Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

How Not to Deal With Climate Change

Since I'm on a roll with bashing environmentalists today...

Berkeley, Calif. — CALIFORNIA has a reputation as a leader in battling climate change, and so when Pacific Gas & Electric and environmental groups announced a plan last week to close the state’s last nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon, and replace much of the electricity it generates with power from renewable resources, the deal was widely applauded.

If the proposal is approved by the state’s Public Utilities Commission, California’s carbon dioxide emissions will either increase or decline far less than if Diablo Canyon’s two reactors, which generated about 9 percent of the state’s electricity last year, remained in operation.

While Pacific Gas & Electric asserts Diablo Canyon would be replaced with other forms of clean, low-carbon power, nothing in the proposal would require the company to go that far. Instead, the plan, according to my organization’s calculations, would require the company only to invest in energy efficiency and renewables programs equivalent to about one-fifth of Diablo Canyon’s electricity output. Anything beyond that would be voluntary.

Nearly every time a nuclear plant has been closed, its energy production has been replaced almost entirely with fossil fuels, including in California. In 2012, when the San Onofre nuclear plant closed, natural gas became the main replacement power source, creating emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent to putting two million cars on the road.

Pretty thorough takedown of anti-nuclear arguments. Do these people really want to reduce emissions or they want to feel good?

Green advocates have always been weirdly anti-science when it comes to nuclear power. If we were serious about climate change we'd be building more of them right now. As it is, climate change is just one more political football to be passed around as it suits people.

I like nuclear energy. It is CLEAN ENERGY. Not like those solar farms killing birds/bats/snakes/animals because of the heat generated...and don't get me started on those damn wind things.

Not all environmentalists are anti-nuke.


Many of us have been, and also will be pro-nuclear.

Closing Diablo is a stupid, stupid idea.

dbackjon wrote:Not all environmentalists are anti-nuke.


Many of us have been, and also will be pro-nuclear.

Closing Diablo is a stupid, stupid idea.

Not enough to matter, though. There's a good 40 years worth of environmental momentum that's anti-nuke that has been way too hard to overcome. It's easily one of the greatest, if not the greatest, failing of the environmental lobby. Even more than the political boondoggle of pushing ethanol from corn as a fuel alternative.

dbackjon wrote:Not all environmentalists are anti-nuke.


Many of us have been, and also will be pro-nuclear.

Closing Diablo is a stupid, stupid idea.

You might want to have a seat jon, but I actually agree with closing the plant. From what I've read it was basically built directly on top of a fault line. PG&E states that it has been reinforced to where it can stand a 7.5 earthquake, but with what happened in Japan, do we really want to take a chance?

I do think it should remain open until they can build a replacement, but that ain't gonna happen either.

Baldy wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Not all environmentalists are anti-nuke.


Many of us have been, and also will be pro-nuclear.

Closing Diablo is a stupid, stupid idea.

You might want to have a seat jon, but I actually agree with closing the plant. From what I've read it was basically built directly on top of a fault line. PG&E states that it has been reinforced to where it can stand a 7.5 earthquake, but with what happened in Japan, do we really want to take a chance?

I do think it should remain open until they can build a replacement, but that ain't gonna happen either.

The big problem at Fukushima was not the earthquake, it was the tsunami. The emergency shutdown worked fine when the quake happened, but there was nothing that could've been done with the tsunami.

Pwns wrote:

Baldy wrote:
You might want to have a seat jon, but I actually agree with closing the plant. From what I've read it was basically built directly on top of a fault line. PG&E states that it has been reinforced to where it can stand a 7.5 earthquake, but with what happened in Japan, do we really want to take a chance?

I do think it should remain open until they can build a replacement, but that ain't gonna happen either.

The big problem at Fukushima was not the earthquake, it was the tsunami. The emergency shutdown worked fine when the quake happened, but there was nothing that could've been done with the tsunami.

