Global warming, WHY?

[tonybluegoat]

But as for nuclear energy can you say Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, Chernobyl disaster, a promise of a new power source all of them promised not to happen, all did happen and the real problem how to dispose of nuclear waste. Man has not learned to deal with the problems of nuclear power production and the possibilities of problems can lay waste to our world just as a nuclear explosion would.  

An easier and cheaper and more environmentally safe way to power turbines is geo thermal and is being developed now.


The Age of Humans
The Ozone Hole Was Super Scary, So What Happened To It?
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ozone-hole-was-super-scary-what-happened-it-180957775/

I apologize for the long post.  But it is required giving the information "presented" in some posts above.

One must understand the design and processes used for production of electricity using nuclear power to comment on it in proper context.

Chernobyl was a poorly designed plant.  The accident was a result of flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel.  The design is not used by any other nation.  The accident was the direct result of a "test"

Read more here if you are interested.  Especially read about the "test" they were preforming.  

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx

Fukushima Daiichi was the result of a Tsunami that affected the safety systems.  Maybe it was poorly sited I cannot speak to that but I can say there have been no deaths or cases of radiation sickness from Fukushima Daichi nuclear accident.

Read more here is you are interested

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-daiichi-accident.aspx

Now for nuclear power in the rest of the world.  In the US, commercial nuclear power plants are either GE BWRs (Boiling Water Reactors) or PWRs (Pressurized Water Reactors) designed by Westinghouse, Babcock and Wilcox, or Combustion Engineering.  France gets 80% of its electricity from Nuclear Energy.  In the US about 10% comes from nuclear.  

The use of nuclear fuel for the generation of electric has been meet with extreme resistance from environmental groups  and the media.  But just for the record which is the safest way to produce electricity? The answer is Nuclear with next being gas, and then oil and then coal.

Using nuclear for the generation of electircyt is the safest, and if you include the entire supply chain, the most economical way to produce electricity, second only to Hydro-electric (in Mils per KW).  

Read more here if you are interested.

Death rates from air pollution and accidents related to energy production, measured in deaths per terawatt hours (TWh)

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html

Waste disposal is not an issue for nuclear power production.  It is made one by those against using nuclear energy for the production of electricity.  You will get more exposure to radiation if you fly (average whole body exposure of about 35 Mrem per flight).  You will be exposed to radiation each time you get a dental X-ray (the "tube" is aimed at your face which includes one of the most sensitive organs to exposure the lens of your eye).  You will be exposed to radiation (above background) if you have a granite counter top in your home.

Geo-thermal is not an answer.  See here for why not.

https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/Disadvantages_GeothermalEnergy.php

Just for the record, my experience:  I have worked for 40 plus years in the electric generation industry.  Prior to the I was in the US Navy (SSBN-599 Blue).  I worked for and earned two licenses for the operation of commercial nuclear power plants.  Both licenses issued by the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) at the Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) level.  These licenses required both a written test and an oral exam followed by a plant walk down with the NRC Inspector.  The SRO on duty is the one in charge of the operation of the commercial nuclear power plant.  

Regarding safety.  Safety at a commercial nuclear power plant is "Job One".  We think, act, and operate with safety being paramount.  It all starts with the little things.  Using the hand rail when climbing or descending stairs.  Using the same "Three Point" contact when climbing a ladder.  It begins there and extends to communications.  The use of three way communication each and every time.  

If you want to know what that really is, look here.

https://www.safetytalkideas.com/safetytalks/three-way-communication/

Summary:  Nuclear power is the safest, most cost effective way to produce the electricity we need to exist as we do today.

For me actual experience trumps everything else.  Thanks!

[..]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50614518

Climate "Point of no return"

Told ya so ! 

[F6Dave]

Actually, CO2 comprises far less than 1% of our atmosphere as was mentioned earlier.  It's made up of:

78% Nitrogen
21% Oxygen
.93% Argon
.003% Natural CO2
.001% Man Made CO2
Other trace elements make up the rest.

The .003% 'natural CO2' (or THREE TEN THOUSANDTHS) is the amount in the atmosphere at the dawn of the industrial revolution.  So man has increased the CO2 level by .001%, or ONE TEN THOUSANDTH.

