Why Are Trump Supporters Anti-Science.

[Dutch Uncle]

If that's the way White Christian Nationalists truly feel, they can start a university of their own. Wait! What about Liberty University?

Liberty to pay Jerry Falwell Jr. $15 million settlement after high-profile sex scandal

The university and Falwell had announced a settlement in 2024 but provided few details. A newly released tax form revealed the sum.

www.usatoday.com

"Liberty University will pay its former president, Jerry Falwell Jr., about $15 million to settle litigation following his resignation in 2020 after a high-profile sex scandal that drew national attention to the private Christian institution."
LOL! Turns out Fallwell Jr. like to sit in the corner and jack it while his wife got it on with the young pool boy!

Anyway - my point was - either way you're going to run into opinions from school officials. It's up to you - the student to figure out what's right and wrong. As a product of a state university system, I am grateful I had the privilege!

MAGAts keep proving they are evil, worshipers of the anti-Christ...and not very bright. Sad.

Example:

Two Trump supporters die and go to heaven​

God meets them at the pearly gates and asks if they have any questions. One of them says, “Yes, what were the real results of the 2020 election and who was behind the fraud?”

God says, "My son, there was no fraud. Biden won the electoral college fair and square, 306 to 232.”

After a few seconds of stunned silence, the one guy turns to the other and whispers, “This goes higher up than we thought.

 

[LurchAddams]

I agree. And in one of his speeches, Trump said, "I love the poorly educated!" Trump has also said that smart people don't like him. In that, he is calling those who support him stupid. And they are stupid. Apparently too stupid to know when they are being insulted. Also, Trump held a rally in Las Vegas where it was 103 degrees Fahrenheit outside. For the people having to put up with the heat, he said, "I don't care about you. I just want your vote."

The cult prides itself in its ignorance.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

If only you had a brain. They are trying to clean up the mess at Fukushima. But it is hugely expensive. They estimate it may take 30 to 40 years. Though that timeline is subject to criticism. Apart from removing radioactive soil, (which can never be fully done) there is the 880 tons of highly radioactive material inside the reactors to deal with. It is so radioactive that it is difficult for even a robot to do. Etc. etc. etc etc. All in all, whatever it was that they gained from using nuclear power, it would have been FAR cheaper for them to have used some other energy source. As for solar panels, they work just fine. The only problem with them is that is difficult to charge people for energy that is FREE.

The clean up there is subject more to funding and resources than something that's a time sensitive issue. The radioactive material in the reactors can be dealt with just like when refueling is done. There's no difference in the levels or types of radiation as the same materials are present either way. It is clear you know nothing about nuclear power.

As for solar panels... What do you do when the sun isn't shining? Also, solar power isn't "free." The panels cost money. The associated equipment to collect and distribute the electricity costs money. The site costs money. Maintaining the whole operation costs money. Running the plant costs money. But the key question is what do you do when the sun isn't shining? The other pertinent question is, what do you do when the panels make too much electricity?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

yes

Then you are an oblivious fool. The cost of electrical generation and distribution has gone up massively everywhere solar and wind rose to about 30% of the market or more.

no

Good. Nuclear is the best way forward for electrical generation. Back that with cheap natural gas plants to handle peak hours.

don't be stupid

I'm seeing if you are. Many True Believers in the Church of Gorebal Warming think exactly that.

they do not.

Actually, they do. Solar creates urban heat islands and wind absorbs energy from the air while disrupting wind patterns downwind of the generation site. They contribute significantly to atmospheric warming.

that's up to the individual, not you or me

Name someone who has been able to modify their DNA.

that's true

No, it's not. Many vaccines have only limited efficacy. The flu shot is generally only about 40% effective, or less. TB vaccines generally don't work very well. Others like smallpox of polio are very effective. So, your belief they all work great is a mistaken one.

of course not

Another point for you! The vast majority of GMO's are not harmful in the least.

not even close

That's not what the faithful in the Church of Gorebal Warming tell us.

And that isn't even remotely possible.

That wasn't the question. The question was: Should humanity strive to eliminate all pollution?

 

[Highlight]

The clean up there is subject more to funding and resources than something that's a time sensitive issue. The radioactive material in the reactors can be dealt with just like when refueling is done. There's no difference in the levels or types of radiation as the same materials are present either way. It is clear you know nothing about nuclear power.