This. The redundancies put in at nuke plants after 3 mile island, and probably additional ones put in after Fukushima probably make them fail safe.

If we really wanted to be energy independent as a nation, putting in more nuke plants would be a top priority.*

*Ok cleets, I lobbed you up a nice "but Big Oil" softball here.

Baldy wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Not all environmentalists are anti-nuke.


Many of us have been, and also will be pro-nuclear.

Closing Diablo is a stupid, stupid idea.

You might want to have a seat jon, but I actually agree with closing the plant. From what I've read it was basically built directly on top of a fault line. PG&E states that it has been reinforced to where it can stand a 7.5 earthquake, but with what happened in Japan, do we really want to take a chance?

I do think it should remain open until they can build a replacement, but that ain't gonna happen either.

It is close to a fault line, yes. There are some big differences between Diablo and Fukushima in terms of back up systems that would prevent that type of disaster here. Just as there is a huge difference between Three Mile Island and Chernobyl - American engineering and safety regulations WORKED in TMI - where everything that could go wrong basically did, but the back up measures worked and the radiation released was so minimal that it was difficult to separate from background radiation.

Also note: My first major in college was Nuclear Engineering at the University of Illinois

dbackjon wrote:Also note: My first major in college was Nuclear Engineering at the University of Illinois

What happened, not enough cute guys?

Grizalltheway wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Also note: My first major in college was Nuclear Engineering at the University of Illinois

What happened, not enough cute guys?

I am great at math, and most sciences. My mind just doesn't think spatially, like you need to be a good engineer.

I'm glad they're closing it. Gets us closer to a blackout so people wake up to the fact that we can't have all these baseload power plants shutting down without consequences.

CA needs to have a good 9.0 magnitude quake..

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/busin ... share&_r=0

How Renewable Energy is Blowing Climate Change Efforts off Course

SDHornet wrote: This. The redundancies put in at nuke plants after 3 mile island, and probably additional ones put in after Fukushima probably make them fail safe.

If we really wanted to be energy independent as a nation, putting in more nuke plants would be a top priority.*

*Ok cleets, I lobbed you up a nice "but Big Oil" softball here.

I'm not really on my A-Game right now...
I've been enjoying the summer and giving zero f*cks

http://www.environmentalprogress.org/bi ... mate-march

Good article exposing the stupidity of anti-nuclear green groups.

If you are considering attending tomorrow’s climate march, I’d like to respectfully ask you not to go.

If the march organizers get their way, they are going to destroy any chance of dealing with climate change. That’s because they are aggressively working to kill America’s nuclear power plants, which are our largest source of clean energy.

March organizers are — bluntly — lying when they claim that Indian Point and Diablo Canyon can be replaced with solar and wind. They know perfectly well that those two sources of energy are too unreliable to replace baseload, 24-7 electricity provided by nuclear.

Should it surprise us, then, that climate march leaders have troubling connections to energy interests? NRDC has tens of millions invested in natural gas and renewable energy companies, while Sierra Club secretly took $26 million from natural gas and millions more from solar energy companies.

Pwns wrote:http://www.environmentalprogress.org/bi ... mate-march

Good article exposing the stupidity of anti-nuclear green groups.

If you are considering attending tomorrow’s climate march, I’d like to respectfully ask you not to go.

If the march organizers get their way, they are going to destroy any chance of dealing with climate change. That’s because they are aggressively working to kill America’s nuclear power plants, which are our largest source of clean energy.

March organizers are — bluntly — lying when they claim that Indian Point and Diablo Canyon can be replaced with solar and wind. They know perfectly well that those two sources of energy are too unreliable to replace baseload, 24-7 electricity provided by nuclear.

Should it surprise us, then, that climate march leaders have troubling connections to energy interests? NRDC has tens of millions invested in natural gas and renewable energy companies, while Sierra Club secretly took $26 million from natural gas and millions more from solar energy companies.

Classic "throwing the baby out with the bath water..."

