NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF. POST WHAT YOU LIKE, ASK WHAT YOU LIKE, LEAVE MSGS HERE. PLEASE BE CIVIL. IF YOU ARE GOING TO BITCH, DO IT WITH SOME CLASS. IF YOU LIKE WHAT'S WRITTEN,COMMENT. IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT YOU SEE, COMMENT. ALL I ASK IS PROOF.
Sometime in the last few weeks I cleaned someone’s page.
Today I got a PM from this jerk:
29,Oct,26 18:55 Guess_Who: You convered annal lickers page. As long as you interfeer you will get shitpiles back..
He is well deserved what he got. There will be a price for you getting involved. You could be him and as long as you interfere this is what you will get.. The 2nd tme is 2 shit piles.. The next 3rd time is your entire page.. Do not interfere. --------------------------------------- added after 92 seconds
My answer was:
CAT52!: First. Who is this “anal licker”?
Second. Don’t tell me what to do
Third. See second.
Fourth. Fuck you, dumbass. 🖕👿
Sophie_+_Friends_Only_Universe, really?
I don’t like inappropriate gifts. I don’t care if the recipient is a friend or not. I try to be fair with everyone, but, if someone wants my support. They have to earn it. --------------------------------------- added after 7 minutes
You should also consider that a pile of 💩 costs 150 points and a kiss cost 5. It takes 30 points to clean a gallery.
I’ve noticed that there are more males posting pics in the female side of the MAIN GALLERY. I, personally, have posted pics on the male side. My question is, “Should this be allowed?” I can’t object to it, but, I’d like to know how other members feel.
I’ve created a poll to see how others feel about it. Please vote:
Your people are trapped by poverty, that is impossible to escape.
Your ideas are keeping lots of people in a state of survival, instead of a state of thriving. That doesn't just hurt them, it hurts your country. Poor people don't create wealth for your country and they don't consume a lot. The products that they do consume are mostly low quality, unhealthy food, which only benefits some producers and resellers, but those don't add much to your economy either.
Inflation is at 3.7%. Social Security is bringing in a 3.6 cost of living increase.
This is because of the War with Iran and tariffs. Who, other than the president, is responsible for this? No one. Let’s get rid of the Republicans and the Clown after.
We will see after the midterm elections the polls say if we have a high voter turnout the red will win you blue people and hoping for a low turnout and you are screwing up runing Muslims with known Al-qaida ties as a state senator what true American would let that happen if you loose the Democratic Party will not regain power for the next decade I’m doing my part again I’m hitting the nursing homes helping the elderly with mail in ballots and the youth groups to help them get registered to vote you just wouldn’t believe how many votes you can buy with a plate full of cookies 🍪
That is completely the opposite of all historical data. Republicans always benefit
from low turnout and Democrats always benefit from high turnout.
That's why Republicans always try to limit voter turnout, by:
1. Limiting Mail-In and Absentee Voting
2. Implementation of Strict Photo ID and Citizenship Mandates
3. Aggressive Voter Roll Purges
4. Adjustments to Polling Access
Trump is now polling around 32% approval and 65% disapproval.
Traders place the probability of Democrats winning the House at 90%.
There is a 63% probability of a total Democratic Sweep.
Trump has a roughly 9% to 22% chance of keeping his full majority.
First of all, Turning Point doesn't agree with you that high turnout is good for you. Turning Point's leadership has explicitly stated that their data shows general, untargeted high turnout is unpredictable. Instead, their entire multi-million dollar midterm strategy is focused on low-propensity voters.
Turning Point Action does not release formal statistical probability models. They are 100% an opinion based medium. They don't predict the election with percentages,
they are framing the midterms as an 'absolute emergency' for the MAGA movement.
That means that they are very worried.
You have been wrong on many issues before so I’m not worried about what you have to say now
Don’t forget when trump won the 2024 election you still were insisting that Kamala Harris was going to win and cat had to tell you that it was true trump won silly you
Dgraff, one of my biggest disappointments, was not that Ms Harris lost. It was that I knew the Clown would be in power for another four years. My fears are real and our country is suffering tremendously because of it.
You can quote any rag, any web site, any source about how great he has been, but, at night, while you lay awake in bed, with Marcy at your side, you know the truth. And it’s not what you’re so hard trying to convince.
I’m sorry for you. It’s bad for us to swallow his crap, but, you? You’ll have to admit some day that you were duped.
Inflation isn't the only mechanism at play in the loss of value of the dollar.
