Page #1
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 ...#224
New Comment Rating: 3 Similar topics: 1.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF 2.A Forum Topic 3.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF II 4.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF,, ANY STUFF III 5.NEW MONGO STUFF, OLD MONGO STUFF, ANY MONGO STUFF III Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
Thanks Trump for lowering gas prices
"Peace on Earth", he says.
And moments later he kills 32 Cubans in Venezuela.
ok a little googling indicates they were CUBAN MILITARY and intelligence personal. UM< that makes my question even more important? planning some kind of a attack?
only registered users can see external links
"Trump further stated that US oil companies would "go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country",
There is real progress for a sinking country
Why is that strange. I would understand Cuba and Venezuela to be logical allies.
There were also Chinese officials there. What mess would it have become,
if they would have been killed?
I have the suspicion that when Trump says "start making money for the country",
he doesn't mean Venezuela.
Why do you keep thinking that a military attack on a country ever improve things?
I don't even think that it would be good, if Putin would have Trump assassinated.
No matter how bad Trump is, your country needs to figure out this shit for itself.
It only creates lots of chaos, when a country suffers a leadership vacuum.
Can't you learn anything from history?
The Cubans in venezuela were security force for Maduro. The US has no right to start this war or kill them. It's illegal.
--------------------------------------- added after 7 minutes
Hiring Cubans or Chinese or any other people for the country's head is a matter that only the country has a say on. The US has no rights over it.
Moreover, the country, Venezuela, banned American businesses a few years ago because they don't want them. It's their right to do so, so long as they don't interfere with another country. The US has no say on it.
Whether a country needs the US protection or not is first and foremost a decision taken by that country.
In the future, countries may need protection by asking China to provide it. It's their right to do that. The US has no right to tell, say, Sweden that they should not ask China. In fact, the way things go, it might happen.
and bans trade with the US. Your massive debt will bankrupt you within a year.
We have 550 million people and about your GDP. We can obliterate you economically.
I'm sure that China will love to take over the alliance.
only registered users can see external links
"In other countries, it happens; governments fall over scandals, that with Trump,
they wouldn't even be top 10 controversies."
Indeed, in the last 10 years alone, my gouvernement fell 3 times over 'scandals':
1. Rutte III Cabinet
- Period: 26 October 2017 – 15 January 2021 (caretaker since 15 Jan 2021)
- Date fallen: 15 January 2021
- Reason: The government collapsed after a highly critical report on the childcare benefits scandal (toeslagenaffaire) undermined confidence in the coalition, leading to the collective resignation of ministers.
2. Rutte IV Cabinet
- Period: 10 January 2022 – 7 July 2023
- Date fallen: 7 July 2023
- Reason: The coalition of VVD, D66, CDA and ChristenUnie could not reach agreement on immigration and asylum policy, especially on limiting family reunification for asylum seekers. These irreconcilable differences caused the entire cabinet to resign.
3. Schoof Cabinet
- Period: 2 July 2024 – 3 June 2025 (caretaker since 3 Jun 2025)
- Date fallen: 3 June 2025
- Reason: The far‑right PVV party left the ruling coalition over disputes on asylum and migration policy, stripping the government of its majority. Prime Minister Dick Schoof subsequently submitted the cabinet’s resignation.
The government admits it failed, and places the responsibility back on the voters,
to choose new representatives.
You need a strong immigration policy.
Is the childcare benefits scandal related to keeping up kids on the government dole for parents that can't afford them?
Rutte was our corporate right-wing prime minister.
Nice that you understand what idiots they are.
At least they had to pick from 27 parties. You picked wrong from 2.
No one was against strong immigration policy.
It was just a matter of keeping it lawful and making it effective.
The VVD pulled the plug, because of political games.
They thought that they could achieve more with the PVV.
That turned into a complete shit-show, and collapsed in a year.
That's because the Asylum and Immigration Minister Marjolein Faber (PVV) has consistently ignored or refused to follow critical advice from expert advisory bodies, like the Council of State, the Council for the Judiciary, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (IND) itself. She would have created massive legal, practical, and procedural problems. Also, she only focused on refugees and not at all on labor migration. You know how Americans are shouting "The illegals are stealing our jobs!"? And then you blame Democrats for that, while it was the Republicans who created that problem? That's the exact problem in my country: right-wingers LOVE the exploration of labor migrants, and don't want to do anything about it.