Keep in mind that CO2 levels below 250 PPM (.0025%) have a serious downside:  plant life begins to disappear!  The current levels, which are not high at all, have probably benefitted the planet.  By virtually any measure civilization is better off today than at any time in history.  There's less hunger, life expectancy is longer, and air and water are cleaner.  Without reliable and affordable energy this never could have occurred.

[..]

Use 6 minutes of your day to listen.

https://www.facebook.com/JohnStossel/videos/496506411074039/

[98valk]

https://www.naturalnews.com/053193_UN_Agenda_2030_corporate_fascism_totalitarian_socialism.html

Wealth redistribution alone, however, will not be enough. Governments must also seize control of the means of production — either directly or through fascist-style mandates. "We commit to making fundamental changes in the way that our societies produce and consume goods and services," the document states. It also says that "governments, international organizations, the business sector and other non-state actors and individuals must contribute to changing unsustainable consumption and production patterns ... to move towards more sustainable patterns of consumption and production."

In plain English, the Agenda 2030 document is claiming that today's "consumption and production" patterns are unsustainable, so we'll need to get by with less. How much less? It would be hard to find a more clear and concise assessment than that offered by the late Maurice Strong, the recently deceased Canadian billionaire and longtime UN environmental guru who led the 1992 Earth Summit, in a pre-Earth Summit document: "It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle-class ... involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and 'convenience' foods, ownership of motor vehicles, numerous electrical appliances, home and workplace air-conditioning ... expensive suburban housing ... are not sustainable."

In truth, such "lifestyles and consumption patterns" are sustainable, so long as the freedom that makes prosperity possible is not destroyed in the name of achieving "sustainability." The UN and the environmental lobby claim that we must get by with less because there are now too many people on the planet consuming too many resources. But this rationale for accepting UN-imposed scarcity is patently false.[1]

Of course, the promoters of Agenda 2030 would claim that rather than impoverish us, the global regime they envision would take good care of us — through universal health coverage, for instance. One of the targets for Goal 3, ensuring "healthy lives" and "well-being," is: "Achieve universal health coverage," including "vaccines for all." Universal access to "mental health," along with "sexual and reproductive health-care services" — code words for abortion and contraception — are also included. All governments are expected to integrate such services into their "national strategies and programmes," the agreement demands.

It is worth noting that mass-murdering Soviet dictator Vladimir Lenin made clear that controlled healthcare is the "keystone" of socialism. The United Nations obviously agrees. And though he may not call it "socialism," Obama undoubtedly also views government control of healthcare as key. Indeed, enactment of ObamaCare could be viewed as a "great leap forward" by the United States toward implementation of a key component of Agenda 2030, before Agenda 2030 was even "approved."

But as important as targeting healthcare is to the globalist schemers, any plan for building international socialism would be lacking without also targeting the next generation with global-socialist propaganda. And so an entire goal of Agenda 2030 is devoted to ensuring that all children, everywhere, are transformed into what the UN calls "agents of change," ready to push forward the plan for the new global order. "Children and young women and men are critical agents of change and will find in the new Goals a platform to channel their infinite capacities for activism into the creation of a better world," the agreement explains.

[carolinarider09]

Specifically for carolinarider09 (even if you were a boomer rider) but any thoughts are welcome.

What do you think of this small, unheralded bit of information?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2019/10/30/a-breakthrough-in-american-energy-dominance-us-navy-patents-compact-fusion-reactor/#6fd9c8210701

I apologize for missing your post and question. 

I agree with the summation at the end. 

"What is certain is that nuclear fusion technology development is gathering pace. While the Navy’s design may not be immediately operational (or even realistic), a major shift towards harnessing clean fusion energy is already on the horizon."

The key words "immediately operational" and "realistic"

I believe fusion will, someday, be common place.  Not in my lifetime but someday, its a matter of being able to containing the process. 

The same thing goes for matter anti-matter power generation.  It can be done, we just don't have the necessary tools to contain the energy today.  Again, not in my lifetime but someday.

