Greta is at it..AGAIN

[Ratman_tf]

I was at Penn State when the first Environmental Science degrees were rolled out. I could tell immediately, because none of the people in that program could give a correct definition of the greenhouse effect*, and you couldn't tell them they were wrong.

* The tendency for atmospheres to admit light, but hold in heat. In other words, they act like a greenhouse.

Dafuq? It's not even a particularly difficult idea to grasp.

But they were taught about enviromental "justice" and other grievance studies not about the science.

I guess I shouldn't be shocked, but man.

[Lurkndog]

They're not taking actual science courses, and they get all their info from one source. When that source turns out to be untrustworthy, they have no means of recognizing it.

Plus, there is a strong element of rightthink vs wrongthink in the indoctrination. It would be wrong to question Great Leader.

[jhkim]

Nuclear has the smallest land footprint and can be built pretty much anywhere outside a fault line. You could even put it in planes with the latest technological advancements. You could build those giant scifi floating fortresses because they wouldn't need to land for refueling.

Yeah I am routinely frustrated that the green energy advocates so often seem to be anti-nuclear. It's the cleanest, cheapest, and honestly safest form of renewable energy. Solar tends to last only 25-30 years and the rare earth elements that go into making it cause severe environmental damage in their mining. Wind causes a lot of damage too, as does most (but not all) energy from dams.

Heck, you can even put in in fault line areas - Japan admits they had messed up and not installed the latest advanced design to deal with stronger earthquakes. I mean, given the option I think it's better to not put them near a fault line, but even that can be dealt with.

As for disposal of spent materials, several nations have also found good ways to recycle most of the waste these days as well.

As a civilization, had we focused our efforts on making nuclear power safe and widespread, we'd be on much firmer ground right now, and most nations wouldn't have the ongoing security risk of OPEC nations having so much influence over global politics. But because there have been a handful of screw-ups over the years and some unintended scare tactics used against nuclear weapons spilling over in people's minds to nuclear energy, despite those small number of screw-ups having fewer deaths overall than the screw-ups over the years from oil and gas, people are afraid of nuclear.

Agreed. I've been starting to get involved with Generation Atomic over the last few months as an advocacy group, learning about ways to help promote information about nuclear power.

https://www.generationatomic.org/

And yeah, earthquake-safe construction has been pretty well mastered over the past 2-3 decades. Nuclear has an amazing safety track record, and it seems like there are an increasing number of people acknowledging this and advocating for it - compared to decades of anti-nuclear advocacy being dominant.

[Silverblade]

Nuclear has the smallest land footprint and can be built pretty much anywhere outside a fault line. You could even put it in planes with the latest technological advancements. You could build those giant scifi floating fortresses because they wouldn't need to land for refueling.

Yeah I am routinely frustrated that the green energy advocates so often seem to be anti-nuclear. It's the cleanest, cheapest, and honestly safest form of renewable energy. Solar tends to last only 25-30 years and the rare earth elements that go into making it cause severe environmental damage in their mining. Wind causes a lot of damage too, as does most (but not all) energy from dams.

Heck, you can even put in in fault line areas - Japan admits they had messed up and not installed the latest advanced design to deal with stronger earthquakes. I mean, given the option I think it's better to not put them near a fault line, but even that can be dealt with.

As for disposal of spent materials, several nations have also found good ways to recycle most of the waste these days as well.

As a civilization, had we focused our efforts on making nuclear power safe and widespread, we'd be on much firmer ground right now, and most nations wouldn't have the ongoing security risk of OPEC nations having so much influence over global politics. But because there have been a handful of screw-ups over the years and some unintended scare tactics used against nuclear weapons spilling over in people's minds to nuclear energy, despite those small number of screw-ups having fewer deaths overall than the screw-ups over the years from oil and gas, people are afraid of nuclear.

Agreed. I've been starting to get involved with Generation Atomic over the last few months as an advocacy group, learning about ways to help promote information about nuclear power.

https://www.generationatomic.org/

And yeah, earthquake-safe construction has been pretty well mastered over the past 2-3 decades. Nuclear has an amazing safety track record, and it seems like there are an increasing number of people acknowledging this and advocating for it - compared to decades of anti-nuclear advocacy being dominant.

