All Things Environment

[DocBarrister]

Just a stupid post.
California is situated in one of the most active tectonic regions in the entire world, and you want us to build a half-dozen new nuclear power plants here?

So earthquakes have, in the last 100 years, leveled dozens city in your huge State....all points North, South, East, and West? Boy, who knew the faultlines were that big?

Neat.

Just a stupid post.
Canada has 6 nuclear power facilities. All are in Ontario, New Brunswick, or Quebec. None are on the West Coast.

And you think that's because of (snicker) earthquakes, Doc?

California has one “legacy” nuclear power plant that remains in operation and will stay in operation for several more years.

Not possible. You just told us that earthquakes preclude nuclear plants in California Doc. Surely it has been destroyed by earthquake in the (checks notes) 37 years since it was commissioned?

BTW, Doc? That one plant almost makes more electricity than all wind power combined. But sure, It's stupid to use nuclear power.

Just a stupid post.
And why should California go through the much longer regulatory process and much greater expense of building brand new nuclear power facilities when it is much faster, easier, safer, and cheaper to build solar and wind power facilities?

Yeah, you're up to a whopping 25% of your power from wind and solar after decades and decades of time to do it, Doc. Wow! Great job!

You didn’t even think about that before posting, correct, a fan? Just wanted to rush in and troll me, correct?

Yeah, that's it. Because it's not possible that anyone knows more about a subject than you do, right, Doc? Your degrees mean you know more than everyone else, regardless of subject.

Keep right on pumping out the natural gas, Doc. I won't stop you. Enjoy your fossil fuel powered Tesla Limousine, I guess. Thinking is bad.

You really do need to learn when you are simply advocating stupid ideas for the sake of arguing.

Do you think you are the first person to consider building new nuclear plants in California?

Do you think there may be some good reasons why California hasn’t built and commissioned a new nuclear power plant in nearly four decades?

Earthquakes are not a small issue in California. Everything here costs more money and takes more time to build because of them.

You are the one acting like a know-it-all. First, you think you know better than dozens of governments in East and South Asia about the threat presented by China. Now you think you know better than the entire state of California about building nuclear power facilities here.

Let me fill you in on a secret, Einstein, you’re not the first one to propose building new nuclear power plants here. Lots of companies have considered it, but no one has built a new one here in decades. Laws can be changed and environmental impact studies can be done and nuclear waste facilities identified and funding procured and construction plans drawn if a company really wanted to build a nuclear power plant here.

But no one has … and there are lots of good reasons for that.

Much easier, faster, safer, and cheaper to build solar or wind, so why not go with that?

Your know-it-all arrogance is truly astounding and bizarre. What makes you think you know issues like China and California nuclear power better than the people who actually analyze those issues for a living … and those who have the highest stake in making the right decisions?

DocBarrister

[a fan]

The proposal to build nuclear power plants in California is stupid.

Says the guy who prefers to get 40% of California's energy from coal and natural gas.

You fail to say why we shouldn’t build solar and wind power facilities that are easier, safer, and cheaper and would take much less time and effort to get online.

A. no one is stopping you, so what's the hold up? B. Do i need to explain to you how wind and the sun works? What's your plan for cloudy, windless days, Doc?

I'll tell you what your plan is: burn coal and natural gas. Which is precisely what California does.

Truth is, nuclear power plants simply are not commercially viable in California compared to renewable energy sources.

Facepalm.

Doc: what's stupid is hilariously comparing nuclear to wind and solar.

That's not the comparison, Doc.

The comparison is between nuclear..... and coal and natural gas.

Keep right on burning that fossil fuel, Doc. Whatever makes you happy.

[DocBarrister]

The proposal to build nuclear power plants in California is stupid.

Says the guy who prefers to get 40% of California's energy from coal and natural gas.

You fail to say why we shouldn’t build solar and wind power facilities that are easier, safer, and cheaper and would take much less time and effort to get online.

A. no one is stopping you, so what's the hold up? B. Do i need to explain to you how wind and the sun works? What's your plan for cloudy, windless days, Doc?

I'll tell you what your plan is: burn coal and natural gas. Which is precisely what California does.

