Climate change: Alps glaciers melting faster as heatwaves hit

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

"France to build up to 14 new nuclear reactors by 2050, says Macron. Emmanuel Macron has announced a “renaissance” for the French nuclear industry with a vast programme to build as many as 14 new reactors, arguing that it would help end the country's reliance on fossil fuels and make France carbon neutral by 2050." Feb 10, 2022

"California's last nuclear plant – scheduled to fully shut down by 2025 – has been given renewed life. California lawmakers voted on Wednesday to delay the closure of the Diablo Canyon facility by five years, after the governor warned the state could face rolling blackouts if its twin reactors were retired too soon." 1 day ago

I am sure this 5 year extension in based on current energy prices worldwide

France isn’t the USA United States they always built nuclear plants

France’s minister for energy transition said Friday that French electricity giant EDF has committed to restart all its nuclear reactors by this winter to help the country through the broad energy crisis aggravated by the war in Ukraine.

France relies on nuclear energy for about 67% of its electricity – more than any other country – and on gas for about 7%.




So do you have a point

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I am sure this 5 year extension in based on current energy prices worldwide

France isn’t the USA United States they always built nuclear plants

France’s minister for energy transition said Friday that French electricity giant EDF has committed to restart all its nuclear reactors by this winter to help the country through the broad energy crisis aggravated by the war in Ukraine.

France relies on nuclear energy for about 67% of its electricity – more than any other country – and on gas for about 7%.




So do you have a point

I made a point...you made a mess as usual....

they delayed shuttering the nuclear plant in California becuase it would cause power outages

"The governor pushed for the extension in the final days of the legislative session in an attempt to maintain a steady power supply and avoid the politically damaging prospect of power outages."

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

cost is nuclear's Achilles' heel. Modern-day reactors have become jarringly expensive to build, going for $5 billion to $10 billion a pop.

How many reactors have we sent to the Ukraine?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

I made a point...you made a mess as usual....

they delayed shuttering the nuclear plant in California becuase it would cause power outages

"The governor pushed for the extension in the final days of the legislative session in an attempt to maintain a steady power supply and avoid the politically damaging prospect of power outages."

Of course you avoid the real reason energy prices
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

How many reactors have we sent to the Ukraine?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The government doesn’t build reactors do they.. its the private sectors Choice .

Now you’re upset the US has supported Ukraine and not spending that money here at home.

Which you would of course be against . Once they tried to spend it . Yelling no socialism
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

wayne, biden said today “I don’t consider ANY Trump supporter to be a threat to democracy.”

that’s the opposite of what he said last night. They are mutually exclusive statements. they can’t both be correct. he said today that no one who supports trump is a threat to democracy.

[The Dad Fisherman]

So we can subsidize Gender Studies degrees, but Power Plants to provide the energy we will need for the EV’s the Gubment is mandating we drive, is a deal breaker. Got It…..sounds logical
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Of course you avoid the real reason energy prices
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why is California shutting down nuclear plants?

The Senate bill makes it possible for PG&E to apply to keep the two reactors open through October 2029 and October 2030, respectively. The nuclear power plant was slated to shut down largely due to anti-nuclear sentiment in the state and a preference for building out renewable power sources, like wind and solar.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

You think like some people in Texas after getting 10 inch’s of rain in 24hrs they think their drought is over

You apply the same logic to Climate

You’re waiting for that one big Idea to happen and fix everything

You do understand if only electric cars and trucks were on the roads

Electric generation won’t be just wind and solar . Not sure why you keep thinking that’s how it will work

We have an old infrastructure and change is slow . And it’s even slower when one party wants to protect oil and gas . Then they care to protect future Americans.


There’s a reason why you can take a train any where in Europe quickly
Or use reliable public transportation

as for extra generation ask the private power companies who shuttered 2 in my town they refused to convert them to Gas or there wasn’t enough gas infrastructure

They removed more power from the grid in a day then I’d wager all the electric cars in the Us
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

america isn’t europe. we don’t like public transportation. we like the freedom of cars.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

america isn’t europe. we don’t like public transportation. we like the freedom of cars.

Didn’t your blessed mother tell you to be careful what you wish for?