Besides inflation, there is also 'depreciation'; loss of value against other currencies.
Inflation means that you can buy less for your dollar in the US.
Depreciation means that you can buy less for your dollar outside of the US.
The dollar lost more than 10% of value against a broad basket of major global currencies since President Trump took office for his second term on January 20, 2025.
That is true but, for the simple minded, Dgraff and Phart, the numbers have to show how it affects their pockets. I doubt either one will be strolling through the Champs-Élysées any time soon if ever.🤣😈
Well probably in the hands of wealthy investors and companies that give people jobs and maintain stock portfolios that in turn earn interest for peoples 401 k's for financial security in the future.
INSTEAD of being given to a bunch of bastards that won't work, lay around on drugs and steal shit like the dems want to spend it on
This doesn't just make something more expensive when you go outside of the US.
It will make every product more expensive that isn't made in the US, or that was made with raw materials from outside of the US.
On top of that your president added the tariffs. It can be a good idea for products that you want to make in the US, but there are so many raw materials and products that you just don't have. That is hurting consumers and it is hurting manufacturing. It's making American products more expensive, which is impacting your export.
I didn't. that is you putting words in somewhere they didn't come from.But I did finally see a news blurb that probably prompted you to go on this little rant, Trump dropped some sactions on russia to help motivate a end to the war. but I guess you would like for that to continue right?
Ananas2xLekker is the only one who can tolerate answering your ridiculous questions. I have no tolerance for you. Of course, he's wasting his time because your reactionary religious mind (or whatever vestiges of it you have in your calabaza cabeza) is stuck in your ass and won't bend.
CAT52! Do you think phart will be annoyed that I used a bit of Norwegian language to refer to his mind ("mind" I mean) as calabaza cabeza?
leo, I already decided a long time ago you were a waste of my time as well. But, unlike some, i choose not to sit back and pout about people not liking me because I am capable of seeing a different side of things due to life experience and education . Education that YOU don't seem to have much of any that is practical for use in daily life. Your poking fun at me is annoying of course ,but I have to remind myself where the noise is coming from. you are like a bug in the corner of a window trying to fly thru glass to escape and buzzing all night. you will eventually be laying on the window sill.
only registered users can see external links
English, yea, not my best subject but I passed, and I aint no city slicker so some of that proper shit went out the window shortly after the ink dried on the diploma.
Your kind try's to impress with proper words and spelling, whereas what you are saying is just liberal gibberish.
Another way of putting it,
If you can't impress them with knowledge,baffle them with bullshit,and that is what YOU try to do.
Anannas and I don't agree on alot of anything.But he is at least civil and will take the time to explain his thought process, instead of just name calling and etc.
I'm not trying to impress with something anyone outside the US learns at the age of 8. Nothing to brag about. I'm just laughing out loud at people whose native tongue is English and yet they don't understand it. The really funny thing is that most maga-idiots fall into this category. 😝🤣😂
the only thing I associate with norwegian is a cruise line.
The first 1 being when the Vikings put their dead loved 1's on something to float out to sea.
De Niro suffers from phart's favourite malady: TDS. Maybe this is why he likes him. @phary@, inhumble opinion, is leaning towards socialism. He's even been spotted studying a book on the Parisian commune.
Even though I was not there, i guess if I had been there would a simple explanation. it would be similar to Jefferson having a copy of the Koran. so he could better understand his enemys.
Phart posted
So they are already having issues with charging electric cars?
Sheesh,what about in 5 years? The power company are not permited to build new power plants.Solar and wind are going to be important to keep the grid up. But that didn't work in Texas did it?
They make a lot of energy in Texas,but how many folks died over the winter this past 1?
Angel1227!
So a private, for profit, company did not plan on a hard winter so their production of electricity was not sufficient? And this utility, regulated by the states, failed to meet the demands? This state (Texas) governed by Repukers was not regulated correctly so this company spent less on production and got richer because of it? This sounds very much like a Repuker business idea.
Regulation? Hahaha,look at californicated, that is what happens when you over regulate. No one can trim trees off the lines, the power company has to cut power off in high winds,that is the result of Liberal-democrat regulation. Hug the trees,to hell with the humans.
I fault the power companys in texas to a point but I also fault the citizens for lack of preparedness.
The power companies in Texas are now have trouble providing enough power for air-conditioning. The problem in the winter were not a fluke. It happens again only months later. Prices for power skyrocketed again. Many people again received electric bills for thousands of dollars. Texas' power market is not a good example of 'good' deregulation.
