As most electric cars are commuters, and most commuting results in people getting home, and then choosing to recharge their electric car around 5pm, this will likely annoy electric car owners that bought such electric cars with the idea that these would be good for the environment.
Just imagine how much the current electric infrastructure is going to fail when more people get electric cars, and gadgets, but no new electric producing power plants are built because of some stupid rare gnat, shrew, or butterfly that the environmentalists are in love with protecting.
Build some nuke power plants, they are pretty simple to operate, and sure as hell don't take up much space and they don't pollute other than the inevitable eventual problem of what to do with the reactor, 30 years later. OR just take the reactors that the Navy is done with, and see how much longer they can safely keep heating up water without having to push subs and aircraft carriers through the water.
I ain't saying go kill the sea otters, or nuke the bird migration areas... but some damn gnat? Some stupid rare short celery plant (actually parsley, but why let facts affect naming the plant?) that only lines in a seasonal wet pothole due to clay not letting the water drain off (aka vernal pool) puts the tree huggers into fits. I suspect that without these stupid useless plants, the jobs for environmental wackos would cease to exist, and they'd have to get real jobs instead of lefty liberal masters degrees for protecting fairy shrimp from developers and construction jobs.
In particular, the pools on Miramar (formerly Top Gun training base) are cause for a big ruckus, and the military brass pounds into the low ranked types who are the only people who actually get out of the air conditioning, to NEVER EVER FUCKING EVER make a god damn vernal pool. Ask me how I know. Because making one of these damn mud puddles means the wackos have more damn shit to lose their minds over. Every damn year.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/science-magazines/san-diego-button-celery
The California Independent System Operator, which monitors power lines across the state, initially said Wednesday that the grid was stable and that the state would have enough electricity to meet demand. Just hours later, however, the agency issued a Flex Alert for Thursday from 5 to 10 p.m. to encourage reduced energy usage because of the strain on the state’s grid.
Residents are advised to avoid lowering the thermostat during those hours and to complete tasks involving high amounts of energy beforehand, such as using major appliances and charging devices and electric cars.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-06-16/third-day-of-heat-wave-southern-california
California is a joke. Billions funding “green energy research” (aka sending gov money to my friend’s pockets) but can’t keep a light bulb on. Well, they voted for that, now have fun.
ReplyDeleteBut nobody saw that coming, right Jesse? To me, and this is just me rambling here, all these "save the earth" ideas, and the people who push them, seem to ignore the unintended consequences. Yet I've been asking about this very thing happening when we don't look at the big picture. 🤨 By the way, love todays banner. That colorized 1940 something with that old Dodge is very cool. And the cutie standing next to it, well she must have been someone's hart throb.
ReplyDeleteNuclear energy is an economic disaster that long term requires the taxpayer to pick up the clean up bill.Too many people live in California.Fancy growing rice in such a dry state? What were they thinking?
ReplyDeleteYou're referring to the reactors that have had problems? Chernoble, 3 Mile Island, and that one in Japan? So... what ecomnomic disaster, one is in Russia, one in Japan, and one on the East Coast. So, if my math is right, only one was a problem for US taxpayers... and it wasn't much of a disaster. Not like the one in Japan, which has been polluting the entire Pacific Ocean, with zero control on the part of the Japanese govt.
DeleteAnyway, you were saying, economic disaster... so, I wanted to learn from YOU, what economic disaster?
Please, reply, and fill me in. I've crewed on 2 subs powered by reactors, and I'm pretty sure that makes me the one person in this conversation that's laid hands on a reactor bulkhead, and lived within walking distance of dozens of reactors (at the bases I was crewing on the subs, as every sub is powered by a reactor) and I've never heard of any American reactor operated by the Navy that ever was an economic disaster.
Frankly, only Chernoble and Fukishima were disasters that seemed to have big problems, but then, I'm not very familiar with 3 Mile.
So, you stated that nuke energy is a economic disaster, but, I've heard of a dozen American nuke power plants, and several overseas, none have been an economic disaster except Chernobyl and Fuakshima.