But, today, if you want reliable, carbon free energy, the only source is nuclear fission.  It works, has the best safety record of any energy production method in the world. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/12/13/the-safest-and-the-most-dangerous-jobs-in-america--nuclear-and-logging/?fbclid=IwAR0MCOuFCv-yKRaGCiUEPz4og9_w8DdePhXKV5OjYQyWQzyqVlk8Pq92GoA#47a571aa455b

[carolinarider09]

In case you are all wondering   about the real goal of the "climate change activists" this article in Forbes explains it.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-13/-it-s-an-irony-at-climate-forum-there-s-one-vegan-food-truck

[..]

In case you are all wondering  about the real goal of the "climate change activists" this article in Forbes explains in.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-13/-it-s-an-irony-at-climate-forum-there-s-one-vegan-food-truck

That's a gas engine truck.

Wonder where they get their power to operate the food business when on location?

It's such hypocrisy from the climate clowns.

[F6Dave]

I read that the angry brainwashed climate clown Greta tweeted a complaint about riding on overcrowded trains in Germany.  The railway responded that she forgot to mention she had a first class seat.  She's as hypocritical as all the other celebrity climate alarmists.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I read that the angry brainwashed climate clown Greta tweeted a complaint about riding on overcrowded trains in Germany.  The railway responded that she forgot to mention she had a first class seat.  She's as hypocritical as all the other celebrity climate alarmists.

not exactly

[Alpha Dog]

Specifically for carolinarider09 (even if you were a boomer rider) but any thoughts are welcome.

What do you think of this small, unheralded bit of information?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2019/10/30/a-breakthrough-in-american-energy-dominance-us-navy-patents-compact-fusion-reactor/#6fd9c8210701

I apologize for missing your post and question.  

I agree with the summation at the end.  

"What is certain is that nuclear fusion technology development is gathering pace. While the Navy’s design may not be immediately operational (or even realistic), a major shift towards harnessing clean fusion energy is already on the horizon."

The key words "immediately operational" and "realistic"

I believe fusion will, someday, be common place.  Not in my lifetime but someday, its a matter of being able to containing the process.  

The same thing goes for matter anti-matter power generation.  It can be done, we just don't have the necessary tools to contain the energy today.  Again, not in my lifetime but someday.

But, today, if you want reliable, carbon free energy, the only source is nuclear fission.  It works, has the best safety record of any energy production method in the world.  

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/12/13/the-safest-and-the-most-dangerous-jobs-in-america--nuclear-and-logging/?fbclid=IwAR0MCOuFCv-yKRaGCiUEPz4og9_w8DdePhXKV5OjYQyWQzyqVlk8Pq92GoA#47a571aa455b

I remember the articles about nuclear fusion when I was a kid reading the Weekly reader in grade school, and it may hold the promise for our future.

After reading the Forbes article it got me thinking about what Bob Lazar was stating in circa 1990 about the UFO craft that he was involved with in back engineering at the S-4 facility about 15 miles south of Area 51.   They had what they assumed was a nuclear type reactor ( with element 115 ) that was surrounded by 3 tubes that they thought were gravity amplifiers. Thus the craft would create it own gravity field and this is why they can zig zag at tremendous speeds that G forces would crush all our earthly craft.  At that time they were stumped as they were afraid to cut open the reactor not knowing if all hell would break loose.   Now almost 30 years later have they unlocked the secrets?

This is a clip with Joe Rogan and Bob Lazar from last Summer.  Other segments can be found for the full 2 hours and other youtubes are out with Bob making sketches of the craft and propulsion system.  In this clip towards the end it is motorcycle related sort of, probably because back during his S-4 days his hobby was, and maybe still is, putting rocket engines on Hondas.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=bob+lazar+explains+ufo&&view=detail&mid=7ABFA39D10E9AF19F1C37ABFA39D10E9AF19F1C3&rvsmid=BC7FFFF71018023B60A4BC7FFFF71018023B60A4&FORM=VDQVAP

https://www.netflix.com/title/81083891

[..]

https://electroverse.net/icelands-emigration-center-disappears-under-snow/

[..]