Face it, sometimes you need regulation, especially for basic facilities like power.
Did I mention California? Was this the subject of the conversation? This is about Texas and it’s power company. Phart reply to this or open another thread.
I posted a link to a news report about california having issues with electric car charging,
And I then mentioned the issues in texas with electricity.
What everyone is missing here is the fact there is NOT enough electricity being produced to meet CURRENT demand.As Ananas has indicated.So imagine if you will,5-10 years from now,when there is GREATER demand? What a mess we are in for.
Regulation is not the solution. that is how you GOT TO THIS POINT. To many regulations preventing new power plants being built and trying to snuff out coal,a effective energy source.
Phart do you think power companies sat down in the 1920’s and said, “We are building for the future so, in 1945, we stop because there’ll be too many regulations to conduct business”?
You think that if they are running short they won’t try to catch up? The regulations you protest are there to protect the people and the environment. But, knowing how you think, fuck that. Let coal continue to pollute. We’ll be dead by the time our grandkids die of poisoned air.
newest nuclear power plant started in 2016.
only registered users can see external links
Only 2 under construction according to this chart.
only registered users can see external links
The US shut down how many? lets see
only registered users can see external links
Now, we shut down 39 and we are building 2. Does that sound like regulations are helping any? 2, there are 50 states. So state regulation is not changing anything where it may be either.
If you want coal gone,you need to have a replacement handy before hand.
Maybe those old reactors have become very dangerous over time and/or they are not as efficient as the new ones.
Nuclear power is not the solution. There are 80 sites in the United States where nuclear waste is stored. Some of it is stored temporary in a location that is not safe long term. The best uranium sites are already running out and it's getting ever more expensive to mine the stuff.
That waste has to be looked after for the next 20,000 to 1M years, before it's safe. Humanity probably kills itself before that or there might be a few survivors that don't know how to keep the waste safe and radiation will finish them off. But who cares, right?
Well Ananas, at least we have some common ground, I h@te nuclear and wish people would have enough sense to study other ideas.
I just used nuclear here because MOST tree huggers-liberals,think nuclear is the answer.And it has Ooodles of issues that take Many years to deal with.
Actually, I even prefer fossil fuels over nuclear, even though I'm a tree hugger-liberal. Nuclear might be a bit better on carbon emissions when the reactor is built, but building new ones creates so much emissions, it takes 20 years to recover.
Another problem is that nuclear reactors take ages to start up and stop again, which is not practical as backup for solar and wind. Fossil fuels are at least needed until we have enough geothermal, hydro (incl. wave), biofuel, biogas, hydrogen, chemical storage (formic acid), thermal energy storage, battery storage and whatever I forgot or they think up next.
qoute "Reducing the overall demand for electricity makes it easier for renewables like solar and wind to fill the gap, and targeted projects can reduce demand on the grid at peak times."
Eh so more electric cars will reduce demand?
I know you are not a engineer,but even you should be able to figure out that can't work.
I don't pretend to be an engineer, but, I do know electric vehicles will not burn fossil fuels and pollute. If (and it looks like they are) the local electric companies can't handle the load they will have to upgrade. Eventually they will reach parity. Again, I say to you, if a problem exists, there will have to be an adjustment. Electric companies are allowed by government to be monopolies, but, they can loose it all if they can't provide proper service.
Coal is pretty much done as an industry. Not just because of regulations, but because investors and insurers are now backing away. If we all switch to electric cars soon, there's definitely a challenge to provide that electricity, but the overall power consumption will go down. Electric cars are more efficient. Now, I'm not talking about Tesla's that do 0 to 60 in 2 s and are comparable to a Porsche, but sensible electric cars that are appearing now.
It's nice to see that the world is moving towards new energy solutions, such as electric cars. We can't afford burning fossil fuels any longer. I'm glad to see that everyone agrees on that. Perhaps Saudi Arabia will be unhappy, but that country is a militant dictatorship with
groas violations of human rights, so the US or Europe don't need them as an ally.
Um, who do you think backed the loans for the solar farms around here? Saudi Arabia.
If they can't sell us oil ,they will make their money on interest from loans.
We could afford to use fossil fuels if we could finish our pipelines and drill in otherwise useless lands like up north in alaska where there is nothing but woods.
The alaskan pipeline built long ago,was supposed to be such a wildlife disaster,ha,the animals love it,it is warm near the pipeline.
Eh yea,some,but nuclear wipes out MILES of earth for 100's of years. Check out Chernobyl sometime.