As for solar panels... What do you do when the sun isn't shining? Also, solar power isn't "free." The panels cost money. The associated equipment to collect and distribute the electricity costs money. The site costs money. Maintaining the whole operation costs money. Running the plant costs money. But the key question is what do you do when the sun isn't shining? The other pertinent question is, what do you do when the panels make too much electricity?

Please stop talking to me. You don't know what you are talking about. Do you know what happens to radioactive ground? When it rains, that radioactivity soaks into the ground. Eventually, into the water table. There is no way to clean that up. I don't care how much time or money you have. How deep is the water table in Japan. 10 feet? 100 Feet? Around 425 square miles of Japan has been made uninhabitable due to the Fukushima disaster. Do you think the Japanese in a thousand years could dig up 425 square miles of land anywhere from 10 to 100 feet deep? And even if they tried, where would they put the radioactive soil. Next, even using robots, the Japanese were only to recover small samples of the radioactive debris. The robots just can't take the radiation. Next, I showed you the map of how much of the U.S. it would take in the U.S. combined to power the U.S. As I said, that included day and NIGHT! The reason for that is because you can store excess power. In many ways. Also, power from the sun is FREE. And many of the problems you bring up with solar power exists with any other kind of power.

 

[domer76]

Anti-science? Let's see, do YOU:

Believe that solar and wind generation can produce the energy we need at a lower cost than alternatives?

Believe that using nuclear power is a bad thing and dangerous?

That the only purpose oil and coal have is produce energy?

That solar and wind do not contribute to climate change?

That it is possible to modify your gender without changing your genetics?

How about that all vaccines are highly effective and have few side effects?

That GMO's are uniformly dangerous?

That wood burning pellet stoves are carbon neutral?

That humanity as a people should strive to eliminate all pollution?

You keep doubling down on stupid. Is that intentional or are you much more of a fool than you display?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Please stop talking to me. You don't know what you are talking about. Do you know what happens to radioactive ground?

Depends on what you mean by "radioactive ground." If there are radioactive isotopes in the soil, it can be mitigated by removal and disposal. If the radioactive isotopes are short-lived, simple decay will take care of the problem.
I'd say chemical and metallurgical contamination of soil are bigger problems as these don't decay with time unless they are unstable compositions.

It is YOU that doesn't know what you're talking about.

Question for you: What kind of radiation do long-lived isotopes generally give off, and how are they a hazard to people?

When it rains, that radioactivity soaks into the ground.

Wrong. Radioactivity is a property of the atoms making something up. Radioactive isotopes are not particularly more or less likely to leech into soil than any other element or stable isotopes.

Eventually, into the water table.

This too is utter bullshit.

There is no way to clean that up.

Sure there is. There are multiple means to clean up radioactive material.

I don't care how much time or money you have. How deep is the water table in Japan. 10 feet? 100 Feet? Around 425 square miles of Japan has been made uninhabitable due to the Fukushima disaster.

This just shows your ignorance of things radiological.

Do you think the Japanese in a thousand years could dig up 425 square miles of land anywhere from 10 to 100 feet deep?

They likely don't have to. For the most part, the vast majority of the area that received low-level contamination from the Fukushima plant is safe for reoccupation.

Even as Evacuation Orders are Lifted, Recovery Remains Distant Prospect for Many Fukushima Residents​

Even as Evacuation Orders are Lifted, Recovery Remains Distant Prospect for Many Fukushima Residents

Six years after the disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, the government has lifted evacuation orders on four municipalities around the plant, allowing residents to return home for the first time since the meltdowns. The author, who has been involved in reconstruction planning...

www.nippon.com

That's 2017.

Japan, out of an abundance of caution, is only slowly lifting the exclusion zones.

It is absolutely clear you KNOW NOTHING about things nuclear, what radiation is, and how it works, or its relative hazards. NOTHING!

And even if they tried, where would they put the radioactive soil. Next, even using robots, the Japanese were only to recover small samples of the radioactive debris. The robots just can't take the radiation.

More blather from someone completely ignorant of things nuclear.

Next, I showed you the map of how much of the U.S. it would take in the U.S. combined to power the U.S. As I said, that included day and NIGHT! The reason for that is because you can store excess power. In many ways. Also, power from the sun is FREE. And many of the problems you bring up with solar power exists with any other kind of power.

You showed me a simplistic map of no significance. The US needs power 24/7 not just when the sun is shining.

As for solar...

