Ruth Bader Ginsburg died

[Tgo01]

Capacity factor means percent of time they are running at max capacity. Does something have to be running at max capacity to be effective and/or efficient? I don't believe so.... Try again please.

No you’re totally right, a power plant producing energy at max capacity 29% of the time is totally efficient.

[~Rocktar~]

I would argue that it would have been equally ignorant to keep plowing forward with a technology without doing due diligence in ensuring it is safe when it is capable of massive destruction. Only fools wield power blindly. If it were so obviously safe, that would have been easy to prove, right? It's easy to say these things in hindsight, but 50 years ago we just didn't know enough. Kind of like with COVID, we just didn't know much in the early stages. That said, with sufficient scientifically proven data, stances should definitely evolve. I didn't know a lot about nuclear before this conversation, but from what I read, you are correct that it is near impossible for us to experience a major reactor event like Chernobyl due to reactor design, and I am not personally against it. I did know a bit more about solar because I have worked with it in the past, designing systems to power internet and wireless terminals in remote places.

Yeah, it was proven safe over and over again but the eco whackos and their lawsuits along with an equally enabling media covered it up. And yes, 50 years ago, we did know enough there were even protocols at 3 mile island that would have prevented 3 mile island but idiots on site didn't use them and the NRC, the regulatory body in charge fucked around. Again, eco whackos and media killed it all because of stupidity. We have decades of proven, safe and effective nuclear power use in the military and around the world that we should have been on this decades ago. The reactor was designed in the 60, parts were known to fail and not replaced and procedures were not followed. Yet even with all this known the media has been anti nuclear ever since.

I still think having power generation distributed over many sources is the way to go though, and not being reliant on any one thing. At some point, we will run out of uranium, so using wind and solar at least pushes that out further. There's good and bad to everything... if it was so obviously advantageous and safe, why would there be any consternation?

Using wind and solar is a drop in the bucket at the power we need and the pollution to produce is fairly high and it is lacking in long term reliability and economic viability. And that is why the consternation, it isn't as advantageous as you claim and the cost margins stacked with reliability issues make it not a good strategy. It only really has feel good credibility and that falls off when you explain the issues with pollution, bird populations and reliability.

You're probably right that we couldn't sustain on wind and solar alone, but you sure do have a lot of confidence speaking in absolutes... you must have a crystal ball or something that I don't have. I'd wager that plenty of people said flying, going to space, or talking to someone in real time across the world was NEVER going to happen too. Shit happens man, personally I choose not to be so rigid in my thinking that I close off possibilities. I do think it's possible with the right advances in technology, just not probable.

Your comparison here is moronic at best. We need a much higher efficiency panel with a much longer life time and much lower pollution to manufacture to make solar a plausible alternative. We need more efficient wind turbines that are longer lasting with less cost to manufacture and less destructive to avian life to make wind viable. Both may happen. The issue is, we need power now. Not in 20 years or 50 years or whatever, we need it now. Unless you and the eco whackos want to get off the coal is evil bandwagon and we can get pipelines built to use the immense reserves we have of oil and natural gas to build a lot of new power plants around the country we are facing a serious issue in just a few years as aging plants become unserviceable. And all the while, we have dependable, reliable and safe solutions right at our finger tips that we are not using because of eco idiots and corrupt media feeding shit to dumb people.

[Geijon]

Coming from a guy who thinks Civil War in America is coming I question your mental state, Rocktard. Please forgive me when I consider literally anything you post bullshit.

If Civil war is coming in America you'd either A. Sit in your bunker til you ran out of food and died or B. Die on day 1.

Your mother obviously breast fed you til you were about 8.

[Geijon]

Yeah, it was proven safe over and over again but the eco whackos and their lawsuits along with an equally enabling media covered it up. And yes, 50 years ago, we did know enough there were even protocols at 3 mile island that would have prevented 3 mile island but idiots on site didn't use them and the NRC, the regulatory body in charge fucked around. Again, eco whackos and media killed it all because of stupidity. We have decades of proven, safe and effective nuclear power use in the military and around the world that we should have been on this decades ago. The reactor was designed in the 60, parts were known to fail and not replaced and procedures were not followed. Yet even with all this known the media has been anti nuclear ever since.



Using wind and solar is a drop in the bucket at the power we need and the pollution to produce is fairly high and it is lacking in long term reliability and economic viability. And that is why the consternation, it isn't as advantageous as you claim and the cost margins stacked with reliability issues make it not a good strategy. It only really has feel good credibility and that falls off when you explain the issues with pollution, bird populations and reliability.



Your comparison here is moronic at best. We need a much higher efficiency panel with a much longer life time and much lower pollution to manufacture to make solar a plausible alternative. We need more efficient wind turbines that are longer lasting with less cost to manufacture and less destructive to avian life to make wind viable. Both may happen. The issue is, we need power now. Not in 20 years or 50 years or whatever, we need it now. Unless you and the eco whackos want to get off the coal is evil bandwagon and we can get pipelines built to use the immense reserves we have of oil and natural gas to build a lot of new power plants around the country we are facing a serious issue in just a few years as aging plants become unserviceable. And all the while, we have dependable, reliable and safe solutions right at our finger tips that we are not using because of eco idiots and corrupt media feeding shit to dumb people.

Type more words.

[~Rocktar~]

Coming from a guy who thinks Civil War in America is coming I question your mental state, Rocktard. Please forgive me when I consider literally anything you post bullshit.

If Civil war is coming in America you'd either A. Sit in your bunker til you ran out of food and died or B. Die on day 1.

Your mother obviously breast fed you til you were about 8.

Whatever gets your rocks off fucknuts.