Lewis Mumford predicted in 1958 that Americans would discover that the highway program will, eventually, wipe out the very area of freedom that the private motorcar promised to retain for them. This warning has come to pass. Today, the car embodies the freedom to wait in traffic. Transportation choices hardly exist. Viable transit systems exist in only a few big cities, service is usually infrequent, inconvenient, and expensive, and is being drastically undermined by fare increases and service cutbacks. Gasoline is one of the few things that are cheaper today in real dollars than 20 years ago. Mass transit travel is many times more expensive. Development patterns make transit travel difficult, even for those who prefer it, and unavailable to most.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Didn’t your blessed mother tell you to be careful what you wish for?

Lewis Mumford predicted in 1958 that Americans would discover that the highway program will, eventually, wipe out the very area of freedom that the private motorcar promised to retain for them. This warning has come to pass. Today, the car embodies the freedom to wait in traffic. Transportation choices hardly exist. Viable transit systems exist in only a few big cities, service is usually infrequent, inconvenient, and expensive, and is being drastically undermined by fare increases and service cutbacks. Gasoline is one of the few things that are cheaper today in real dollars than 20 years ago. Mass transit travel is many times more expensive. Development patterns make transit travel difficult, even for those who prefer it, and unavailable to most.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I’m sorry pete, we don’t like public transportation. and it’s not because public transportation isn’t state of the art. It’s not because of cost. we just prefer driving ourselves. that’s our culture. i don’t say that because it serves my agenda (!that’s not a conservative talking point) , i say it because it’s true.

here in CT we spent hundreds of millions of dollars paving 9 miles of road and built a busway into hartford. there’s no traffic, as only the buses can ride in it. the buses are cheap to ride, subsidized by the state. they are state of the art low emission buses. and nobody rides them.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I’m sorry pete, we don’t like public transportation. and it’s not because public transportation isn’t state of the art. It’s not because of cost. we just prefer driving ourselves. that’s our culture. i don’t say that because it serves my agenda (!that’s not a conservative talking point) , i say it because it’s true.

here in CT we spent hundreds of millions of dollars paving 9 miles of road and built a busway into hartford. there’s no traffic, as only the buses can ride in it. the buses are cheap to ride, subsidized by the state. they are state of the art low emission buses. and nobody rides them.

Well, you are a Republican in Connecticut….
And the people who took 11,448 average weekday local and express passenger trips were not in cars.
Ridership is increasing, but go ahead and rant.
Remember we all subsidize roads and the fossil fuel industry.
Utah has an extensive mass transit system, they too must be liberal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

america isn’t europe. we don’t like public transportation. we like the freedom of cars.

Spoken like a true cult member. FYI there are plenty of cars and roads and highways in Europe

And Americans love public transportation. Just not the US example
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

classic.....

CALIFORNIA (WTVO)California asks residents not to charge electric vehicles, days after announcing gas car ban
by: John Clark
Posted: Aug 31, 2022

There was an unusual weather event in California and Governor Newsom asked residents to pitch in during a moment of crisis. People responded for the good of the community. The crisis passed with the electricity still on. Is a better model what was experienced in Texas?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Waiting for the domesday glacier to drop into the Atlantic, I will have a house on the new white horse beach.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Waiting for the domesday glacier to drop into the Atlantic, I will have a house on the new white horse beach.

given that Obama bought a mega mansion on martha’s vineyard, what does that mean that he thinks the possibility is, of that happening?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

given that Obama bought a mega mansion on martha’s vineyard, what does that mean that he thinks the possibility is, of that happening?

Why are you upset a black family bought a house on the vineyard in 2019 ..

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Why are you upset a black family bought a house on the vineyard in 2019 ..

how could you possibly conclude that was my point? That was very very stupid even for you.

Obama, regardless of his skin color, obviously isnt worried about oceans rising.

you tried to make that a racist remark? seriously? you cannot be taken seriously here.

our construction czar flies around in a private jet, which tells me he isn’t concerned about the effect of a big carbon footprint on the environment.

[Pete F.]