California has MILES of coast line,Why are they not looking into this tech?
only registered users can see external links
Instead of wasting all that coast line for half naked people to lay around and spread covid,there could be power plants there!
NO pollution! No noise that is not already there,and erosion control! WOW,
Kansas,could be using wind and solar to help of course.
Another non polluting power source,
only registered users can see external links
Same here! No theorys posted, those are technology's already being tested and shown to work,perhaps just not as efficient as others.
I actually use some old equipment that is electric that was made way back before it was "cool" So I research alternative energy sources and what not for that reason. If I lived near a active stream,you better believe there would be a water wheel turning a old Gm alternator to charge back up batterys.
When I build a green house,yep,I will use geothermal to help with temp control.
If I lived next to a moving stream, I, too, would use it for power, however, you would need several deep discharged batteries and a back up energy system in case you deplete your batteries too fast. I would also go upstream a few hundred yards and divert some of the water through pipes to have energy free house water.
That sound very cool. I would love to do some tinkering like that.
Here are some fun do-it-yourself builds on YouTube.
I had seen them before and it made me regret living next to a stationary ditch.
Maybe there are some ideas you can use:
only registered users can see external links only registered users can see external links only registered users can see external links
the third link i watched the whole thing, very interesting,will get the other 2 tonight.
I DO NOT quite understand the amount of AMPS he is getting from that washing machine motor.
Here they say 600W should be possible. A washing machine motor will use 400 to 1300 watts. They might not be as efficient to generate the same amount, but can still do the job pretty well, as it seams and should be very easy to obtain.
Phart
How many Chernobyl’s do you know? One in the states, one in Japan, and one in Russia. Here, in Miami-Dade county, FP&L has been operating the local one over 50 yrs. Same in other cities around the state. And no pollution
3 mile island here in the US. Prompted a nation wide process of adding new cooling systems.1 of my neighbors worked on the crew that went around building it. Made a fortune doing it.
You don't hear about the Mcquire plant here in NC getting to hot but it did a few years ago. The tree huggers were angry because a type of fish was dieing from getting caught in the cooling system water.So they put a screen over the intake. Worked fine for a while. Until the screen clogged up with little fishes.A employee told me about it.
Here is a long list of potential accidents and how to deal with them
only registered users can see external links
Yea,I know,I got dizzy after 10 minutes of readin!
I can't see a coal plant being any where near as dangerous to operate
So what's your point? Just let any company kill whatever part of nature is in their way, because US companies are completely inadequate in solving any problem ever?
They can't even take in water, without sucking up all the fishes
Ananas2xlekker my point is that all companies have a responsibility to protect the environment. People are part of the environment. In this case, the “sucking up of all the fishes” is not because the plant is nuclear. Yes, the reactors do need cooling. Cooling canals and reservoirs are needed. In this case, some knucklehead got the idea to put a screen on the pickup line. Duh, a cheap fuckup because of a cheap fix. Seems to me that an industry that can build nuclear reactors to make electricity should be able to prevent “little fishies” from clogging the intake of cooling water. Spent nuclear fuel rods are a problem. Finding a location to store them safely is still a problem and hopefully it better be resolved soon.
According to the Rainforest Action Network. For decades, climate change has been a global crisis that will impact every single person and living being on this planet. Now, according to the latest UN climate report, we have less than 10 years to cut global emissions in half.
Burning fossil fuels isn’t just bad for the climate, these industries also violate countless fundamental human rights. From frontline communities facing a fossil fuel pipeline on their land to Indigenous people facing fires in the Amazon to worker rights violations on palm oil plantations, the industries fueling climate change are also fueling injustice.
Coal, tar sands, and fracked gas show everything that’s wrong within the fossil fuel industry. These extraction practices are harming people and planet every day, and big banks are fueling this destruction of the planet and negligence of life.
So what’s so bad about coal, tar sands, and fracked gas? Basically everything, from start to the finish these fossil fuels are disastrous. For decades, climate change has been a global crisis that will impact every single person and living being on this planet. Now, according to the latest UN climate report, we have less than 10 years to cut global emissions in half.
Burning fossil fuels isn’t just bad for the climate, these industries also violate countless fundamental human rights. From frontline communities facing a fossil fuel pipeline on their land to Indigenous people facing fires in the Amazon to worker rights violations on palm oil plantations, the industries fueling climate change are also fueling injustice.
Coal, tar sands, and fracked gas show everything that’s wrong within the fossil fuel industry. These extraction practices are harming people and planet every day, and big banks are fueling this destruction of the planet and negligence of life.