To produce 1 kilowatt-day of power you need, roughly, 5 kilowatts of installed solar panels (based on a common solar plant capacity factor of .25) and 3 kw of installed storage to do it at a minimum. This results in a plant 5 times larger than necessary in capacity compared to conventional generation and a huge amount of storage capacity to go with it that is completely unnecessary with conventional generation.

The resulting costs are so astronomical that they would bankrupt the country if tried. It's cheaper to build natural gas generation as even with fuel costs, such plants are cheaper to operate over 20 to 30 years compared to solar with storage.

Storage is unnecessary with other means of electrical production, even wind. Solar alone requires masses of it, and it isn't cheap.

Try actually debating any of that with something other than vague generalities and slogans.

I assume, as you stated you are currently in high school, that your foolish teachers who know nothing about things nuclear were the ones that taught you all that bullshit and stupidity you keep spouting.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You keep doubling down on stupid. Is that intentional or are you much more of a fool than you display?

I raise and call. Prove me wrong. Or are insults and ad hominem all you've got?

 

[domer76]

I raise and call. Prove me wrong. Or are insults and ad hominem all you've got?

Your initial blanket statements indicate your lack of information on the subjects. Very few things are just black and white. Only in MAGA world.

Pick one of those and we can discuss. If you are up to it.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Your initial blanket statements indicate your lack of information on the subjects. Very few things are just black and white. Only in MAGA world.

Pick one of those and we can discuss. If you are up to it.

MAGAts only see the world in B&W just like all religious and political extremists. They fail to see the world is full of grays.

Meanwhile, some humor:

Donald Trump gets executed​

and is hanged by the neck until dead.
At Trump Tower, his family watches CNN, which is covering his death live, all of them mournful and teary before Donald himself walks in triumphantly.

"But Donald, CNN says you were killed!" Ivanka cried.

"Nope!" Donnie beamed, holding up the rope that was used to hang him, "fake noose."

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Your initial blanket statements indicate your lack of information on the subjects. Very few things are just black and white. Only in MAGA world.

Pick one of those and we can discuss. If you are up to it.

Okay...

Do wind and solar power contribute to Global Warming / climate change?

Yes, they do.

Wind turbines are not perpetual motion machines. They convert wind energy to electricity and typically are 20 to 30% efficient but can in optimal conditions reach close to 50%. That means to produce 100 kw of power they take 150 to 500 kw of wind energy out of the atmosphere. This amounts to 0.5 to 1 wattmeter^2. Wind turbines also cause massive turbulence to the atmosphere in their wake. This can stretch for several miles beyond the wind farm. This turbulence causes atmospheric instability and raises temperatures in the area it covers by up to 2 degrees C. It has been found that this warming is greater than any carbon reduction benefits wind power produces.

Thus, the net effect of wind power is to increase climate change, not reduce it. When you toss in the environmental damage done by wind, like decimation of bat populations, noise pollution, landfill issues with used turbine blades, and microplastic pollution from the wear products of those blades in use, wind is on the whole less environmentally friendly than using natural gas.

https://greenbusinessbarbados.com/how-do-wind-turbines-affect-the-atmosphere.html

How Does Wind Energy Affect the Environment? - The Institute for Environmental Research and Education

How Does Wind Energy Affect the Environment? Wind energy, while a crucial part of a sustainable future, impacts the environment […]

iere.org

Wind plants can impact long-term local atmospheric conditions - Scientific Reports

Long-term weather and climate observatories can be affected by the changing environments in their vicinity, such as the growth of urban areas or changing vegetation. Wind plants can also impact local atmospheric conditions through their wakes, characterized by reduced wind speed and increased...

www.nature.com

Wind also still needs backup by conventional generation for base loading so natural gas, nuclear, or oil plants remain necessary.

Solar, like wind has significant impact on the environment. Commercial farms are huge in size and have significant impact on land use and native habitat of wildlife. While this can be sometimes mitigated by use of brownfield and landfill sites, these are limited in size and location and not always suitable for use. Trying to mix use, like agriculture and solar has had very mixed results.

Like wind, disposal of solar panels is a huge landfill problem. Solar adds in the issue of toxic chemicals and metals.

Solar farms also change albedo of the planet significantly and contribute to atmospheric warming. Like with wind, this effect--urban heat island effect--is significant enough that it offsets any reduction in carbon the solar farm produces. That is, the solar farm contributes more heat to the atmosphere than the carbon it removes does.