Jim never misses a red herring, environmental change can’t happen because (insert name) flies on airplanes.
The total of air traffics contribution is somewheres around 2% and that’s for all flights, passenger, cargo and military and eliminating it completely would still leave 98%
Now Jim has no idea if any of the people he has heard Fox cite as hypocrites combined trips, chose not to take trips or used one of the numerous mechanisms to offset their carbon footprint by any amount.
But that wouldn’t enhance his victimhood, would it?
But we all know he’s Stable Genius II and really really, like smart.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Jim never misses a red herring, environmental change can’t happen because (insert name) flies on airplanes.
The total of air traffics contribution is somewheres around 2% and that’s for all flights, passenger, cargo and military and eliminating it completely would still leave 98%
Now Jim has no idea if any of the people he has heard Fox cite as hypocrites combined trips, chose not to take trips or used one of the numerous mechanisms to offset their carbon footprint by any amount.
But that wouldn’t enhance his victimhood, would it?
But we all know he’s Stable Genius II and really really, like smart.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

never said it can’t happen because of the example set by the biggest mouths in this movement. As often happens, a liberal is responding to something no one ever said. What i said, was question whether or not it should happen, whether or not it needs to happen.

Why is it a red herring if I say this….let’s all be held to the same standard, let’s all be asked to make the same sacrifices. If Al Gore and Barack Obama and John Kerry have a carbon footprint that’s acceptable ( and since none of you can ever bring yourselves to criticize those guys, let’s assume it’s acceptable), why isn’t it acceptable if we all have the same carbon footprint?

Wayne, FYI, now i’m being critical of two white guys and a black guy, is that racial makeup acceptable to you? Because we can throw Leonardo Decaprio and Steven Spielberg in the list if that makes the aggregate skin pigmentation ( which is always important to liberals) tolerable to you.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

how could you possibly conclude that was my point? That was very very stupid even for you.

Obama, regardless of his skin color, obviously isnt worried about oceans rising.

you tried to make that a racist remark? seriously? you cannot be taken seriously here.

our construction czar flies around in a private jet, which tells me he isn’t concerned about the effect of a big carbon footprint on the environment.

Seeing I had no idea him buying a house was such news

yet seems i wasn't far off seeing fox ran an op-ed about the subject

suggesting it was about “Too many in Democratic leadership peddle the politics of envy and victimhood to grab power, wealth and success for themselves,” she said.

FYI my comment was sarcasm




Yet 99.9 % of Republicans aren't worried about oceans rising.

many of the rich aren't concerned seeing it will impact them the least

and how is buying a house equal to not concerned in the ocean risings

I just don't see How he even ties into the topic..

other than what pete suggested you think obama a hypocrite for buying a house on an island

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Seeing I had no idea him buying a house was such news

yet seems i wasn't far off seeing fox ran an op-ed about the subject

suggesting it was about “Too many in Democratic leadership peddle the politics of envy and victimhood to grab power, wealth and success for themselves,” she said.

FYI my comment was sarcasm




Yet 99.9 % of Republicans aren't worried about oceans rising.

many of the rich aren't concerned seeing it will impact them the least

and how is buying a house equal to not concerned in the ocean risings

I just don't see How he even ties into the topic..

other than what pete suggested you think obama a hypocrite for buying a house on an island

him buying a house is news to those who truly believe manhattan is going to be underwater soon.

[Got Stripers]

Only Jim could conclude Obama buying a home on the vineyard equates to him having no concern about ocean rising. Was the house on stilts right on the beach Jim or well away from the ocean rising which, unless your brain dead, is likely to impact future generations, not us old farts. Could it be he is concerned but loves the island and wants to spend much of his golden years there?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

never said it can’t happen because of the example set by the biggest mouths in this movement. As often happens, a liberal is responding to something no one ever said. What i said, was question whether or not it should happen, whether or not it needs to happen.

Why is it a red herring if I say this….let’s all be held to the same standard, let’s all be asked to make the same sacrifices. If Al Gore and Barack Obama and John Kerry have a carbon footprint that’s acceptable ( and since none of you can ever bring yourselves to criticize those guys, let’s assume it’s acceptable), why isn’t it acceptable if we all have the same carbon footprint?

Wayne, FYI, now i’m being critical of two white guys and a black guy, is that racial makeup acceptable to you? Because we can throw Leonardo Decaprio and Steven Spielberg in the list if that makes the aggregate skin pigmentation ( which is always important to liberals) tolerable to you.

