gallon gas and the strictest emissions standards in the country they could do better than worst in the nation for the top 6 or 7 spots.
Then when all their BS fails to produce a result better than a 3 or 4 way tie for worst in the nation it's because of "climate change". As if California is the only place in the country with climate change.

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

One would think with $4 a gallon gas and the strictest emissions standards in the country they could do better than worst in the nation for the top 6 or 7 spots.
Then when all their BS fails to produce a result better than a 3 or 4 way tie for worst in the nation it's because of "climate change". As if California is the only place in the country with climate change.

I paid ~$2.80 a gallon, last night.

The relatively strict emissions standards have done a lot. But even the cleaner-burning cars and trucks (diesel particulate filter) emit boatloads of carbon dioxide. How much fossil fuel does the US burn every day? That's a big, constant fire.

You have some illogical arguments in there, but we're working on that.

It's not unusual for some people to moan about California. Any idea why you do?

You don't think climate change is real, or it's not caused by human behavior, or what?

[freebeard]

You have some illogical arguments in there, but we're working on that.

A panoptical AI will localize your location 'Earth' to California. But I agree, I'd use
Spaceship Earth.

It's not unusual for some people to moan about California. Any idea why you do?

I had a Don't Californicate Oregon sticker on the back of my (bumperless) VW bus in the 1960s. But I was sitting in a meeting of the White Bird free clinic, and someone was making a pitch to get his uncle from Russia and get him a dentist's license. At that point I started seeing Californians as neighbors.

You don't think climate change is real, or it's not caused by human behavior, or what?

Not speaking for oilpan4, but I go with, in corporate-speak, "Past performance does not guarantee future results".

edit:
Oops, I had this queued up when I came here:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...administration

A company racing to be among the first to operate a small nuclear reactor in the United States received a vote of confidence from the federal government Friday after encountering recent roadblocks.

The Energy Department approved a $1.4 billion grant to help defray costs for a group of utilities that are the first in line to buy power from the reactors produced by NuScale Power.

The Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems, a group of small, community-owned utilities in six Western states, had previously indicated the group might pull out of the NuScale project unless it received the extra funding from the government.

“It is entirely appropriate for DOE to help de-risk this first-of-a-kind, next generation nuclear project,” said Douglas Hunter, UAMPS CEO and general manager, announcing DOE’s approval of the grant. “This is a great example of a partnership with DOE to lower the cost of introduction of transformative advanced nuclear technology that will provide affordable, carbon-free electricity all over the country and the world.”

Yes SgtLethargic, a pro-nuclear hippy.

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by freebeard

A panoptical AI will localize your location 'Earth' to California. But I agree, I'd use
Spaceship Earth.

I had a Don't Californicate Oregon sticker on the back of my (bumperless) VW bus in the 1960s. But I was sitting in a meeting of the White Bird free clinic, and someone was making a pitch to get his uncle from Russia and get him a dentist's license. At that point I started seeing Californians as neighbors.

Not speaking for oilpan4, but I go with, in corporate-speak, "Past performance does not guarantee future results".

edit:
Oops, I had this queued up when I came here:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...administration


Yes SgtLethargic, a pro-nuclear hippy.

I'm not hiding. I currently live in central California.

We're not supposed to talk politics, so I won't comment on the economic and political thoughts that came to mind when I read that nuclear clip.

If nuclear power (electricity generation) had its major cons eliminated, that'd be great. Radioactive waste, finite fuel source, (minding its own business) safety, and (nuclear weapons/war/"terrorism") safety are the big ones that come to mind.

Not speaking for oilpan4, but I go with, in corporate-speak, "Past performance does not guarantee future results"

How is that relevant?

[sgtlethargic]

I'm kind of glad nuclear was brought up. That's the other looming existential threat. Parallels can be made of climate chaos and nuclear weapons/war. Nuclear weapons are just plain stupid.

[freebeard]

We're not supposed to talk politics, so I won't comment on the economic and political thoughts that came to mind when I read that nuclear clip.

"a group of small, community-owned utilities in six Western states," suits me. Is it the fourth paragraph?

If nuclear power (electricity generation) had its major cons eliminated, that'd be great.

Compare and contrast light-water Uranium and proposed Thorium reactors. The Navy has a very good record with nuclear powered ships (so far as we know ).

About Nucale:

Comparisons
NuScale is expected to be the first SMR to market, because its cooling is similar to the systems used in conventional power plants. However, alternative cooling systems using molten metals are expected to operate at higher, more efficient temperatures once approved.[30] The company estimates a twelve-unit NuScale plant would cost $4,200 (an earlier estimate was $5,000) per kilowatt. In comparison, the Energy Information Administration in 2011 estimated costs to be $4,700 per kilowatt for conventional nuclear power, $4,600 for a carbon sequestration coal plant and $931 at a gas-fired plant or in excess of $1,800 for a gas-fired plant with carbon sequestration.[5] David Mohre, executive director of NRECA's Energy and Power Division, said SMRs like NuScale's are ideal for rural towns that need small power plants and do not have access to natural gas.

So the NuScale solution is similar to submarine reactor except it is a vertical 65ft tall tube that sits in a pool of water in the ground.

Interestingly to me, NuScale started in Corvallis and is headquartered in Tigard, OR, right up the road.

Thorium was tested and rejected in the 1960s because it wouldn't yield weapons-grade material. I like it because a Thorium reactor could be launched to space cold and ignited at the top of the last stage burn.

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Is it the fourth paragraph?

Yes.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

If nuclear power (electricity generation) had its major cons eliminated, that'd be great. Radioactive waste, finite fuel source, (minding its own business) safety, and (nuclear weapons/war/"terrorism") safety are the big ones that come to mind.

If wind and solar had its major cons eliminated, that’d be great. Intermittency, high cost, need for redundant power generation, high fatality to kWh ratio, and land use come to mind.

There are zero options that are without endless cost.

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

If wind and solar had its major cons eliminated, that’d be great. Intermittency, high cost, need for redundant power generation, high fatality to kWh ratio, and land use come to mind.

Those cons, discussing them without questioning their legitimacy, pale in comparison.

There are zero options that are without endless cost.

What is that supposed to mean?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

I'm not hiding. I currently live in central California.

We're not supposed to talk politics, so I won't comment on the economic and political thoughts that came to mind when I read that nuclear clip.

If nuclear power (electricity generation) had its major cons eliminated, that'd be great. Radioactive waste, finite fuel source, (minding its own business) safety, and (nuclear weapons/war/"terrorism") safety are the big ones that come to mind.


How is that relevant?

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

Those cons, discussing them without questioning their legitimacy, pale in comparison.

What is that supposed to mean?

I disagree, and am willing to support my position with data.

Every decision carries infinite opportunity cost. We’ll never get to eat our cake and have it too.