[Blazar]

Yeah, it was proven safe over and over again but the eco whackos and their lawsuits along with an equally enabling media covered it up. And yes, 50 years ago, we did know enough there were even protocols at 3 mile island that would have prevented 3 mile island but idiots on site didn't use them and the NRC, the regulatory body in charge fucked around. Again, eco whackos and media killed it all because of stupidity. We have decades of proven, safe and effective nuclear power use in the military and around the world that we should have been on this decades ago. The reactor was designed in the 60, parts were known to fail and not replaced and procedures were not followed. Yet even with all this known the media has been anti nuclear ever since.



Using wind and solar is a drop in the bucket at the power we need and the pollution to produce is fairly high and it is lacking in long term reliability and economic viability. And that is why the consternation, it isn't as advantageous as you claim and the cost margins stacked with reliability issues make it not a good strategy. It only really has feel good credibility and that falls off when you explain the issues with pollution, bird populations and reliability.



Your comparison here is moronic at best. We need a much higher efficiency panel with a much longer life time and much lower pollution to manufacture to make solar a plausible alternative. We need more efficient wind turbines that are longer lasting with less cost to manufacture and less destructive to avian life to make wind viable. Both may happen. The issue is, we need power now. Not in 20 years or 50 years or whatever, we need it now. Unless you and the eco whackos want to get off the coal is evil bandwagon and we can get pipelines built to use the immense reserves we have of oil and natural gas to build a lot of new power plants around the country we are facing a serious issue in just a few years as aging plants become unserviceable. And all the while, we have dependable, reliable and safe solutions right at our finger tips that we are not using because of eco idiots and corrupt media feeding shit to dumb people.

Sorry, but if protocols were known and not being followed, then the human error factor comes into play, making it unsafe. If you can't trust people to replace parts when dealing with a dangerous technology, how safe is that?

I'm no eco whacko, and as I clearly stated, I'm not against nuclear power. I just think it's smart to have diversity. I don't know why you think we need as much power as you do... but if we do, going full nuclear sounds like a bad idea still because we know our uranium reserves are finite. You say we need all this power now, but sounds like you aren't even considering sustainability beyond your life time., and that's wrong. Again, you have to balance things.

Not sure why you think my comparison is moronic, but okay buddy. Breakthroughs happen, and sometimes they come when you least expect it. Again, I don't have a crystal ball, so I can't say what will happen, but I am open to many possibilities. You say it won't cut it, but look, I'll post this again:

Texas is the top U.S. producer of both crude oil and natural gas. In 2019, the state accounted for 41% of the nation's crude oil production and 25% of its marketed natural gas production.
As of January 2019, the 30 petroleum refineries in Texas were able to process about 5.8 million barrels of crude oil per day and accounted for 31% of the nation's refining capacity.
Texas leads the nation in wind-powered generation and produced about 28% of all the U.S. wind-powered electricity in 2019. Texas wind turbines have produced more electricity than both of the state's nuclear power plants since 2014.
Texas produces more electricity than any other state, generating almost twice as much as Florida, the second-highest electricity-producing state.
Texas is the largest energy-producing and energy-consuming state in the nation. The industrial sector, including its refineries and petrochemical plants, accounts for half of the energy consumed in the state.

Perhaps Texas is just unique, but those numbers show a very different story from what you are saying. Solar is admittedly the least efficient renewable energy. But why not pursue advances in all of it, as we are today? What do we lose by trying to improve all power generation types? You are working with this exclusive view that it's fossil fuels or nothing, but real life is saying something completely different.

If it isn't going to cut it, why is Texas producing more electricity with wind than nuclear, even as the highest producing state??

And I posted another article regarding bird population, and painting the turbines black results in a much lower death rate for birds. You think nuclear can be improved, but other sources can't? I don't follow your "logic" here. Although, thank you for the great discussion, I'd say this is the most engaging conversation on her that I've had with you. You've made some good points I just think you're off base on a few things personally.

[~Rocktar~]

Why even respond with that limp shit. YOU ARE READY FOR WAR BRO?

You're a fucking idiot whenever you post. Walls of text or gun toting civil war bullshit. Sit down and shut up.

Look at you tryharding to sound like an adult and worse yet, relevant. You should take your own advice and sit down, shut up and maybe grow up before thinking you have anything to add to a conversation anywhere. Your ignorance and idiocy are approaching levels not normally seen outside of a title bout. Maybe PB can arrange one for you but I am pretty sure you don't have the required flair and style to secure a shot. But you keep doing you, gods above know no one else wants to.

[Tgo01]

The absolutely disgusting, pieces of shit are already at it. Sources indicate that Trump's replacement for Ginsburg is Amy Barrett. Since she's a woman they can't very well accuse her of being a gang rapist, so what are they doing? Attacking her for adopting children from Haiti.

No, really, this is the strategy they are going for. The "only adults" in the room are literally accusing a white woman of being a bigoted white supremacist because she adopted 2 children from Haiti. Oh oh! They are also accusing her of kidnapping the children too.

These adults are the absolute worst kind of scum to have ever lived.





I can't wait to see what other smears these "adults" come up with next. Should be a metric fuckton of slander.

[Tgo01]

Nice font sizes btw.

I've seen some lame ass insults on the PC before, but making fun of someone for using the default font size? Yikes. Don't sprain your wrist patting yourself on the back too hard for that one.

[Parkbandit]

Even if nobody says anything, you'll make 100 posts. May as well get started tgo. Nice font sizes btw. Nobody can read your shit, which is probably for the better.

As an actual point we got 39 days until the election. Most nominees take 50+. I guess she can be another Merrick Garland.

She won't be a Merrick Garland.. because she will be confirmed.

And it's 39 days until the election, but even if President Trump lost, he would still have 116 days to get his nominee confirmed.

That's plenty of time.

Sorry, you lost.