What Are the Environmental Impacts of Solar Farms? - UGE International

Our explainer on the environmental impacts of solar farms will answer all your questions, and maybe even some you didn't know you had!

ugei.com

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038092X23008320

The Photovoltaic Heat Island Effect: Larger solar power plants increase local temperatures - Scientific Reports

While photovoltaic (PV) renewable energy production has surged, concerns remain about whether or not PV power plants induce a “heat island” (PVHI) effect, much like the increase in ambient temperatures relative to wildlands generates an Urban Heat Island effect in cities. Transitions to PV...

www.nature.com

Worse, solar is the least efficient, and most expensive way to produce electricity there is. It is intermittent in operation and therefore requires duplication of generation sources to make power available when solar isn't. This issue raises the cost of the generation system and grid as a whole, and cannot be gotten around. Storage of electricity generated by solar is obscenely expensive. Even at $100 a kwh--a price far below what is currently available--storage would run into the tens of trillions of dollars done on a mass scale.

Solar and wind are environmental disasters, cost ineffective, and on the whole terrible choices for production of electricity. Nuclear backed by natural gas is the winning combination.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

MAGAts only see the world in B&W just like all religious and political extremists. They fail to see the world is full of grays.

Meanwhile, some humor:

Donald Trump gets executed​

and is hanged by the neck until dead.
At Trump Tower, his family watches CNN, which is covering his death live, all of them mournful and teary before Donald himself walks in triumphantly.

"But Donald, CNN says you were killed!" Ivanka cried.

"Nope!" Donnie beamed, holding up the rope that was used to hang him, "fake noose."

 

[domer76]

Okay...

Do wind and solar power contribute to Global Warming / climate change?

Yes, they do.

Wind turbines are not perpetual motion machines. They convert wind energy to electricity and typically are 20 to 30% efficient but can in optimal conditions reach close to 50%. That means to produce 100 kw of power they take 150 to 500 kw of wind energy out of the atmosphere. This amounts to 0.5 to 1 wattmeter^2. Wind turbines also cause massive turbulence to the atmosphere in their wake. This can stretch for several miles beyond the wind farm. This turbulence causes atmospheric instability and raises temperatures in the area it covers by up to 2 degrees C. It has been found that this warming is greater than any carbon reduction benefits wind power produces.

Thus, the net effect of wind power is to increase climate change, not reduce it. When you toss in the environmental damage done by wind, like decimation of bat populations, noise pollution, landfill issues with used turbine blades, and microplastic pollution from the wear products of those blades in use, wind is on the whole less environmentally friendly than using natural gas.

https://greenbusinessbarbados.com/how-do-wind-turbines-affect-the-atmosphere.html

How Does Wind Energy Affect the Environment? - The Institute for Environmental Research and Education

How Does Wind Energy Affect the Environment? Wind energy, while a crucial part of a sustainable future, impacts the environment […]

iere.org

Wind plants can impact long-term local atmospheric conditions - Scientific Reports

Long-term weather and climate observatories can be affected by the changing environments in their vicinity, such as the growth of urban areas or changing vegetation. Wind plants can also impact local atmospheric conditions through their wakes, characterized by reduced wind speed and increased...

www.nature.com

Wind also still needs backup by conventional generation for base loading so natural gas, nuclear, or oil plants remain necessary.

Solar, like wind has significant impact on the environment. Commercial farms are huge in size and have significant impact on land use and native habitat of wildlife. While this can be sometimes mitigated by use of brownfield and landfill sites, these are limited in size and location and not always suitable for use. Trying to mix use, like agriculture and solar has had very mixed results.

Like wind, disposal of solar panels is a huge landfill problem. Solar adds in the issue of toxic chemicals and metals.

Solar farms also change albedo of the planet significantly and contribute to atmospheric warming. Like with wind, this effect--urban heat island effect--is significant enough that it offsets any reduction in carbon the solar farm produces. That is, the solar farm contributes more heat to the atmosphere than the carbon it removes does.

What Are the Environmental Impacts of Solar Farms? - UGE International

Our explainer on the environmental impacts of solar farms will answer all your questions, and maybe even some you didn't know you had!

ugei.com

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038092X23008320

The Photovoltaic Heat Island Effect: Larger solar power plants increase local temperatures - Scientific Reports

While photovoltaic (PV) renewable energy production has surged, concerns remain about whether or not PV power plants induce a “heat island” (PVHI) effect, much like the increase in ambient temperatures relative to wildlands generates an Urban Heat Island effect in cities. Transitions to PV...

www.nature.com

Worse, solar is the least efficient, and most expensive way to produce electricity there is. It is intermittent in operation and therefore requires duplication of generation sources to make power available when solar isn't. This issue raises the cost of the generation system and grid as a whole, and cannot be gotten around. Storage of electricity generated by solar is obscenely expensive. Even at $100 a kwh--a price far below what is currently available--storage would run into the tens of trillions of dollars done on a mass scale.