So what’s so bad about coal, tar sands, and fracked gas? Basically everything, from start to the finish these fossil fuels are disastrous.
Like I said, “What you don’t see can be more dangerous.”
Managing the Chernobyl disaster has probably already cost more energy than several nuclear reactors will produce in their lifetime. The exclusion zone of Chernobyl; 2600 km², if filled with solar panels, would produce 234 TWh/year. That's about twice the whole electricity consumption of The Netherlands.
So we only would need half that exclusion zone filled with solar panels
and that would cost about 78 Billion Euro's. That would raise our national debt from 56.3% of GDP to 66.2% of GDP.
Jobs for all our unemployed people will pull that debt down soon enough.
You forget that the disaster in Chernobyl happened to a nuclear electric plant that would never be built in the US. According to the Atomic Energy Commission, this type of reactor was ver vulnerable to the disaster. The USSR didn’t care. Like the Chinese, they wanted results.
How about Fukushima?
Accidents happen. Even if the chance is 1:1M (historically proven it's much higher), when you multiply that risk by the number of nuclear power plants required, something catastrophic will happen at some point. Such catastrophes could cost more than the complete energy transition.
That's not worth it, because nuclear power is only a temporary solution, because the uranium will run out at some point. It's already becoming more and more expensive to mine the stuff.
Even if all those problems didn't exist, it still takes 10 years before any nuclear power plant has compensates his own build. But it first takes 10 years to build any. Then after 20 years, they are just as CO2 effecient as wind and solar. That's too late. We need to lower CO2 emissions ASAP.
Anyone with some money to spare can invest in their own solar panels,
lower their costs and be less dependent on power companies.
It's nice to have air-conditioning in a heat wave, when the government
is telling you not to use power or you can't afford it when power companies are charging you 100x the normal rate.
Fukushima’s disaster included the meltdown but IT WAS THE SUNAMI THAT CAUSED IT AND MOST OF THE DEVASTATION of that city. Last I’ve checked there are no dinamices happening in Kansas. I will give you this one. In Californicate state they’ve built one on the fault line. Engineer had too much Blow.
Isn't Kansas part of Tornado Alley?
There are al sorts of natural disasters, but it can also be a terrorist attack or a hacker or just basic human error.
Yes, it is but you can’t compare a wind storm, even a tornado, to a sunami. Our nuclear plant in Turkey Point went through several hurricanes . Hurricanes produce tornados inside the storm. Hurricane Andrews destroyed large swaths out of the county. Huge communities disappeared. The Turkey Point plan took it in stride.
BTW, instead of Kansas I could have picked West Virginia --------------------------------------- added after 4 minutes
As far as anything else, we have to trust security will prevail. Every thing is a crapshoot. Hopefully we don’t roll snake eyes,
Or just choose all the many alternatives and don't build any new nuclear power plants. Why are you such a proponent of nuclear energy? What do you consider the advantage over truly sustainable energy technologies?
Except for solar energies nuclear is the most reliable. I guess I’m like a Trump supporter but with nuclear capability--------------------------------------- added after 11
I was talking to phart.
I also don't like nuclear energy and my arguments are in line with the science on climate change. That uranium has to be mined, which also emits CO2.
A nuclear power plant takes a lot of energy to be built and maintained.
Then afterwards we have to keep the waste safe for the next 20,000 years.
On the short term nuclear is about as energy/CO2 efficient as wind power and even less than solar. In the long term nuclear has a horrible energy/CO2 efficiency, because keeping the waste safe also costs energy. Also, building nuclear power plants takes a long time and lots of materials. It takes about 10 years before a nuclear power plant compensates his own build. That's about 1-1.5 years for wind energy and 2 years for solar. However solar is cheaper
on maintenance.
Other than that, I agree with most of what you said.
All energy technology costs money, materials, energy and land to build and maintain. All energy technology has downsides like pollution, mineral shortages, exploitation of people and CO2 emissions. We just need to stop with the worst energy technologies first and expand on the best ones the most.
It doesn't require completely changing our life or have impact on the quality of our life. However climate change already impacts our life and it will only get worse. We can either choose to accept some changes now and prevent total catastrophe later or we can deny the truth until catastrophe proves us wrong.
phart , it's not maga now,
it's mada (make America dumb again).
What's gonna happen with your god?
Today I got a PM from this jerk:
29,Oct,26 18:55 Guess_Who: You convered annal lickers page. As long as you interfeer you will get shitpiles back..