The Three Mile Island Accident had a profound effect upon the American population regarding nuclear energy.  When something like that happens on your soil, you start having doubts.  Countries like Japan are all in on nuclear energy so even with a greater meltdown, they stick with it because their entire infrastructure is based on it.  I think the US would have been like France or Japan if Three Mile didn't happen.

[Chris24601]

Three Mile Island was hyped by the anti-nuke crowd already around.

Yet, look at the actual numbers for the accident; ZERO loss of life. NO significant radiation even escaped the plant (estimates are those nearby were exposed to under 1.4 mrem (for comparison one chest x-ray is 3.2 mrem and annual exposure from natural sources is 310 mrem). ZERO water, soil or anything else was contaminated. ZERO cancers were attributed to it.

But the anti-human environmentalists hyped the fear and the media happily gave it a megaphone because their goal has never truly been a cleaner environment; it's to shut down nearly all human activity; they want the population culled down to under a billion people and the survivors must eat bugs while shivering in caves (except for the elites, including Greta, daughter of elites, who get to live in luxury doing whatever they want).

[Silverblade]

Three Mile Island was hyped by the anti-nuke crowd already around.

Yet, look at the actual numbers for the accident; ZERO loss of life. NO significant radiation even escaped the plant (estimates are those nearby were exposed to under 1.4 mrem (for comparison one chest x-ray is 3.2 mrem and annual exposure from natural sources is 310 mrem). ZERO water, soil or anything else was contaminated. ZERO cancers were attributed to it.

But the anti-human environmentalists hyped the fear and the media happily gave it a megaphone because their goal has never truly been a cleaner environment; it's to shut down nearly all human activity; they want the population culled down to under a billion people and the survivors must eat bugs while shivering in caves (except for the elites, including Greta, daughter of elites, who get to live in luxury doing whatever they want).

Certainly there were idiots who hated nuclear energy before it happened. Three Mile was the catalyst that pushed the agenda to higher levels. The leftists and "woke" have always existed. They just wait for the right opportunity to use for their purpose.

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste."  Rahm Emanuel.

[jhkim]

Three Mile Island was hyped by the anti-nuke crowd already around.

Yet, look at the actual numbers for the accident; ZERO loss of life. NO significant radiation even escaped the plant (estimates are those nearby were exposed to under 1.4 mrem (for comparison one chest x-ray is 3.2 mrem and annual exposure from natural sources is 310 mrem). ZERO water, soil or anything else was contaminated. ZERO cancers were attributed to it.

But the anti-human environmentalists hyped the fear and the media happily gave it a megaphone because their goal has never truly been a cleaner environment; it's to shut down nearly all human activity; they want the population culled down to under a billion people and the survivors must eat bugs while shivering in caves (except for the elites, including Greta, daughter of elites, who get to live in luxury doing whatever they want).

Certainly there were idiots who hated nuclear energy before it happened. Three Mile was the catalyst that pushed the agenda to higher levels. The leftists and "woke" have always existed. They just wait for the right opportunity to use for their purpose.

I think the more crucial factor is that the anti-nuclear crowd had just released "The China Syndrome" just days before the accident - which was nonsensical as far as reality, but successfully stoked fear in people. And because of those stoked fears, the advocates were able to dispute the facts of the accident, claiming that science wasn't to be trusted and the government was covering up the damage. Without that high point of successful fear-stoking, it would have been an unmemorable footnote in history.

I think the telling feature is that advocates never came up with a coherent picture of what they claimed really happened, but rather had a lot of contradictory stories and spread fear, doubt, and undertainty.

[Wntrlnd]

Three Mile Island was hyped by the anti-nuke crowd already around.

Yet, look at the actual numbers for the accident; ZERO loss of life. NO significant radiation even escaped the plant (estimates are those nearby were exposed to under 1.4 mrem (for comparison one chest x-ray is 3.2 mrem and annual exposure from natural sources is 310 mrem). ZERO water, soil or anything else was contaminated. ZERO cancers were attributed to it.

But the anti-human environmentalists hyped the fear and the media happily gave it a megaphone because their goal has never truly been a cleaner environment; it's to shut down nearly all human activity; they want the population culled down to under a billion people and the survivors must eat bugs while shivering in caves (except for the elites, including Greta, daughter of elites, who get to live in luxury doing whatever they want).

