DC Tom Posted June 4, 2017 Posted June 4, 2017 Thorium molten salt reactors. Technology available since the 70s. And it's not used for a reason. I love the way you morons just throw out terms you read in Discovery magazine that you know nothing about.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 4, 2017 Posted June 4, 2017 (edited) And it's not used for a reason. I love the way you morons just throw out terms you read in Discovery magazine that you know nothing about. Why's that? No snark, want understanding of the downside that the **** i've read OBVIOUSLY hasn't told me. Edited June 4, 2017 by joesixpack
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 4, 2017 Posted June 4, 2017 And I'm still waiting for anyone to propose a solution to the biggest environmental threat of all: overpopulation. Oh I've got answers for that, too. None that anyone will like, but answers nonetheless.
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 4, 2017 Posted June 4, 2017 (edited) Oh I've got answers for that, too. None that anyone will like, but answers nonetheless. Humans have always dealt with the scarceness of resources the same ways: we generate new resources with invention, we go to war over those resources, or we expand into new areas to exploit new resources. The problem solves itself through human nature. Edited June 4, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 4, 2017 Posted June 4, 2017 Humans have always dealt with the scarceness of resources the same ways: we generate new resources with invention, we go to war over those resources, or we expand into new areas to exploit new resources. The problem solves itself through human nature. excellent points
Benjamin Franklin Posted June 4, 2017 Posted June 4, 2017 (edited) Please count the ways we've changed the planet. And we have put in place lots of environmental regulations in my lifetime. Don't seem to be working do they?You're old so you have seen the positive differences regulations have made to pollution, clean air, and water. Even my staunchest Linertarian leanings don't think we'd be in as good of shape now with respect to those without legislation dragging us along. Listing the ways humans have changed the planet would be too numerous. Read up on plant and animal species we killed off. Unless you think the dodo is still out there. Edited June 4, 2017 by Benjamin Franklin
DC Tom Posted June 4, 2017 Posted June 4, 2017 Why's that? No snark, want understanding of the downside that the **** i've read OBVIOUSLY hasn't told me. It's currently almost impossible to manufacture one that won't explode, melt down, or fall apart, because the high heat and corrosiveness of molten salts requires chromium steels for containment, but such steels break down in the high-energy neutron flux of a MSR (which isn't a problem in light water reactors, as the neutron flux is less energetic.) There's other, more stupid reason (E.g. you can't get one approved, because the NRC doesn't have regs covering them. Big !@#$ing deal...write new regs.) But that's the big one: materials science. We can build a prototype, but you have to use exotic (or hypothetical) materials manufactured in a lab setting that are poorly understood...which means we're nowhere near production engineering MSRs as a practical energy solution. At a guess...given that you'd have to build a prototype power reactor with virtually non-existent materials and run it long enough to validate the safety of those materials in that environment plus develop the maintenance procedures for the reactor (the one at Oak Ridge - I think - was shut down before I was born, and they still have maintenance problems with it)...we're maybe 20 years away from a commercially viable and safe MSR. Ten, if you really want to cut corners and risk a bunch of nuclear Love Canals in 50 years.
DC Tom Posted June 4, 2017 Posted June 4, 2017 You're old so you have seen the positive differences regulations have made to pollution, clean air, and water. Even my staunchest Linertarian leanings don't think we'd be in as good of shape now with respect to those without legislation dragging us along. Listing the ways humans have changed the planet would be too numerous. But go ahead and read up on plant and animal species we killed off. Unless you think the dodo is still out there. The dodo? The extinction of an isolated, rare species on a flyspeck of an island in the Indian Ocean is hardly a meaningful impact on the planet. The passenger pigeon would be a better example. But I'd have started with the infertile "Fertile Crescent," caused largely by artisinal argicultural practices (like the domestication of the goat) 3000-5000 years ago. The domestication of cereals (particularly wheat, rice, and corn) have made them some of the most successful plants on the planet, and have destroyed large swaths of native ecology. The extinction of North American megafauna. The destruction of almost all the old growth forest in North America. And those aren't even particularly modern examples. Iowa's currently a virtual desert - because of the corn monoculture, it has a biodiversity roughly on par with Antarctica, if not lower. And the destruction of the Aral Sea watershed by the Soviets. The current deforestation of the Amazon, which is approaching irretrievable levels.