He is well deserved what he got. There will be a price for you getting involved. You could be him and as long as you interfere this is what you will get.. The 2nd tme is 2 shit piles.. The next 3rd time is your entire page.. Do not interfere.
--------------------------------------- added after 92 seconds
My answer was:
CAT52!: First. Who is this “anal licker”?
Second. Don’t tell me what to do
Third. See second.
Fourth. Fuck you, dumbass. 🖕👿
If you ever do that to me again.... I'll trash your fucking page with no escape.. You'll drowned.
I know you hate Jews also.. YOu want more??
I don’t like inappropriate gifts. I don’t care if the recipient is a friend or not. I try to be fair with everyone, but, if someone wants my support. They have to earn it.
--------------------------------------- added after 7 minutes
You should also consider that a pile of 💩 costs 150 points and a kiss cost 5. It takes 30 points to clean a gallery.
I’ve created a poll to see how others feel about it. Please vote:
/polls/6149.html
😈
only registered users can see external links
like the liberals once they get used to the free food,free ___.
Your ideas are keeping lots of people in a state of survival, instead of a state of thriving. That doesn't just hurt them, it hurts your country. Poor people don't create wealth for your country and they don't consume a lot. The products that they do consume are mostly low quality, unhealthy food, which only benefits some producers and resellers, but those don't add much to your economy either.
This is because of the War with Iran and tariffs. Who, other than the president, is responsible for this? No one. Let’s get rid of the Republicans and the Clown after.
from low turnout and Democrats always benefit from high turnout.
That's why Republicans always try to limit voter turnout, by:
1. Limiting Mail-In and Absentee Voting
2. Implementation of Strict Photo ID and Citizenship Mandates
3. Aggressive Voter Roll Purges
4. Adjustments to Polling Access
Trump is now polling around 32% approval and 65% disapproval.
Traders place the probability of Democrats winning the House at 90%.
There is a 63% probability of a total Democratic Sweep.
Trump has a roughly 9% to 22% chance of keeping his full majority.
Turning Point Action does not release formal statistical probability models. They are 100% an opinion based medium. They don't predict the election with percentages,
they are framing the midterms as an 'absolute emergency' for the MAGA movement.
That means that they are very worried.
Don’t forget when trump won the 2024 election you still were insisting that Kamala Harris was going to win and cat had to tell you that it was true trump won
You can quote any rag, any web site, any source about how great he has been, but, at night, while you lay awake in bed, with Marcy at your side, you know the truth. And it’s not what you’re so hard trying to convince.
I’m sorry for you. It’s bad for us to swallow his crap, but, you? You’ll have to admit some day that you were duped.
We will see after the midterms
Besides inflation, there is also 'depreciation'; loss of value against other currencies.
Inflation means that you can buy less for your dollar in the US.
Depreciation means that you can buy less for your dollar outside of the US.
The dollar lost more than 10% of value against a broad basket of major global currencies since President Trump took office for his second term on January 20, 2025.
INSTEAD of being given to a bunch of bastards that won't work, lay around on drugs and steal shit like the dems want to spend it on
It will make every product more expensive that isn't made in the US, or that was made with raw materials from outside of the US.
On top of that your president added the tariffs. It can be a good idea for products that you want to make in the US, but there are so many raw materials and products that you just don't have. That is hurting consumers and it is hurting manufacturing. It's making American products more expensive, which is impacting your export.
phart said that trump is putin's puppet.
How WRONG he is!!!
CAT52! Do you think phart will be annoyed that I used a bit of Norwegian language to refer to his mind ("mind" I mean) as calabaza cabeza?
only registered users can see external links
Example:
Trump is laying shit in the
oval room while his cocktoach pet
is lying in the sun.
English isn't my native tongue.
It's yours, I suppose.
Your kind try's to impress with proper words and spelling, whereas what you are saying is just liberal gibberish.
Another way of putting it,
If you can't impress them with knowledge,baffle them with bullshit,and that is what YOU try to do.
Anannas and I don't agree on alot of anything.But he is at least civil and will take the time to explain his thought process, instead of just name calling and etc.
The first 1 being when the Vikings put their dead loved 1's on something to float out to sea.
only registered users can see external links
same with jim carry and a couple others,
Do other countries pay any attention to their celeb's when it comes to politics?
only registered users can see external links
So they are already having issues with charging electric cars?
Sheesh,what about in 5 years? The power company are not permited to build new power plants.Solar and wind are going to be important to keep the grid up. But that didn't work in Texas did it?