Certainly there were idiots who hated nuclear energy before it happened. Three Mile was the catalyst that pushed the agenda to higher levels. The leftists and "woke" have always existed. They just wait for the right opportunity to use for their purpose.

I think the more crucial factor is that the anti-nuclear crowd had just released "The China Syndrome" just days before the accident - which was nonsensical as far as reality, but successfully stoked fear in people. And because of those stoked fears, the advocates were able to dispute the facts of the accident, claiming that science wasn't to be trusted and the government was covering up the damage. Without that high point of successful fear-stoking, it would have been an unmemorable footnote in history.

I think the telling feature is that advocates never came up with a coherent picture of what they claimed really happened, but rather had a lot of contradictory stories and spread fear, doubt, and undertainty.

As much I love the miniseries Chernobyl it is known that it takes its liberties and exaggerates some things like "the bridge of death".
I don't mind that because it is good storytelling, but it has to do with the fact that it does so when discussion are being had about other energy sources than oil and coal and that we can use new technology to make safer nuclear plants while we wait for Fusion to become viable. But then comes the Tv series and people go "nuclear bad" again despite it points out that the cause of the accident was people. And not necessarily the people who worked at the powerplant at the time, but the KGB and the Soviet goverment who ignored matters about safety.

[hedgehobbit]

This is an old story but it is still funny:

https://www.sustainable-carbon.org/usa-new-ev-battery-factory-requires-so-much-energy-a-coal-power-plant-will-be-expanded-delayed-closure-by-years/

They are building a battery factor in Kansas for EV cars and ...
"This massive EV battery factory will require enormous amounts of power. So much energy, in fact, that a local coal-fired plant will be expanded and the life of the plant will be extended."

[GeekyBugle]

This is an old story but it is still funny:

https://www.sustainable-carbon.org/usa-new-ev-battery-factory-requires-so-much-energy-a-coal-power-plant-will-be-expanded-delayed-closure-by-years/

They are building a battery factor in Kansas for EV cars and ...
"This massive EV battery factory will require enormous amounts of power. So much energy, in fact, that a local coal-fired plant will be expanded and the life of the plant will be extended."

Well, Japanese car manufacturers are resisting, and now a French one too.

EVs are a scam, just like Solar and Wind, sure the last two have their uses but as a replacement for fossil fuels? Don't make me laugh.

Nuclear was and IS the only hope we have to generate enough electricity without polluting, which makes even more obvious the clear anti-human impetus behind those who are against it.

[jhkim]

As much I love the miniseries Chernobyl it is known that it takes its liberties and exaggerates some things like "the bridge of death".
I don't mind that because it is good storytelling, but it has to do with the fact that it does so when discussion are being had about other energy sources than oil and coal and that we can use new technology to make safer nuclear plants while we wait for Fusion to become viable. But then comes the Tv series and people go "nuclear bad" again despite it points out that the cause of the accident was people. And not necessarily the people who worked at the powerplant at the time, but the KGB and the Soviet goverment who ignored matters about safety.

The key thing that miniseries did was take vast liberties in portraying radiation as a spooky, creepy, inexorable killer. The series takes hours explaining the mechanics of how the reactor failed, but explains less than zero about the effect of radiation on health. There were dozens of liberties that it took with the facts for this -- but the absolutely central one to the whole plot is Legasov saying definitively that he and Scherbina are will die because they absorbed too much radiation.

That's a complete fiction.

Taking a bunch of radiation at once is absolutely unhealthy, and too much can be immediately lethal. But there were many people at Chernobyl who took that much radiation and survived to this day. In the series, Legasov declares "I need to kill three men" and seeks out volunteers to go under the reactor to shut off the water, telling them they will be doomed to die. Those men weren't volunteers, they were just the people who happened to be on shift - and they all survived. I saw an interview with two of them over what they thought of the series.

Debilitating radiation exposure is now regularly used as medicine to help treat cancer, with very good survival and recovery rates. My sister had radiation treatments along with chemo for her colon cancer two years ago.

In "The Babushkas of Chernobyl", the documentarians noted that the women who violated the evacuation order and went back to live in their homes in the exclusion zone had better survival rates than the people who were evacuated, despite the radiation exposure. That's not to say the exclusion zone has no adverse effects, but it is evidently better than being made homeless.