When right-wingers privatized childcare, they introduced tax-benefits to keep it a bit affordable. That of course resulted in massive bureaucratic obstacles and red tape, that was needlessly complicated, frustrating, and absurd. When people made a small mistake, they were accused of fraud, and their lives were destroyed. That is the scandal that ensued. Instead of a simple system, paid for by taxes, they wanted to have for profit childcare. It was more expensive for everyone, and created a huge problem, that is now extremely complex and costly to repair.
What is the benefit of childcare, if only the rich can afford it?
You gotto let go of your lazy thinking.
That means that there are no responsible parents. Having kids is selfish.
If humanity were to survive, I would say 1 billion is the max.
However, the system needs fresh people to keep the economy ongoing.
Right-wingers want to keep making profit. That requires kids/workers.
So the wealthy deny climate change and help people breed new livestock.
It's short-term thinking, but what else is new? They'll survive in their bunkers.
They will need some servants and sex-slaves; poor people's kids.
Don't you think that villagers who don't have kids, want someone
to bring them food and wash them, when they are old?
The kids of rich people aren't going to do that.
end up, when they cannot take care of themselves anymore?
Those nursing homes need caregivers. That's not a career often chosen by rich kids.
Taking care of your parents is what poor countries do.
Countries with social benefits have professionals to do that,
keeping the old folks as independent as possible.
Parents don't like to be washed by their children.
Damn, your country is a third-world shit-hole.
He's ready to take over one of the largest in area countries in the world:
only registered users can see external links
--------------------------------------- added after 3 minutes
phart must be delighted that his leader is acting as a pissmaker.
He must also be delighted I quoted fox "news" rather than an extreme left source like NY times.
You mean every day, every hour.
That guy is violating the laws every minute.
It's #10 in this summary of the "Dictator’s Playbook":
Dictator’s Playbook: Common Tactics Used by Autocrats
1. Systematic Disinformation and Falsehoods
Dictators deliberately spread lies, distort facts, and flood the information environment with contradictory or false narratives to confuse and overwhelm audiences, weakening public trust in objective truth and fact-based reporting. Methods include high-volume, multichannel false messaging that makes truth hard to discern.
2. Delegitimizing and Attacking the Media
Independent media are portrayed as hostile, biased, or “fake news” to erode public trust. By undermining the credibility of objective reporting, dictators make people doubt realistic or critical accounts of their actions. Modern autocrats often manipulate rather than fully censor media, using legal, economic, or rhetorical pressure to silence dissent.
3. Controlling and Manipulating Information Channels
Beyond attacks on the press, dictators control or co-opt broadcast and social media, sponsor proxy outlets, and use state propaganda to shape narratives domestically and sometimes internationally. This includes bot networks and troll factories to amplify regime messaging and drown out critical voices.
4. Politicizing or Capturing Institutions
Independent institutions (judiciaries, election authorities, regulators, law enforcement) are systematically weakened or staffed with loyalists so they no longer act as checks on executive power. This erodes democratic safeguards.
5. Quashing Criticism and Dissent
Critics, opposition figures, and civil society actors are harassed, criminalized, or intimidated. This can take legal, economic, or extra-legal forms, creating a climate of fear that discourages open criticism.
6. Scapegoating and Dividing the Population
Dictators often blame social, ethnic, religious, or external “enemies” for societal problems, fostering an “us vs. them” mentality that distracts from governance failures and mobilizes support through fear or tribalism.
7. Corrupting or Manipulating Elections
Even when elections nominally occur, dictators rig or coerce outcomes through gerrymandering, fraud, voter suppression, legal changes to term limits, or claims of fraud when they lose, all to maintain a veneer of legitimacy.
8. Reinforcing Executive Power and Weakening Checks and Balances
Emergency powers, constitutional changes, and legal reinterpretation expand the ruler’s authority at the expense of other branches of government.
9. Creating a Cult of Personality
Leaders often project an image of indispensable savior or national guardian to build unquestioning loyalty. This ties popular identity to the individual rather than to institutions or shared governance.
10. Distraction Through Major Events or Manufactured Crises
When a dictator faces embarrassment, scandal, or a legitimacy threat, they often launch a big action, controversy, or crisis narrative to shift public attention. This may include major military moves, controversial policies, “provocations,” or spectacle-driven events that overwhelm or bury negative news. These distraction tactics serve to reroute public scrutiny away from problems that could weaken their grip.
Why These Tactics Work:
- Erosion of shared facts: If truth is contested and people can’t agree on basic facts, collective criticism and accountability become much harder.
- Information overload: Flooding citizens with numerous, contradictory messages creates confusion and apathy, reducing resistance.