They make a lot of energy in Texas,but how many folks died over the winter this past 1?
Angel1227!
So a private, for profit, company did not plan on a hard winter so their production of electricity was not sufficient? And this utility, regulated by the states, failed to meet the demands? This state (Texas) governed by Repukers was not regulated correctly so this company spent less on production and got richer because of it? This sounds very much like a Repuker business idea.
I fault the power companys in texas to a point but I also fault the citizens for lack of preparedness.
Face it, sometimes you need regulation, especially for basic facilities like power.
And I then mentioned the issues in texas with electricity.
What everyone is missing here is the fact there is NOT enough electricity being produced to meet CURRENT demand.As Ananas has indicated.So imagine if you will,5-10 years from now,when there is GREATER demand? What a mess we are in for.
Regulation is not the solution. that is how you GOT TO THIS POINT. To many regulations preventing new power plants being built and trying to snuff out coal,a effective energy source.
You think that if they are running short they won’t try to catch up? The regulations you protest are there to protect the people and the environment. But, knowing how you think, fuck that. Let coal continue to pollute. We’ll be dead by the time our grandkids die of poisoned air.
only registered users can see external links
Only 2 under construction according to this chart.
only registered users can see external links
The US shut down how many? lets see
only registered users can see external links
Now, we shut down 39 and we are building 2. Does that sound like regulations are helping any? 2, there are 50 states. So state regulation is not changing anything where it may be either.
If you want coal gone,you need to have a replacement handy before hand.
Nuclear power is not the solution. There are 80 sites in the United States where nuclear waste is stored. Some of it is stored temporary in a location that is not safe long term. The best uranium sites are already running out and it's getting ever more expensive to mine the stuff.
That waste has to be looked after for the next 20,000 to 1M years, before it's safe. Humanity probably kills itself before that or there might be a few survivors that don't know how to keep the waste safe and radiation will finish them off. But who cares, right?
only registered users can see external links
Like nuclear is the only alternative to coal.
I just used nuclear here because MOST tree huggers-liberals,think nuclear is the answer.And it has Ooodles of issues that take Many years to deal with.
Actually, I even prefer fossil fuels over nuclear, even though I'm a tree hugger-liberal. Nuclear might be a bit better on carbon emissions when the reactor is built, but building new ones creates so much emissions, it takes 20 years to recover.
Another problem is that nuclear reactors take ages to start up and stop again, which is not practical as backup for solar and wind. Fossil fuels are at least needed until we have enough geothermal, hydro (incl. wave), biofuel, biogas, hydrogen, chemical storage (formic acid), thermal energy storage, battery storage and whatever I forgot or they think up next.
Then there is off-course the waste and the risk.
Eh so more electric cars will reduce demand?
I know you are not a engineer,but even you should be able to figure out that can't work.
groas violations of human rights, so the US or Europe don't need them as an ally.
If they can't sell us oil ,they will make their money on interest from loans.
We could afford to use fossil fuels if we could finish our pipelines and drill in otherwise useless lands like up north in alaska where there is nothing but woods.
The alaskan pipeline built long ago,was supposed to be such a wildlife disaster,ha,the animals love it,it is warm near the pipeline.
California has MILES of coast line,Why are they not looking into this tech?
only registered users can see external links
Instead of wasting all that coast line for half naked people to lay around and spread covid,there could be power plants there!
NO pollution! No noise that is not already there,and erosion control! WOW,
Kansas,could be using wind and solar to help of course.
Another non polluting power source,
only registered users can see external links
When I build a green house,yep,I will use geothermal to help with temp control.
Every bit you can use of it is better than none at all.
Here are some fun do-it-yourself builds on YouTube.
I had seen them before and it made me regret living next to a stationary ditch.
Maybe there are some ideas you can use:
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
I DO NOT quite understand the amount of AMPS he is getting from that washing machine motor.
only registered users can see external links
How many Chernobyl’s do you know? One in the states, one in Japan, and one in Russia. Here, in Miami-Dade county, FP&L has been operating the local one over 50 yrs. Same in other cities around the state. And no pollution
You don't hear about the Mcquire plant here in NC getting to hot but it did a few years ago. The tree huggers were angry because a type of fish was dieing from getting caught in the cooling system water.So they put a screen over the intake. Worked fine for a while. Until the screen clogged up with little fishes.A employee told me about it.
Here is a long list of potential accidents and how to deal with them
only registered users can see external links
Yea,I know,I got dizzy after 10 minutes of readin!