I was at the climate march, but I completely disagree with the anti-nuclear sentiment I encountered.

Personally, I think an investment should be made into the midwest so that it becomes THE energy hub for the United States. We need to continue developing renewable energy sources, but nuclear power should be a top the list until solar/wind are more efficient. Develop infrastructure in the heartland of the nation and sprawl power lines to the coasts - the midwest is well protected from foreign threats, land is plentiful and nearly ideal for both nuclear and renewable energy, and it can be an economic boon for Americans in that area.

∞∞∞ wrote:I was at the climate march, but I completely disagree with the anti-nuclear sentiment I encountered.

Personally, I think an investment should be made into the midwest so that it becomes THE energy hub for the United States. We need to continue developing renewable energy sources, but nuclear power should be a top the list until solar/wind are more efficient. Develop infrastructure in the heartland of the nation and sprawl power lines to the coasts - the midwest is well protected from foreign threats, land is plentiful and nearly ideal for both nuclear and renewable energy, and it can be an economic boon for Americans in that area.

Solar and wind arent efficient enough yet?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

∞∞∞ wrote:I was at the climate march, but I completely disagree with the anti-nuclear sentiment I encountered.

Personally, I think an investment should be made into the midwest so that it becomes THE energy hub for the United States. We need to continue developing renewable energy sources, but nuclear power should be a top the list until solar/wind are more efficient. Develop infrastructure in the heartland of the nation and sprawl power lines to the coasts - the midwest is well protected from foreign threats, land is plentiful and nearly ideal for both nuclear and renewable energy, and it can be an economic boon for Americans in that area.

Also tornadoes, droughts, and excessive snow and frozen rivers.

CID1990 wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote:I was at the climate march, but I completely disagree with the anti-nuclear sentiment I encountered.

Personally, I think an investment should be made into the midwest so that it becomes THE energy hub for the United States. We need to continue developing renewable energy sources, but nuclear power should be a top the list until solar/wind are more efficient. Develop infrastructure in the heartland of the nation and sprawl power lines to the coasts - the midwest is well protected from foreign threats, land is plentiful and nearly ideal for both nuclear and renewable energy, and it can be an economic boon for Americans in that area.

Solar and wind arent efficient enough yet?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Solar and Wind are ~20-30% efficient in terms of converting thermal/kinetic energy to electricity. But obviously there's no downside to the energy produced.

Coal is about 35-40% efficient while natural gas is near ~55% (or 65%?). Nuclear energy is the most efficient at 90-95%. Oil is up there though as well, in the 85-90% range.

andy7171 wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote:I was at the climate march, but I completely disagree with the anti-nuclear sentiment I encountered.

Personally, I think an investment should be made into the midwest so that it becomes THE energy hub for the United States. We need to continue developing renewable energy sources, but nuclear power should be a top the list until solar/wind are more efficient. Develop infrastructure in the heartland of the nation and sprawl power lines to the coasts - the midwest is well protected from foreign threats, land is plentiful and nearly ideal for both nuclear and renewable energy, and it can be an economic boon for Americans in that area.

Also tornadoes, droughts, and excessive snow and frozen rivers.

We'll surround the nuclear plants with wind turbines to blow the bad weather away.

















That's how it works, right?

∞∞∞ wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Solar and wind arent efficient enough yet?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Solar and Wind are ~20-30% efficient in terms of converting thermal/kinetic energy to electricity. But obviously there's no downside to the energy produced.

Coal is about 35-40% efficient while natural gas is near ~55% (or 65%?). Nuclear energy is the most efficient at 90-95%. Oil is up there though as well, in the 85-90% range.

There is a downside to producing solar and wind energy.

Ibanez wrote:

andy7171 wrote: Also tornadoes, droughts, and excessive snow and frozen rivers.

We'll surround the nuclear plants with wind turbines to blow the bad weather away.

















That's how it works, right?

You live in South Carolina, right?