Solar and wind are environmental disasters, cost ineffective, and on the whole terrible choices for production of electricity. Nuclear backed by natural gas is the winning combination.

First, anything from iere.org is questionable. Their main donors represent the oil and gas industry. Kinda like trusting the tobacco industry to tell you smoking is not hazardous.

The other two articles don’t say anything we really don’t already know. The turbines affect local conditions, but I saw nothing about global warming in the articles.

Noise pollution? Non-issue. Wind turbines are all out in the boondocks.

I never made any claim that wind will replace petroleum sources. They’re merely a complement to other energy sources. Here in the Northwest, hydropower is one.

Solar? Nothing new there. Yep, they can change local conditions. Nothing about global warming. And again, I never made any claim about solar replacing petroleum. Merely a complement.

All the articles point to one thing. Lower CO2 emissions. Since this planet is experiencing the highest CO2 levels in hundreds of thousands of years (maybe millions) any combination of energy sources to reduce those is a good idea. CO2 is the leading cause of global warming, not transient local conditions.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

First, anything from iere.org is questionable. Their main donors represent the oil and gas industry. Kinda like trusting the tobacco industry to tell you smoking is not hazardous.

Ad hominem. Attacking the source means nothing.

The other two articles don’t say anything we really don’t already know. The turbines affect local conditions, but I saw nothing about global warming in the articles.

This is just dodging the issue with meaningless fluff, a red herring.

Noise pollution? Non-issue. Wind turbines are all out in the boondocks.

I never made any claim that wind will replace petroleum sources. They’re merely a complement to other energy sources. Here in the Northwest, hydropower is one.

They are unnecessary since they duplicate other, reliable generation sources. That's my point. Building nuclear, hydro, natural gas, generation plants meets our needs and eliminates the need for solar and wind since these do not need duplication of sources as they run efficiently 24/7.

Solar? Nothing new there. Yep, they can change local conditions. Nothing about global warming. And again, I never made any claim about solar replacing petroleum. Merely a complement.

They create heat and not an insignificant amount of it. Removing CO2 (which I find questionable as a greenhouse gas due to its miniscule proportion in the atmosphere) and replacing it with another heat source solves nothing.

All the articles point to one thing. Lower CO2 emissions. Since this planet is experiencing the highest CO2 levels in hundreds of thousands of years (maybe millions) any combination of energy sources to reduce those is a good idea. CO2 is the leading cause of global warming, not transient local conditions.

CO2 isn't a problem. Contrails contribute as much as 20% of climate change. We're doing nothing about those. Switching to nuclear removes the CO2 just as efficiently as solar or wind does only nuclear is a reliable, plentiful generation source. Backed by natural gas for peaking, CO2 goes way down too if that's your concern.

Solar and wind are losers.

 

[domer76]

Ad hominem. Attacking the source means nothing.


This is just dodging the issue with meaningless fluff, a red herring.

They are unnecessary since they duplicate other, reliable generation sources. That's my point. Building nuclear, hydro, natural gas, generation plants meets our needs and eliminates the need for solar and wind since these do not need duplication of sources as they run efficiently 24/7.


They create heat and not an insignificant amount of it. Removing CO2 (which I find questionable as a greenhouse gas due to its miniscule proportion in the atmosphere) and replacing it with another heat source solves nothing.

CO2 isn't a problem. Contrails contribute as much as 20% of climate change. We're doing nothing about those. Switching to nuclear removes the CO2 just as efficiently as solar or wind does only nuclear is a reliable, plentiful generation source. Backed by natural gas for peaking, CO2 goes way down too if that's your concern.

Solar and wind are losers.

No ad hom, asswipe. They are funded by petroleum interests. Follow the fucking money.

There is only so much hydro to go around. Hydro also has its drawbacks.

The CO2 levels are the highest in 3 million years. When it was last this high, temps were significantly higher. So were ocean levels. Comprendè?

Where the fuck did you get the contrail info?