I can't see a coal plant being any where near as dangerous to operate
They can't even take in water, without sucking up all the fishes
According to the Rainforest Action Network. For decades, climate change has been a global crisis that will impact every single person and living being on this planet. Now, according to the latest UN climate report, we have less than 10 years to cut global emissions in half.
Burning fossil fuels isn’t just bad for the climate, these industries also violate countless fundamental human rights. From frontline communities facing a fossil fuel pipeline on their land to Indigenous people facing fires in the Amazon to worker rights violations on palm oil plantations, the industries fueling climate change are also fueling injustice.
Coal, tar sands, and fracked gas show everything that’s wrong within the fossil fuel industry. These extraction practices are harming people and planet every day, and big banks are fueling this destruction of the planet and negligence of life.
So what’s so bad about coal, tar sands, and fracked gas? Basically everything, from start to the finish these fossil fuels are disastrous. For decades, climate change has been a global crisis that will impact every single person and living being on this planet. Now, according to the latest UN climate report, we have less than 10 years to cut global emissions in half.
Burning fossil fuels isn’t just bad for the climate, these industries also violate countless fundamental human rights. From frontline communities facing a fossil fuel pipeline on their land to Indigenous people facing fires in the Amazon to worker rights violations on palm oil plantations, the industries fueling climate change are also fueling injustice.
Coal, tar sands, and fracked gas show everything that’s wrong within the fossil fuel industry. These extraction practices are harming people and planet every day, and big banks are fueling this destruction of the planet and negligence of life.
So what’s so bad about coal, tar sands, and fracked gas? Basically everything, from start to the finish these fossil fuels are disastrous.
Like I said, “What you don’t see can be more dangerous.”
only registered users can see external links
chernobyl didn just happen and stop.It is still happening today.
Smog will go away at some point.
coal smoke can be filtered.Try filtering radiaton.
So we only would need half that exclusion zone filled with solar panels
and that would cost about 78 Billion Euro's. That would raise our national debt from 56.3% of GDP to 66.2% of GDP.
Jobs for all our unemployed people will pull that debt down soon enough.
Accidents happen. Even if the chance is 1:1M (historically proven it's much higher), when you multiply that risk by the number of nuclear power plants required, something catastrophic will happen at some point. Such catastrophes could cost more than the complete energy transition.
That's not worth it, because nuclear power is only a temporary solution, because the uranium will run out at some point. It's already becoming more and more expensive to mine the stuff.
Even if all those problems didn't exist, it still takes 10 years before any nuclear power plant has compensates his own build. But it first takes 10 years to build any. Then after 20 years, they are just as CO2 effecient as wind and solar. That's too late. We need to lower CO2 emissions ASAP.
Anyone with some money to spare can invest in their own solar panels,
lower their costs and be less dependent on power companies.
It's nice to have air-conditioning in a heat wave, when the government
is telling you not to use power or you can't afford it when power companies are charging you 100x the normal rate.
only registered users can see external links
There are al sorts of natural disasters, but it can also be a terrorist attack or a hacker or just basic human error.
BTW, instead of Kansas I could have picked West Virginia
--------------------------------------- added after 4 minutes
As far as anything else, we have to trust security will prevail. Every thing is a crapshoot. Hopefully we don’t roll snake eyes,
only registered users can see external links
I also don't like nuclear energy and my arguments are in line with the science on climate change. That uranium has to be mined, which also emits CO2.
A nuclear power plant takes a lot of energy to be built and maintained.
Then afterwards we have to keep the waste safe for the next 20,000 years.
On the short term nuclear is about as energy/CO2 efficient as wind power and even less than solar. In the long term nuclear has a horrible energy/CO2 efficiency, because keeping the waste safe also costs energy. Also, building nuclear power plants takes a long time and lots of materials. It takes about 10 years before a nuclear power plant compensates his own build. That's about 1-1.5 years for wind energy and 2 years for solar. However solar is cheaper
on maintenance.
Other than that, I agree with most of what you said.
All energy technology costs money, materials, energy and land to build and maintain. All energy technology has downsides like pollution, mineral shortages, exploitation of people and CO2 emissions. We just need to stop with the worst energy technologies first and expand on the best ones the most.
It doesn't require completely changing our life or have impact on the quality of our life. However climate change already impacts our life and it will only get worse. We can either choose to accept some changes now and prevent total catastrophe later or we can deny the truth until catastrophe proves us wrong.
New Comment Go to top