- Delegitimization of critics: By attacking institutions and critics as traitors or enemies, autocrats weaken social cohesion and independent oversight.
- Spectacle over scrutiny: Large distractions or crises capture collective attention, pushing deeper systemic issues out of the public eye.
Thanks for putting these things together so nicely.
Much appreciated.
It nicely summarizes all the research on the tactics used by autocrats.
Here is one of those sources: only registered users can see external links
I haven't read books on the subject, but obviously someone in the Trump regime
studied this for many years. Or, it was just Trump getting private courses from
Vladimir Poetin and Kim Jong-un. For all we know, Kim Jong-un presented Trump
with the exact same list, in one of his "beautiful letters". He follows it to the letter.
I'm sure that trump hasn't read any of this. For one thing, I don't think he has the capacity of reading anything else except short text messages.
But, yes, he has people around who can read-- they're paid to do so I guess, and inform him.
Are you an idiot?
Don't reply.
You are.
Idiot? You are a useful idiot for the liberal socialist.
He's ready to take over one of the largest in area countries in the world.
you only care about it for the US, and NO ONE ELSE.
The Joint Arctic Command (JAC), the main Danish military body in Greenland, is responsible for defense and surveillance in the vast Arctic region. They use patrol ships, helicopters, and even dog sled teams for patrols, with plans to increase fighter jet presence and drones. A small but significant number of Danish military personnel are stationed at various locations, including Nuuk and Thule Air Base.
There is also a U.S. Military Presence: Pituffik Space Base. The U.S. operates this key installation (formerly Thule Air Base) under a 1951 defense agreement with Denmark, focusing on missile warning, space surveillance, and satellite control.
I'm afraid that phart is cognitively dysfunctional that he's unable to understand or think. He'll insist with his nonsense.
He'll keep believing that the US must snatch Greenland and if don't want too bad. They should defend themselves, he says, when we try to fuck them up. He'll never question the fact that the US isn't allowed to fuck them up. He can't question anything that his imbecile dear leader utters.
You are the 1 that just calls me names like a 5 year old
I wrote about the absurd motion of your supreme leader to try to snatch Greenland, a sovereign nation who does not want to be invaded.
You said
"I aint to concerned about greenland. if it doesn't want to be taken over it can fight back."
That's why i called you an asshole. Because you go along with an act of terrorism and aggression of your supreme leader.
I call you names because that's the only language you can understand. You have no capacity to understand what justice, peace, empathy mean. All you know is how to bend to a dictator and agree with everything he does.
That's why there's no adjective or noun to describe you. Asshole, fucktard, fascist, war-lover, inhuman, pathetic, bullshitter, redneck, and hundreds of other words are not sufficient to describe the fact that you're not human.
Greenland loves peace. Unlike you.
There are words to describe you thankfully.
Arrogant asshole is the first 2 that come to mind.
But you are a necessary component in the bigger scheme of things.You are the stern reminder of the fact a functional safe society filled with productive happy humans has enemy's.
I know you don't know much history, but that should even be clear to you.
Those terrorists are just asylum seekers with "Mom" and 'autism awareness' tattoos, abused for justifying your crimes against humanity. Do you think that Hitler didn't come up with terms like "terrorist" and "vermin" for the Jews?
You are just as dumb to believe Trump as Germans were to believe Hitler.
He'll keep repeating, verbatim, what the dictator says. That's common among countries who've gone through totalitarian regimes. It's the unthinking, low intelligence, brain fucked, ignorant individuals that these regimes rely upon. (In addition to those who financially benefit from dictatorship.)
--------------------------------------- added after 15 minutes
“We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated.”
Fuck you.
It clearly stated so.
So fuck you.
EU does not want Greenland to be taken.
Fuck you asshole.
The UN is totally against any country annexing another.
Fuck off, piece of shit.
International law specifies this as an act of aggression.
Fuck you fucktard.
What part of the above sentences don't you understand fuckhole hillbilly fascist gun loving warmonger redneck?
I'm not as patient as Ananas2xLekker to write to you because you've no clue of anything beyond your village and do not know anything but blind obedience to a dictator.
So let me conclude with the ONLY language you understand:
Fuck you.
un, eu, nato, all just Zits on America's ass draining it of it's money, resources and military ability's. If it had not been for America, you would be typing german now.
ungrateful idiot.
Besides,why do you care about greenland? you claim to live in UK, where they worship kings that have their wives murdered in tunnels so they can marry their mistress's and shit.