Nuclear is fine. Has its own dangers. And takes a shit ton of time and $$ to construct and receive a return on the investment. Want one in your back yard?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

No ad hom, asswipe. They are funded by petroleum interests. Follow the fucking money.

Ad hominem is attacking the source without providing counter proof. Who funds the site is irrelevant to what information is provided. Aside from that, I provided multiple sources and you chose to select one out of the bunch then use that to try and smear the entirety of my position using it.

There is only so much hydro to go around. Hydro also has its drawbacks.

Hydro is probably the single best means to produce electricity there is, but location is the big issue. You don't necessarily need a dam to do it. You can build "run of river" plants too.

The CO2 levels are the highest in 3 million years. When it was last this high, temps were significantly higher. So were ocean levels. Comprendè?

CO2 levels are insignificant. Doubling next to nothing is still nothing.

Where the fuck did you get the contrail info?

Aviation's dirty secret: Airplane contrails are a surprisingly potent cause of global warming​

https://www.science.org/content/article/aviation-s-dirty-secret-airplane-contrails-are-surprisingly-potent-cause-global-warming

https://www.nationalacademies.org/based-on-science/are-contrails-harmful-to-the-environment

How Airplane Contrails Are Helping Make the Planet Warmer​

How Airplane Contrails Are Helping Make the Planet Warmer

New research shows that condensation trails from aircraft exhaust are playing a significant role in global warming. Experts are concerned that efforts to change aviation engine design to reduce CO2 emissions could actually create more contrails and raise daily temperatures even more.

e360.yale.edu

It was simple. I actually know, read about, and understand science, unlike you.

Nuclear is fine. Has its own dangers. And takes a shit ton of time and $$ to construct and receive a return on the investment. Want one in your back yard?

Nuclear is probably the safest way to go. It takes forever to build because of a combination of NIMBYism, assinine objections to it by fools, like you, and the complexity of construction. Once built however, nuclear plants deliver massive amounts of cheap energy reliably. And, yes, I wouldn't have a problem with one in my "backyard."

 

[domer76]

Ad hominem is attacking the source without providing counter proof. Who funds the site is irrelevant to what information is provided. Aside from that, I provided multiple sources and you chose to select one out of the bunch then use that to try and smear the entirety of my position using it.


Hydro is probably the single best means to produce electricity there is, but location is the big issue. You don't necessarily need a dam to do it. You can build "run of river" plants too.

CO2 levels are insignificant. Doubling next to nothing is still nothing.

Aviation's dirty secret: Airplane contrails are a surprisingly potent cause of global warming​

https://www.science.org/content/article/aviation-s-dirty-secret-airplane-contrails-are-surprisingly-potent-cause-global-warming

https://www.nationalacademies.org/based-on-science/are-contrails-harmful-to-the-environment

How Airplane Contrails Are Helping Make the Planet Warmer​

How Airplane Contrails Are Helping Make the Planet Warmer

New research shows that condensation trails from aircraft exhaust are playing a significant role in global warming. Experts are concerned that efforts to change aviation engine design to reduce CO2 emissions could actually create more contrails and raise daily temperatures even more.

e360.yale.edu

It was simple. I actually know, read about, and understand science, unlike you.


Nuclear is probably the safest way to go. It takes forever to build because of a combination of NIMBYism, assinine objections to it by fools, like you, and the complexity of construction. Once built however, nuclear plants deliver massive amounts of cheap energy reliably. And, yes, I wouldn't have a problem with one in my "backyard."

Here’s the counter proof. You didn’t cite a peer reviewed article. You cited an organization funded by petroleum interests. Totally relevant, dumbfuck.

CO2 levels are above 400ppm. Greatest in 3 million years. Science is solid on the correlation between CO2 levels and global temps.

Every fucking article on contrails compares their effects relative to the AVIATION emission contribution ONLY. Aviation is responsible for only 2% of CO2 emissions.

Try to fucking read your own articles.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Here’s the counter proof. You didn’t cite a peer reviewed article. You cited an organization funded by petroleum interests. Totally relevant, dumbfuck.

Ah! The trivial objections fallacy coupled to argumentum ad absurdum. "It wasn't peer reviewed!" I don't give a shit whether it was or not. Facts don't change one iota because of peer review or lack thereof.

CO2 levels are above 400ppm. Greatest in 3 million years. Science is solid on the correlation between CO2 levels and global temps.

So? That's nothing. CO2 represents .04% of the atmosphere. If it rose from .038% that's still nothing.