Truth is, nuclear power plants simply are not commercially viable in California compared to renewable energy sources.

Facepalm.

Doc: what's stupid is hilariously comparing nuclear to wind and solar.

That's not the comparison, Doc.

The comparison is between nuclear..... and coal and natural gas.

Keep right on burning that fossil fuel, Doc. Whatever makes you happy.

Wow. You really know it all, don’t you.

Stay on the line … the president of South Korea and PMs of Japan and Australia want your thoughts on why China and Xi Jinping are not a threat to them.

Gavin Newsom called, too, but I told him he was an idiot for not building as many nuclear power plants as he can and said you were skeptical about wind and solar power. Then I hung up on him.

Hope your ego is happy.

DocBarrister

[a fan]

Wow. You really know it all, don’t you.

No, a guy with a degrees in medicine and law who thinks that wind turbines turn when there's no wind does.

What I know is the scoreboard. And the scoreboard says that California is getting 40% of its electricity from Coal and natural gas. And all the dancing you do won't change that.

And I know that it's guys like you that keep right on burning fossil fuel, thinking that "good intentions" means that you're not burning that fossil fuel. Yeah, that's not how electricity is generated, Doc.

Keep right at it, Doc. There are millions just like you who would rather burn coal that constantly sends poison in the air, than use nuclear that has been operating safely in countries all over the world. You prefer irrational fear and "what I read on the internet" to science.

Good for you. And wake me up when California stops burning natural gas and coal.

[DocBarrister]

Keep sucking down those latte's in yer natural gas-powered car, Doc.

depending on where Doc lives - there's a pretty good chance he's driving a coal powered car

Human-caused climate change is an established fact. You are not entitled to an opinion on that. It is a matter of established fact, not opinion or “faith”.

Well it is and it isn't an "established fact". But don't go thinking you know what I am thinking. I believe we should be doing everything we can to reduce our impact on the environment. I am a REAL environmentalist - that's why I KNOW nuclear is the only real solution. Unlike the folks that have been baptized in the church of wind&solar, I actually want to fix our environment and not just make a buck off the idiots in DC and Brussels.

If you want to learn something - the EU commissioned a 450 page study on wind and solar vs nuclear. In order to establish the outer limits of the viability of wind and solar vs nuke, they looked at the Czech Republic and The Netherlands power requirements.

The findings were quite interesting:

• In order to meet the power needs in The Netherlands by wind and solar it would require up to 1.8 times the land mass of the Netherlands! If you don't want to worry about meeting peak demand you only need to use a little over 64% of the total land mass of the country. Nuclear would need to use about 0.3% of the land in The Netherlands to meet 100% of their power needs.
  
  In the Czech Republic, wind and solar fare much better: the lucky Czech's y would only have to give up 55% of their entire country to the needs of wind & solar power generation. Or, they could again dedicate a little over 0.3% of their land to nuclear power generation in order to meet all of their power needs.
  
  Don't even get me started on silica mining, etc... wind and solar (wind and utility scale solar in particular) are a complete boondoggle.

Nuclear power will be a part of Europe’s future.

However, wind and solar already generate about four times as much power as the Netherlands’ sole nuclear plant.

I think the Netherlands will expand nuclear power generation as part of their effort to reduce reliance on natural gas.

Still, the Netherlands happens to have access to the North Sea, and they are hoping to have 75% of their electricity generated by offshore wind by 2030.

https://www.government.nl/topics/renewa ... ind-energy

It’s the same story just about everywhere … some places like Europe and Japan are planning expansion of nuclear power generation, but wind and solar power development is becoming faster and cheaper to implement.

Relying mainly on nuclear power generation for clean energy only delays movement away from fossil fuels.

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

Wow. You really know it all, don’t you.

No, a guy with a degrees in medicine and law who thinks that wind turbines turn when there's no wind does.

What I know is the scoreboard. And the scoreboard says that California is getting 40% of its electricity from Coal and natural gas. And all the dancing you do won't change that.

And I know that it's guys like you that keep right on burning fossil fuel, thinking that "good intentions" means that you're not burning that fossil fuel. Yeah, that's not how electricity is generated, Doc.