Oh no say it aint so.

https://www.educationviews.org/landfill-begins-burying-non-recyclable-wind-turbine-blades/?fbclid=IwAR2gCn7Q_x5pBPymg6NIS3V7f6ur__0nqRoHPeViN2dcdyD4AXKntv0tK3k

[98valk]

Oh no say it aint so.

https://www.educationviews.org/landfill-begins-burying-non-recyclable-wind-turbine-blades/?fbclid=IwAR2gCn7Q_x5pBPymg6NIS3V7f6ur__0nqRoHPeViN2dcdyD4AXKntv0tK3k

amazing

[hubcapsc]

There's (from memory) like 1500 tons of concrete in the foundation of each windmill.
A whole lot of stuff about the manufacture of concrete is "not green".

There's 750 tons of steel in each structure... there's a lot that's "not green"
about mining and such...

There's 45 tons of un-recycleable plastic in each windmill.

Those things stretch to the horizon in Oklahoma in some places. Imagine
them stretching to the horizon in enough places to power all our cities  ...

https://www.prageru.com/video/can-we-rely-on-wind-and-solar-energy/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2o5P-6zm6Y

-Mike

[carolinarider09]

Just one more article -

The Roadmap to Nowhere -  http://www.roadmaptonowhere.com/?fbclid=IwAR2sMccupieAnk5AI9f8tz5MkRmKtTllW0sQzHzJuiewfgPknbgBwcNHURI

[Beer van Huet]

I will not adress the validity of all this.
I will tell you about some of my experiences with NATO, a smaller, but similar organization as the UN.
What I know, is that the UN has become a toothless organization. Almost everybody agrees with this statement, the only excuse for it's existance is the lack of an alternative.
The majority of foreign UN employees consists of diplomats and politicians, expats with a splendid income and all kinds of taxfree- and secondary labour conditions and pay.
The UN is often used to reward a local diplomat or politician for a job 'well done' in a political sense. These people are generally not renowned for their strong, innovative and own initiatives, but rather having complied with the system as it is. So they focus mainly on the organization. Anything that happens in the world, no matter what, is just another file on their desk.
These people are now Subject Matter Experts. There is usually no transfer of knowledge, so a majority of these employees start to copy and paste a solution from their predecessors. That is the reason why these organizations almost always adhere to solutions from the past and not the present.
The organization plays an important role in world affairs, however. Especially if there is something wrong.
Then, people want to see someone taking action. Consequently, the UN does not thrive on eliminating problems, on the contrary. The more and the larger the problems are, the more important the UN becomes.
This will allow the organization to get a larger budget by the member states. New commissions are installed as well as foreign deployments (usually luxury hotels) and equipment.
In order to be eligible for promotion, these people all want to excel, of course. Especially in a 'new' project. So more and more people are keeping each other busy.  Libraries of paper are produced to impress the boss and for the sake of burocracy instead of fixing the problem.
If I recall the UN involvement in history,  Korea is still there, as well as numerous other conflicts like  Cyprus, Lebanon, the Palestine issue, Kosovo, Sahara, Mali, Central Africa, Congo, Sudan, Darfur, Kashmir, etc.
These are still not resolved and need blue helmet presence. Some of them last for 60 years now.
Starvation, hunger and poverty has never been worse, overpopulation has not been fixed.
There are more wars than ever, deseases like ebola are spreading, even malaria is growing again.
Terrorists are still out there and I can go on and on.
Bottom line:  It is more beneficial for the UN when there are more problems instead of less.
As far as climate change is concerned, the UN has been talking about this issue for almost 20 (twenty) years now, without having achieved any measurable result whatsoever.
Imagine you work 5 days a week for a very substantial salary. Tens of thousands of these people have been holding meetings for 6000 days now, without any result. Try this at home, LOL
 
 

[Jess from VA]

Imagine you work 5 days a week for a very substantial salary. Tens of thousands of these people have been holding meetings for 6000 days now, without any result. Try this at home, LOL

Beer, we are trying it at home.  Your description of organization and methodology sounds a lot like US Congress and Civil Service. 

[..]

I wonder where the ice was when the artifacts were lost originally.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8224817/Melting-ice-reveals-lost-Viking-mountain-path.html

[F6Dave]

Boulder, Colorado just set a new seasonal record for snow. They shattered the previous record from the 1800s by nearly 9 inches. And the season isn't over yet.

[0leman]

Hey according to the Climate Alarmist folks, if you have record snow or low temps that just weather.   But if you have record highs, then its climate change.