Every fucking article on contrails compares their effects relative to the AVIATION emission contribution ONLY. Aviation is responsible for only 2% of CO2 emissions.

Try to fucking read your own articles.

It is significant. Contrails raise global temperatures somewhere between .1 and .5 degrees and regional temperatures where they exist in mass as much as 3 degrees. That is significant.

 

[Highlight]

Depends on what you mean by "radioactive ground." If there are radioactive isotopes in the soil, it can be mitigated by removal and disposal. If the radioactive isotopes are short-lived, simple decay will take care of the problem.
I'd say chemical and metallurgical contamination of soil are bigger problems as these don't decay with time unless they are unstable compositions.

It is YOU that doesn't know what you're talking about.

Question for you: What kind of radiation do long-lived isotopes generally give off, and how are they a hazard to people?


Wrong. Radioactivity is a property of the atoms making something up. Radioactive isotopes are not particularly more or less likely to leech into soil than any other element or stable isotopes.


This too is utter bullshit.


Sure there is. There are multiple means to clean up radioactive material.


This just shows your ignorance of things radiological.


They likely don't have to. For the most part, the vast majority of the area that received low-level contamination from the Fukushima plant is safe for reoccupation.

Even as Evacuation Orders are Lifted, Recovery Remains Distant Prospect for Many Fukushima Residents​

Even as Evacuation Orders are Lifted, Recovery Remains Distant Prospect for Many Fukushima Residents

Six years after the disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, the government has lifted evacuation orders on four municipalities around the plant, allowing residents to return home for the first time since the meltdowns. The author, who has been involved in reconstruction planning...

www.nippon.com

That's 2017.

Japan, out of an abundance of caution, is only slowly lifting the exclusion zones.

It is absolutely clear you KNOW NOTHING about things nuclear, what radiation is, and how it works, or its relative hazards. NOTHING!



More blather from someone completely ignorant of things nuclear.

You showed me a simplistic map of no significance. The US needs power 24/7 not just when the sun is shining.

As for solar...

To produce 1 kilowatt-day of power you need, roughly, 5 kilowatts of installed solar panels (based on a common solar plant capacity factor of .25) and 3 kw of installed storage to do it at a minimum. This results in a plant 5 times larger than necessary in capacity compared to conventional generation and a huge amount of storage capacity to go with it that is completely unnecessary with conventional generation.

The resulting costs are so astronomical that they would bankrupt the country if tried. It's cheaper to build natural gas generation as even with fuel costs, such plants are cheaper to operate over 20 to 30 years compared to solar with storage.

Storage is unnecessary with other means of electrical production, even wind. Solar alone requires masses of it, and it isn't cheap.

Try actually debating any of that with something other than vague generalities and slogans.

I assume, as you stated you are currently in high school, that your foolish teachers who know nothing about things nuclear were the ones that taught you all that bullshit and stupidity you keep spouting.

You don't know what you're talking about. One of the things I was trained in in the military was Nuclear Biological and Chemical (NBC) control. Radiation tends to make the things around them radioactive. When I was in the military I heard a story about a bit of a nuclear accident they had in the reaction chamber of one of our subs. To get rid of the radiation, they had to go into the reaction chamber and take a surface grinder to all the surfaces. Also, radiation can seep into ground water or anything else.

As for solar panels, they aren't that expensive. And it can take anywhere from 1 to 4 years for them to produce the power that it took to create them to begin with. That is everything from mining the materials they are made of to the finished product. And as of right now, their useful life expectancy is 30 to 40 years. (The technology is improving all the time) At 30 years, that means that you would be getting 26 years of absolutely free energy. FREE! No cost. No pollution. No plowing off the tops of mountains to get at coal seems. No long term radiation from nuclear power plants, etc.

 

[Highlight]

Here’s the counter proof. You didn’t cite a peer reviewed article. You cited an organization funded by petroleum interests. Totally relevant, dumbfuck.

CO2 levels are above 400ppm. Greatest in 3 million years. Science is solid on the correlation between CO2 levels and global temps.

Every fucking article on contrails compares their effects relative to the AVIATION emission contribution ONLY. Aviation is responsible for only 2% of CO2 emissions.

Try to fucking read your own articles.

Don't forget. CO2 isn't even the biggest problem. Methane is. It is around 100 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2. And the warmer things get, the more of it that will be released. By the way, have you ever seen that show by Bill Nye called, "Global Meltdown?"