Keep right at it, Doc. There are millions just like you who would rather burn coal that constantly sends poison in the air, than use nuclear that has been operating safely in countries all over the world. You prefer irrational fear and "what I read on the internet" to science.

Good for you. And wake me up when California stops burning natural gas and coal.

Wow. You really don’t know that California has some of the best offshore wind locations in the entire world, do you?

https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2022-08/ ... upwards-25

Ever sail in 45 knot (crazy strong) thermal winds in SF Bay in the summertime? I have. That’s some crazy strong wind.

It’s going to take some time to build up California’s battery power storage capacity, but we’re working on it.

See, unlike you, I don’t consider myself an expert on everything. The California Energy Commission, which employs experts who think about these things full time, has a plan to reach 100% renewable energy generation by 2045.

https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2021-03/ ... lectricity

Building lots of new nuclear power plants isn’t really part of the plans. After all, California has a lot of sun and a lot of wind. Why go nuclear when we have so much wind and sun?

But go ahead and tell California that they’re a bunch of idiots for not building lots of new nuclear plants.

Because you know better, right a fan?

By the way, the PM of India is on hold waiting for you to tell him he’s a moron for worrying so much about China.

DocBarrister

[a fan]

Your know-it-all arrogance is truly astounding and bizarre. What makes you think you know issues like China and California nuclear power better than the people who actually analyze those issues for a living … and those who have the highest stake in making the right decisions?

The all-time king of Laxpower pomposity is offended? Oh no! What will I do?

As for why I think I might have a fair understanding of the issue at hand, Doc? Founded the world first sustainable brewery & distillery with my brother who has a Masters in Environmental Engineering from Stanford University for 27 years, and counting. Setting a standard of energy, water, and material use for others to follow. Do you know what an engineer is, Doc? They're the people who actually design, and in our case, build and operate things. Not people who "read about it on the internet". People who actually DO these things.

What's your CV, Doc, aside from thinking that solar panels work on cloudy days? Recycling your Diet Coke cans when the mood suits you?

Spare me your condescending nonsense. There is no one here more arrogant than you are, Doc. You're offended because you're caught, yet again, not knowing what you're talking about, and trying to appeal to citations and ad hominem attacks to save face.

Your State is getting 40% of it's electricity from Fossil fuels. You can run in a circle all you like....but you'll wind up in the same place. "We're trying" and "we have plans" doesn't feed the bulldog.

Pro-Tip : all these years, you could have been running nuke plants this entire time, waiting for solar, wind, and battery technology to catch up and then decommission the nuke plants as they aren't needed. Instead, you and your fellow know-it-alls in the State of California CHOSE to burn fossil fuels.

That one single nuclear plant? Provides 8.5% of California's electrical needs.....replacing decades of your brilliant CHOICE to keep right on burning fossil fuels. But sure, nuclear plants are stupid. You're smart, and I'm dumb, what with your expert "googling" and everything.

[wgdsr]

hey, he provides links. big link guy.

i think someone's going to be pretty surprised at what happens in the nuke industry over the next 5 and 10 years. ^^^^^

evidently india and japan know what they're doing already re: china, but have lost their minds on their views of nuclear. very bifurcated.

[DocBarrister]

hey, he provides links. big link guy.

i think someone's going to be pretty surprised at what happens in the nuke industry over the next 5 and 10 years. ^^^^^

evidently india and japan know what they're doing already re: china, but have lost their minds on their views of nuclear. very bifurcated.

Hey, our genius on the new B1G contract (which he has never read) has joined our conversation!

Welcome!

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

Your know-it-all arrogance is truly astounding and bizarre. What makes you think you know issues like China and California nuclear power better than the people who actually analyze those issues for a living … and those who have the highest stake in making the right decisions?

The all-time king of Laxpower pomposity is offended? Oh no! What will I do?

As for why I think I might have a fair understanding of the issue at hand, Doc? Founded the world first sustainable brewery & distillery with my brother who has a Masters in Environmental Engineering from Stanford University for 27 years, and counting. Setting a standard of energy, water, and material use for others to follow. Do you know what an engineer is, Doc? They're the people who actually design, and in our case, build and operate things. Not people who "read about it on the internet". People who actually DO these things.