Of course, every single Republican voted against climate change legislation

Republicans fight climate change laws because they’re paid to.
Republicans fight gun control laws because they’re paid to.
Republicans fight unions and living wages because they’re paid to.
Republicans fight healthcare for all because they’re paid to.
Any questions?
Maybe who owns the GOP?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Only Jim could conclude Obama buying a home on the vineyard equates to him having no concern about ocean rising. Was the house on stilts right on the beach Jim or well away from the ocean rising which, unless your brain dead, is likely to impact future generations, not us old farts. Could it be he is concerned but loves the island and wants to spend much of his golden years there?

you said your housemaid going to be beachfront. i asked yiu hiwnthat jibes with obama buying beach houses in martha’s vineyard and hawaii. that tells me that obama isn’t concerned about the oceans rising significantly. What other conclusion is there.

you’re saying it’s ok for obama to have a massive carbon footprint. does everyine have the right to the same carbon footprint? that’s the key question.

[Got Stripers]

All I can say Jim is if that’s proof to you Obama isn’t concerned about global warming and sea level rise, I wil let you make a fool of yourself all by yourself. You do realize certain property purchases and locations are decades from being impacted by sea level rises, please share with us the elevation above sea level these Obama purchases that prove your silly case.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

All I can say Jim is if that’s proof to you Obama isn’t concerned about global warming and sea level rise, I wil let you make a fool of yourself all by yourself. You do realize certain property purchases and locations are decades from being impacted by sea level rises, please share with us the elevation above sea level these Obama purchases that prove your silly case.

ok. so he did the math, and his house won’t be underwater until he’s gone, and he leaves the underwater mansion to the girls.

it’s very convenient that therefore, he can leave the biggest carbon footprint he feels like leaving.

for the second time, do we all have the right to the same carbon footprint that Obama has? any reason why you don’t want to answer that question?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

ok. so he did the math, and his house won’t be underwater until he’s gone, and he leaves the underwater mansion to the girls.

it’s very convenient that therefore, he can leave the biggest carbon footprint he feels like leaving.

for the second time, do we all have the right to the same carbon footprint that Obama has? any reason why you don’t want to answer that question?

Poor victim

We all need to do what we can, the things Tucker is telling you are silly, just like his theory that real men tan their testicles.
How do you know what anyone else has done about climate challenges?
You make assumptions and convict them based on what you heard, and then like a typical wannabe, won’t do anything unless you get a participation award.
Bill Engvall has a sign for you
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Poor victim

We all need to do what we can, the things Tucker is telling you are silly, just like his theory that real men tan their testicles.
How do you know what anyone else has done about climate challenges?
You make assumptions and convict them based on what you heard, and then like a typical wannabe, won’t do anything unless you get a participation award.
Bill Engvall has a sign for you
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i know that flying private is about as environmentally friendly, as burning tires in my backyard.

You’re terrified of this question…can we all have multiple mansions and fly private jets? or do only some folks have the right to that luxury?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i know that flying private is about as environmentally friendly, as burning tires in my backyard.

You’re terrified of this question…can we all have multiple mansions and fly private jets? or do only some folks have the right to that luxury?

Quaking, rather than engage in substantive debate about the science of climate change, and the apocalyptic effect it will have on our lives, you resort to personal attacks.
Let’s first acknowledge the fact this criticism is a logical fallacy, an ad hominem, that in no way refutes the existence of global warming or addresses its accompanying issues. Criticizing an environmentalist for flying too much is a diversion, a red herring, meant to derail us from having a real conversation about global warming, because any real conversation about global warming ends with us realizing how enormous and urgent the issue is.
The “fly too much” criticism shifts the blame from the actually guilty parties — oil companies, and the governments and financial systems who support them — to the environmental advocate, making him a scapegoat. Instead of a systemic problem, it transforms global warming into a personal problem. The jet-setting environmentalist is turned into a convenient villain, and branded a hypocrite.

Or are you now a socialist?

The rest of the MAGA world is having a full meltdown over CA keeping the power on during an unprecedented heat wave while Greg Abbott in TX couldn't.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device