/dev/null Posted June 4, 2017 Posted June 4, 2017 Listing the ways humans have changed the planet would be too numerous. Read up on plant and animal species we killed off. Unless you think the dodo is still out there. Survival of the fittesst. By eliminating those weaker animal species we have made the ecosystem stronger. See also Cliff Claven buffalo theory Plus, if the animals were tasty (like cattle) or friendly (like dogs) we would have kept them around
Benjamin Franklin Posted June 4, 2017 Posted June 4, 2017 (edited) The dodo? The extinction of an isolated, rare species on a flyspeck of an island in the Indian Ocean is hardly a meaningful impact on the planet. The passenger pigeon would be a better example. But I'd have started with the infertile "Fertile Crescent," caused largely by artisinal argicultural practices (like the domestication of the goat) 3000-5000 years ago. The domestication of cereals (particularly wheat, rice, and corn) have made them some of the most successful plants on the planet, and have destroyed large swaths of native ecology. The extinction of North American megafauna. The destruction of almost all the old growth forest in North America. And those aren't even particularly modern examples. Iowa's currently a virtual desert - because of the corn monoculture, it has a biodiversity roughly on par with Antarctica, if not lower. And the destruction of the Aral Sea watershed by the Soviets. The current deforestation of the Amazon, which is approaching irretrievable levels. I picked the dodo for comedic effect you Pyrenean Ibex. The number of ways we changed the planet is legion and boring to list. To doubt it is to show off a wanton ignorance. Edited June 4, 2017 by Benjamin Franklin
Foxx Posted June 4, 2017 Posted June 4, 2017 And if we are.....so what? The planet warms, the cools, the planet warms again. It's been happening for billions of years. What logical reason is there for the sudden mass hysteria? Are people really so arrogant now as to think we can create the ability to control the evolution of the planet to suit our specific wants? And spare me the bogus 'it's warming cooling changing faster than ever!!' nonsense. apparently, we humans are so powerful, we are even warming Mars.
DC Tom Posted June 4, 2017 Posted June 4, 2017 I picked the dodo for comedic effect you Pyrenean Ibex. The number of ways we changed the planet is legion and boring to list. To doubt it is to show off a wanton ignorance. I am not Pyrenean. One notable thing about extinction, though: it's a goddamn natural process. Just because an animal goes extinct, it is not necessarily a tragedy. Sometimes the damned thing deserved to go extinct. Really...the idea that the world shouldn't change - as held by such a shocking number of environmentalists - is bull ****. It's basically Creationist in its belief that the plant is and should be a static entity; and any extinction, climate change, or what have you is a tragedy; and that we're above natural processes rather than being a natural process ourselves.
IDBillzFan Posted June 4, 2017 Posted June 4, 2017 The problem is the left conflates the concept of improving environmental conditions via sensible policies and practices with the bullsh-- "climate change" narrative, and does so intentionally for political gain. The simple fact that the left has turned global warming cooling climate change into yet another money-laundering scheme is all ANYONE needs to know about this topic.. If we really are going to destroy this planet in the next 100 years, I have no problem blaming the left for this situation because they ONLY care about this topic to launder taxpayer funds. Period. Just like unions. Just like "foundations." Money first. Money last. That's the DNC in a nutshell.
B-Man Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 The Paris Treaty was/is always about distribution of economic wealth; and the convenient use of “climate phrases” as branding instruments used to create political policy favorable to multinational corporate interests who control the shifting of economic wealth. Ask yourself….… Where exactly in the U.S. budget did this little $1 billion line-item expenditure come from?
Nanker Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 The Paris Treaty was/is always about distribution of economic wealth; and the convenient use of “climate phrases” as branding instruments used to create political policy favorable to multinational corporate interests who control the shifting of economic wealth. Ask yourself….… Where exactly in the U.S. budget did this little $1 billion line-item expenditure come from? I know! I know! Medicaid. Taxes on the wealthy, i.e., people earning more than ten thousand dollars a year.
Gary M Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 I picked the dodo for comedic effect you Pyrenean Ibex. The number of ways we changed the planet is legion and boring to list. To doubt it is to show off a wanton ignorance. How many ways has the planet changed without human influence? Legion squared? Being a betting man and looking at the odds, track record and arguments on both side I would wager that the human influence on the climate is negligible.
Benjamin Franklin Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 How many ways has the planet changed without human influence? Legion squared? Being a betting man and looking at the odds, track record and arguments on both side I would wager that the human influence on the climate is negligible. Fencepost: We can't control many of the other ways the planet changes.
DC Tom Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 How many ways has the planet changed without human influence? Legion squared? Being a betting man and looking at the odds, track record and arguments on both side I would wager that the human influence on the climate is negligible. Mesopotamian goats. Give me your money.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 Mesopotamian goats. Give me your money. I was going to say domestication of certain grasses.
Tiberius Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 Pretty interesting science: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Recommended Posts