What's your CV, Doc, aside from thinking that solar panels work on cloudy days? Recycling your Diet Coke cans when the mood suits you?

Spare me your condescending nonsense. There is no one here more arrogant than you are, Doc. You're offended because you're caught, yet again, not knowing what you're talking about, and trying to appeal to citations and ad hominem attacks to save face.

Your State is getting 40% of it's electricity from Fossil fuels. You can run in a circle all you like....but you'll wind up in the same place. "We're trying" and "we have plans" doesn't feed the bulldog.

Pro-Tip : all these years, you could have been running nuke plants this entire time, waiting for solar, wind, and battery technology to catch up and then decommission the nuke plants as they aren't needed. Instead, you and your fellow know-it-alls in the State of California CHOSE to burn fossil fuels.

That one single nuclear plant? Provides 8.5% of California's electrical needs.....replacing decades of your brilliant CHOICE to keep right on burning fossil fuels. But sure, nuclear plants are stupid. You're smart, and I'm dumb, what with your expert "googling" and everything.

Hey, da Vinci … you do know that California has the second lowest carbon emissions per capita in the nation, don’t ya? Only New York has lower emissions per capita among the 50 states.

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/us- ... apita.html

Your crap state of Colorado is somewhere in the middle.

Hold on, the Pope is in the foyer waiting for an audience with you … says that since you know so much about alcohol, His Holiness wants your comments on some proposed edits to Part Two, Section Two, Chapter One, Article 3 of the Catechism.

The Holy Father also wants you to visit Weltenburg Abbey. Says the monks there make a decent brew but don’t know sh*t about setting up a sustainable brewery. He’s hopin’ you can set them straight.

DocBarrister

[a fan]

Hey, da Vinci … you do know that California has the second lowest carbon emissions per capita in the nation, don’t ya? Only New York has lower emissions per capita among the 50 states.

Moving to whataboutisms now? You think that that moving the discussion to WhataboutColorado fixes your mistake in claiming nuclear power is stupid?

Dude. Your complaint was that nuclear is stupid. It's not when the alternative is burning fossil fuels, which is what California and ever other State is doing.

My plant runs on windpower, and we pay a premium for it. According to you? I'm all set, and should take a bow for being awesome. Hooray!!


Except in reality? I'm not, because when the wind slows, coal plants fill the electrical grid, just like YOU want, Doc.

You, like so many of your fellow Americans, place priority about "feeling like your solving problems" instead of ACTUALLY solving problems.

And I'll wager any amount you like that California won't hit those phoney-baloney "renewable" goals....which means they'll go right on burning coal and natural gas. Hooray!!

[wgdsr]

hey, he provides links. big link guy.

i think someone's going to be pretty surprised at what happens in the nuke industry over the next 5 and 10 years. ^^^^^

evidently india and japan know what they're doing already re: china, but have lost their minds on their views of nuclear. very bifurcated.

Hey, our genius on the new B1G contract (which he has never read) has joined our conversation!

Welcome!

DocBarrister

it's not possible you even take yourself seriously. you my man, read some hack articles, misinterpret or don't fact check them, and then declare the fall of present day empires are written in stone.

and again, never a thank you after being corrected, just more bluster. someone could feel unloved, doc.

[DocBarrister]

Hey, da Vinci … you do know that California has the second lowest carbon emissions per capita in the nation, don’t ya? Only New York has lower emissions per capita among the 50 states.

Moving to whataboutisms now? You think that that moving the discussion to WhataboutColorado fixes your mistake in claiming nuclear power is stupid?

Dude. Your complaint was that nuclear is stupid. It's not when the alternative is burning fossil fuels, which is what California and ever other State is doing.

My plant runs on windpower, and we pay a premium for it. According to you? I'm all set, and should take a bow for being awesome. Hooray!!


Except in reality? I'm not, because when the wind slows, coal plants fill the electrical grid, just like YOU want, Doc.