[Exploderwizard]

Three Mile Island was hyped by the anti-nuke crowd already around.

Yet, look at the actual numbers for the accident; ZERO loss of life. NO significant radiation even escaped the plant (estimates are those nearby were exposed to under 1.4 mrem (for comparison one chest x-ray is 3.2 mrem and annual exposure from natural sources is 310 mrem). ZERO water, soil or anything else was contaminated. ZERO cancers were attributed to it.

But the anti-human environmentalists hyped the fear and the media happily gave it a megaphone because their goal has never truly been a cleaner environment; it's to shut down nearly all human activity; they want the population culled down to under a billion people and the survivors must eat bugs while shivering in caves (except for the elites, including Greta, daughter of elites, who get to live in luxury doing whatever they want).

The funny thing is, these climate yahoos who spend all their time shrieking about reducing carbon, seem to be clueless to the fact that the carbon they are advocating for elimination is them.

[Chris24601]

Three Mile Island was hyped by the anti-nuke crowd already around.

Yet, look at the actual numbers for the accident; ZERO loss of life. NO significant radiation even escaped the plant (estimates are those nearby were exposed to under 1.4 mrem (for comparison one chest x-ray is 3.2 mrem and annual exposure from natural sources is 310 mrem). ZERO water, soil or anything else was contaminated. ZERO cancers were attributed to it.

But the anti-human environmentalists hyped the fear and the media happily gave it a megaphone because their goal has never truly been a cleaner environment; it's to shut down nearly all human activity; they want the population culled down to under a billion people and the survivors must eat bugs while shivering in caves (except for the elites, including Greta, daughter of elites, who get to live in luxury doing whatever they want).

The funny thing is, these climate yahoos who spend all their time shrieking about reducing carbon, seem to be clueless to the fact that the carbon they are advocating for elimination is them.

That's because the carbon they think will be eliminated first is us. The elites at Davos literally called the people of flyover country "useless eaters." They want most of us to die and the rest be contained to "15 minute" cities where we'll eat bugs and have to rent everything, even our clothes, from them... while they are free to travel the world on private jets, eat the finest delicacies, and live in luxury mansions out in nature.

And we must all comply because they believe they DESERVE it. They're all scions multigenerational wealth told from practically birth that they were better than everyone else, all going to the same elite schools and getting jobs in hedge funds, think tanks, and the government thanks to all their connections.

But they are so damnably insulated from reality, practically bred to be sociopaths with their ideas never allowed to be challenged, that they have no idea how anything actually works.

Some grifter tells them they can make massive profits investing in and pushing EVs (and that it's good for the environment) and they all invest and then the elites in government pass subsidies to send billions of taxpayer dollars to develop EVs and pass regulations requiring ICE vehicles be banned and that 75% of the vehicles sold by 2030 must be EVs. And they pat themselves on the back for being such good people.

It doesn't even occur to them that it takes more emissions to mine the material for a single EV battery than an ICE will produce in its entire lifetime. That even more emissions will come from the power plants needed to charge them. That the majority of car emissions these days are from the TIRES wearing on the roads and EVs heavier weight produces multiple times those emissions over an ICE vehicle.

They have no concept of how electricity is produced and the load required to actually charge even the few percent of electric vehicles in service now, nor the inability of non-elites to afford them (or they do and see taking away the non-elite's ability to travel as a bonus).

Nor do they understand that all their luxuries depend on the transportation infrastructure that runs on fossil fuels. Many of them legitimately believe food just magically appears at the markets (and those that do know better see most of the planet starving while they use their wealth to continue to eat as a bonus).

They are virtually all midwits to idiots who think they're geniuses and are psychologically incapable of thinking past the first stage of their harebrained schemes. Everyone will comply because they MUST.

That people might not want to be starved to death or crowded into hellhole cities to eat bugs and labor for the elites without even being allowed to own even your own clothes isn't even something they've considered.

Which is why, time and again throughout history, when the people have had enough, the idiot elites end up hanging from trees or rolled into mass graves; either by the people themselves or by the fed up populace leaving the gates open for someone else to do it for them.