So, fill me in. Why are you certain, that nuke power is a disaster, that taxpayers have to pick up a clean up bill on, and how is that worse than the clean up bills that the US Taxper HAS had to pay for, like coal and oil, and I cite Ohio's ruins of strip mining for coal, and the oil spills, omfg the oil spills, like the Exxon Valdez, and the miles deep oil well that gushed million of barrels, not gallons, but barrels (22 gallons a barrel I learned) with the BP Deep Water Horizon had that historic problem over the area of about 60,000 square miles, and 5 billion barrels. Taxpayer says "what? Clean up?"
Oh enough out of me, I could just go on for a while, might as well let you reply, please
Why nuclear is uneconomic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plants
ReplyDeleteIn addition the whole nuclear plant eventually becomes radioactive. The military clean up workers at Chernobyl were offered either two years in Afghanistan or two minutes at the power plant. all those who opted for the latter died or are dying as a result of exposure. Fukushima is ready to dispatch millions of gallons of waste into the Pacific.
I don't have time to research by reading wikipedia pages.
DeleteAnd it's a given that the primary system is already radioactive. So what?
Again, I already mentioned that Russia and Japan aren't costing US taxpayers anything.
So, you also didn't reply to the fact that coal and oil are also gross polluters, ie Strip mining for coal, and the DeepWater Horizon 5 billion barrels of oil into the gulf
So how is nuke power such a stand alone in your view, a taxpayer burden that oil isn't? Or that coal, isn't, especially as burning both creates greenhouse gasses, causing global warming, resulting in taxpayers paying higher electric bills to combat heat by using AC night and day, plus the cost of wildfires every year, and the deaths of fire fighters?
But nuke power is more expensive?
Every US Navy reactor, and Army reactor too for that matter, has been problem free.
So, I think I've made my case quite clear, it's not reactors that are the problem, it's the operators, and tsunami, that cause the problems, and blame them. Just like the oil safety guys.
Every oil line has a leak, rupture, etc. Taxpayers have to cover the cost of clean up on them too.
You win Jesse. If you are so time poor you can't read a simple well researched and annotated article on the subject then it is all over red rover.
ReplyDeleteI have a full time job, that I do an extra hour of over time on to pay down my credit card. I then run errands, like groceries and mail, then eat, and presto, it's 530ish, and then I do this blog thing for the next 3 or 4 hours.
DeleteYes, that's a choice, when I have the option of doing your required reading that I don't want to.
But then, you haven't taken the time to address the oil spill in the gulf, the remains of strip mining, in Ohio, that left no ability for recovery of sod, dirt, earth, that stuff things like plants grow in, vs the 100% safe operation of Navy reactors.
Well, I think it's clear that you refuse to take the time to refute what I said, and refuse to type out YOUR defining argument that BACKS UP YOUR mention of "an economic disaster that long term requires the taxpayer to pick up the clean up bill."
So, hey... I guess that by the looks of the scales that measure my effort to discuss this with you, vs your scarcity of rebuttle, that you have nothing to base your "all over red rover" except your clear lack of engaging in a discussion, argument, or whatever this is.
I'm not out for a win, I'm out for conversation, from your point of view, that might educate me and change my mind, despite what I know to be facts.
After all, crewing on a reactor powered sub, well, two of them actually, in Pearl Harbor, and San Diego, among a couple dozen other reactor powered subs, has shown me the evidence to make up my mind that nuke power is clean.
Operators are not very good, but, the US Nuclear agency that oversees the operation of reactors in the USA is mighty heavy on oversight and training since 3 Mile, and the Russian and Japanese problems fall outside your stand of "an economic disaster that long term requires the taxpayer to pick up the clean up bill." for American taxpayers.
But, you didn't reply to ANY thing I had to say by typing yourself.
Sending me a link to a wikipedia page, well, that's better than no effort at all in replying, but, not by much.
Wikipedia didn't challenge me to a discussion, you did.
Oh well, have a good weekend anyway, I guess you've learned that I'm too busy to read every link everyone sends me, cause I am out to enjoy my life with blogging, because I like to share the cool stuff I come across, and I learned that you're not going to discuss stuff when I disagree with you.
No doubt, I'll have forgotten this entire conversation ever happened, in less than 48 hours, as my memory is like that.
Avita zein