You, like so many of your fellow Americans, place priority about "feeling like your solving problems" instead of ACTUALLY solving problems.

And I'll wager any amount you like that California won't hit those phoney-baloney "renewable" goals....which means they'll go right on burning coal and natural gas. Hooray!!

There you go again … shouting off your mouth about things you don’t know about.

Look, Madame Curie, California is doing more than its part in reducing carbon emissions and leading the way to a greener future. It’s part of why we Californians pay more in taxes and fees than any of you freeloading trash states.

California way ahead in game of life and death: carbon emissions

Is California — home to Tesla, solar panels galore and gobs of scientists — the green-energy paradise it’s made out to be? A new, peer-reviewed study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal reinforces the idea.

Households here emit 33% less carbon than any other state, while only two other sunbelt states consume less energy, according to researchers at the University of Michigan, who analyzed the environmental impact of 78% of the nation’s housing stock (about 93 million homes), using 2015 data.

San Francisco’s household emissions were nearly three times lower than the national average — 1.03 tons of carbon dioxide per capita vs. 2.83 for the U.S. — and lower than any other major city included in the research paper. In Los Angeles, the average household contributed 2.28 tons of carbon dioxide for the year, compared to 3.64 in Oklahoma City, 3.11 in Denver and 2.69 in Boston.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/07/21/ ... sions/amp/

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

hey, he provides links. big link guy.

i think someone's going to be pretty surprised at what happens in the nuke industry over the next 5 and 10 years. ^^^^^

evidently india and japan know what they're doing already re: china, but have lost their minds on their views of nuclear. very bifurcated.

Hey, our genius on the new B1G contract (which he has never read) has joined our conversation!

Welcome!

DocBarrister

it's not possible you even take yourself seriously. you my man, read some hack articles, misinterpret or don't fact check them, and then declare the fall of present day empires are written in stone.

and again, never a thank you after being corrected, just more bluster. someone could feel unloved, doc.

I don’t doubt you feel unloved.

Would help if you moved out of your mom’s basement.

DocBarrister

[a fan]

Hey, da Vinci … you do know that California has the second lowest carbon emissions per capita in the nation, don’t ya? Only New York has lower emissions per capita among the 50 states.

Moving to whataboutisms now? You think that that moving the discussion to WhataboutColorado fixes your mistake in claiming nuclear power is stupid?

Dude. Your complaint was that nuclear is stupid. It's not when the alternative is burning fossil fuels, which is what California and ever other State is doing.

My plant runs on windpower, and we pay a premium for it. According to you? I'm all set, and should take a bow for being awesome. Hooray!!


Except in reality? I'm not, because when the wind slows, coal plants fill the electrical grid, just like YOU want, Doc.

You, like so many of your fellow Americans, place priority about "feeling like your solving problems" instead of ACTUALLY solving problems.

And I'll wager any amount you like that California won't hit those phoney-baloney "renewable" goals....which means they'll go right on burning coal and natural gas. Hooray!!

There you go again … shouting off your mouth about things you don’t know about.

Look, Madame Curie, California is doing more than its part in reducing carbon emissions and leading the way to a greener future. It’s part of why we Californians pay more in taxes and fees than any of you freeloading trash states.

California way ahead in game of life and death: carbon emissions

Is California — home to Tesla, solar panels galore and gobs of scientists — the green-energy paradise it’s made out to be? A new, peer-reviewed study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal reinforces the idea.

Households here emit 33% less carbon than any other state, while only two other sunbelt states consume less energy, according to researchers at the University of Michigan, who analyzed the environmental impact of 78% of the nation’s housing stock (about 93 million homes), using 2015 data.

So now you're citing the very same University of Michigan where my brother and I lectured dozens of times over a decade?

B School. Tauber Institute for Global Operations (Manufacturing). School for Environment and Sustainability. They kept inviting us back because we don't know what we're talking about? But at the same time, UMich is cool enough for you to cite?

Oh, Doc. Did they not teach you the First Law of Holes at any point during your clearly flawed education?

"Here's a bunch of cites that shows that California is reducing emissions" has NOTHING to do with "Nuclear Power being better than burning fossil fuels".