Working people are nearing (or already at) the end of their ropes. They see lawless invaders and criminals being coddled while they're being threatened with the loss of everything if they attempt to fight back against being robbed, raped and murdered... or use the wrong impossible to guess pronoun or refuse to let the State genitally mutilate their kids.

I'll be honest. President Trump winning and being allowed to restore the Rule of Law is likely these idiots' last chance to avoid the righteous wrath of the Men Who Wanted To Be Left Alone. It would be a pressure valve release on the utter hatred for the government and the elites I listen to at breakfast every time I go out.

But the idiots are still cooking up plans to prevent it; the latest being throwing control of the House to the Democrats through RINO resignations (see Buck and his claimed cronies) so that they can either pass a law to declare President Trump ineligible or just refuse to certify the election and keep Biden in power.

That is their current proclaimed plan; to tell possibly 100 million voters "Nuh Uh! Because we say so!"

And the idiots think it will work. They think denying millions upon millions a voice, fair trials, the ability to feed their children, and then take away their hope of being able to change it peacefully through elections will let them hold onto power?

As an actually intelligent Democrat (JFK, who's views then would be to the right of Donald Trump's today) once said; "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable."

If they were smart, they would let the popular will of the people elect Donald Trump and quietly slink off to enjoy their already purloined billions. The somewhat frustrating thing is that most people would actually let them if they'd just get out of the way and stop making it worse.

But they're not smart, they're just well-educated idiots.

[Mistwell]

This is an old story but it is still funny:

https://www.sustainable-carbon.org/usa-new-ev-battery-factory-requires-so-much-energy-a-coal-power-plant-will-be-expanded-delayed-closure-by-years/

They are building a battery factor in Kansas for EV cars and ...
"This massive EV battery factory will require enormous amounts of power. So much energy, in fact, that a local coal-fired plant will be expanded and the life of the plant will be extended."

Well, Japanese car manufacturers are resisting, and now a French one too.

EVs are a scam, just like Solar and Wind, sure the last two have their uses but as a replacement for fossil fuels? Don't make me laugh.

Nuclear was and IS the only hope we have to generate enough electricity without polluting, which makes even more obvious the clear anti-human impetus behind those who are against it.

I drive a plug-in hybrid and it's definitely not a scam. I save so much money, and there is nothing wrong with saving money. You don't have to care at all about environmental issues to appreciate filling a 10 gallon tank once every month and a half instead of a 15 gallon tank once every week.

[GeekyBugle]

This is an old story but it is still funny:

https://www.sustainable-carbon.org/usa-new-ev-battery-factory-requires-so-much-energy-a-coal-power-plant-will-be-expanded-delayed-closure-by-years/

They are building a battery factor in Kansas for EV cars and ...
"This massive EV battery factory will require enormous amounts of power. So much energy, in fact, that a local coal-fired plant will be expanded and the life of the plant will be extended."

Well, Japanese car manufacturers are resisting, and now a French one too.

EVs are a scam, just like Solar and Wind, sure the last two have their uses but as a replacement for fossil fuels? Don't make me laugh.

Nuclear was and IS the only hope we have to generate enough electricity without polluting, which makes even more obvious the clear anti-human impetus behind those who are against it.

I drive a plug-in hybrid and it's definitely not a scam. I save so much money, and there is nothing wrong with saving money. You don't have to care at all about environmental issues to appreciate filling a 10 gallon tank once every month and a half instead of a 15 gallon tank once every week.

EVs ARE a scam, because they are being sold as "save the planet!" which, if you cared to do a little research would know it's not just false, it's the opposite since you end up causing way more enviromental damage in their manufacturing.

Enviromental damage you can't offset during their lifetime.

"But I'm saving money!"

So you don't care about the environment? Is that what you're telling us?

As for your savings...

How much cheaper would the gas be if their carbon taxes didn't exist? How much cheaper if Biden wasn't openly hostile to American fossil fuels while kissing the ass of dictators and terrorists to import the same from them?

Then what happens to the EV's batteries once they are useless? You also don't care about THAT contamination?

What about the blades of the windmills? Non-Degradable, Non-Recoclable, you also don't care about that? Or the solar panels once they're useless? Too expensive to try and recover the little valuable materials in them. You don't care about that either?

I'm PRO Nuclear and Gas BECAUSE I'm concerned with the environment and believe in evidence based solutions and not wishfull thinking.