"Look everyone! A squirrel!!"

[wgdsr]

don't stop him. he's on a roll. up to mom's basement jokes.

[DocBarrister]

Hey, da Vinci … you do know that California has the second lowest carbon emissions per capita in the nation, don’t ya? Only New York has lower emissions per capita among the 50 states.

Moving to whataboutisms now? You think that that moving the discussion to WhataboutColorado fixes your mistake in claiming nuclear power is stupid?

Dude. Your complaint was that nuclear is stupid. It's not when the alternative is burning fossil fuels, which is what California and ever other State is doing.

My plant runs on windpower, and we pay a premium for it. According to you? I'm all set, and should take a bow for being awesome. Hooray!!


Except in reality? I'm not, because when the wind slows, coal plants fill the electrical grid, just like YOU want, Doc.

You, like so many of your fellow Americans, place priority about "feeling like your solving problems" instead of ACTUALLY solving problems.

And I'll wager any amount you like that California won't hit those phoney-baloney "renewable" goals....which means they'll go right on burning coal and natural gas. Hooray!!

There you go again … shouting off your mouth about things you don’t know about.

Look, Madame Curie, California is doing more than its part in reducing carbon emissions and leading the way to a greener future. It’s part of why we Californians pay more in taxes and fees than any of you freeloading trash states.

California way ahead in game of life and death: carbon emissions

Is California — home to Tesla, solar panels galore and gobs of scientists — the green-energy paradise it’s made out to be? A new, peer-reviewed study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal reinforces the idea.

Households here emit 33% less carbon than any other state, while only two other sunbelt states consume less energy, according to researchers at the University of Michigan, who analyzed the environmental impact of 78% of the nation’s housing stock (about 93 million homes), using 2015 data.

So now you're citing the very same University of Michigan where my brother and I lectured dozens of times over a decade?

B School. Tauber Institute for Global Operations (Manufacturing). School for Environment and Sustainability. They kept inviting us back because we don't know what we're talking about? But at the same time, UMich is cool enough for you to cite?

Oh, Doc. Did they not teach you the First Law of Holes at any point during your clearly flawed education?

"Here's a bunch of cites that shows that California is reducing emissions" has NOTHING to do with "Nuclear Power being better than burning fossil fuels".

"Look everyone! A squirrel!!"

Listen, Sun Tzu, you’re having laughing fits again. Always happens when you lose an argument string with me. Guess it’s a coping mechanism.

Anyway, the state of California just forced Toyota and General Motors to kneel and beg for forgiveness after they backed Trump’s imbecilic attempt to strip the state of its power to set emission standards. F*cking turds came back with their pathetic tails between their legs.

WASHINGTON, Aug 23 (Reuters) - Toyota Motor Corp (7203.T) on Tuesday said it recognized the state of California's authority to set vehicle emissions standards under the U.S. Clean Air Act.

Toyota said the move will make it eligible for government fleet purchases by California.

California Air Resources Board (CARB) chair Liane Randolph said the board was pleased with Toyota's decision. "Although we’ve had differences in the past, we look forward to advancing #ZEVs together on positive footing," Randolph wrote on Twitter, referring to zero emission vehicles.

…In January, General Motors (GM.N) said it had agreed to recognize California’s authority to set vehicle emission standards under federal law.

In November 2019, California said it would halt all purchases of new vehicles for state government fleets from GM, Toyota and other automakers backing then-President Donald Trump in the tailpipe emissions battle.

… In July 2019, Ford, Honda, VW and BMW struck a voluntary agreement with California on reducing vehicle emissions.

https://www.reuters.com/business/sustai ... 022-08-23/

Now THAT is CALIFORNIA GREEN POWER.

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

don't stop him. he's on a roll. up to mom's basement jokes.

Except your mom doesn’t think it’s a joke.

DocBarrister

[wgdsr]

don't stop him. he's on a roll. up to mom's basement jokes.

Except your mom doesn’t think it’s a joke.

DocBarrister

of course she doesn't. she died.

[MDlaxfan76]

some of this is both childish and off point to any reasonable discussion...