The US had only one reason to defend freedom in Europe, in WWII;
it would have resulted in a competing evil superpower,
which would probably come to take over the US at some point.
NATO was created to in 1949, primarily to bind Western Europe to the United States militarily and politically, rather than allowing it to drift toward neutrality or the Soviet sphere.
It resulted in a big chunk of the world picking the Dollar as world currency, following American ideas of capitalism, and allowing the US to dominate capitalism. The US also wanted to be dominating in military strength, building bases all over the world.
From its creation, NATO was designed to ensure U.S. military dominance in Europe, to prevent Europe from becoming strategically independent, and to prevent neutralism or accommodation with the USSR.
Europe paid for NATO by giving up strategic autonomy and buy buying very expensive weapons from the US.
NATO has overwhelmingly served US strategic, economic, and political interests.
European participation was not 'charity' from the US, it was the price Europe paid to live inside a US-led global order that primarily benefited Washington.
When Russia invaded Ukraine, Europe saw the reality: NATO is not designed to defend Europe. NATO in fact assured that any major war with Russia would be fought on European soil, not American soil. The invasion of Ukraine was the first time that Russia posed an existential threat to Europe, and the US refused to take direct risk. The enemy who was the reason for creating NATO was rewriting borders by force in Europe, with direct implications for NATO members next door. The US explicitly ruled out direct military intervention, out of fear of escalation with Russia.
NATO deters only as long as the US is willing to accept risk.
Europe learned:
- It cannot outsource existential defense entirely to the US.
- It bears the primary risk of war on its own continent.
- American support is conditional, not guaranteed.
Never before was NATO tested in it's defense for Europe. And the first time it needed testing, the US FAILED it's responsibility.
However, after 9/11, NATO invoked Article 5, the ONLY time in its history.
This was done even though:
- The attack was not carried out by a state.
- It did not originate in Europe.
- It did not directly threaten European territory.
Still, European allies contributed troops, intelligence, logistics, and political legitimacy to a US-led war in Afghanistan.
After 9/11, NATO stretched its mission for the US:
- NATO reinterpreted collective defense to include:
-- Non-state actors
-- Attacks originating outside the North Atlantic area
This was a political choice, not a legal necessity.
Europe accepted that stretch in solidarity with the US.
The contrast with Ukraine. When Russia invaded Ukraine:
- A state actor invaded a European country
- With tanks, missiles, and occupation
- Creating direct instability on NATO’s borders
Yet:
- NATO refused to stretch its mission again
- The U.S. drew a hard line at direct involvement
- The justification was escalation risk, not treaty text
So the pattern is:
NATO was flexible when the U.S. needed help, but rigid when Europe
faced the consequences.
Conclusion: When the U.S. was attacked on 9/11, NATO stretched its mandate and fought a war far from Europe for America. When war returned to Europe in Ukraine, NATO refused to stretch its mandate again. That tells you who NATO is most willing to adapt for.
In short: The only time NATO has ever invoked collective defense was to defend the United States, not Europe.
UNGRATEFUL IDIOT!!!
for decades? The liberal media are significantly better, but not enough to pull someone out of a right-wing echo chamber. Many hundreds of billions of dollars are spent yearly, by the wealthy and corporations, to perfect the right-wing indoctrination, and to keep 'liberal' alternatives loyally serving capitalism and defending the status quo. It's an uneven playing field.
As soon as a media company becomes too much of a threat to the wealthy, they are either not getting any money anymore or getting their management replaced. They exist by the blessing of the corporations
that own them. Liberalism and wokeness doesn't threaten them, but anything even close to socialism is immediately squashed or censored.
Republicans have been dominating local school boards for many decades, to influence the history taught to children. They pretended that children are indoctrinated with 'critical race theory', but the opposite is true. Conservative Christians have also fought for years to get alternatives for evolution in schools, as “Creation science”, later rebranded as “intelligent design”. Besides that, the conservatives have constantly battled to get courses on logical/critical thinking removed from the classes. All their efforts to keep the public gullible have clearly produced the desired results.
We might think that we have enough critical thinking skills to understand
when we are lied to as much and as consistently as phart has been lied to all his life, but would we have learned those critical thinking skills,
if we grew up in a red rural area? I have the IQ for it, but I'm not sure.
He's been indoctrinated all his life in his redneck hole and has developed a completely perverse view of the world. He has no clue of anything but his village. And there comes a dictator who boosts his beliefs by lying.
He's not even able to understand simple things in simple English. I informed him that Greenland does not wish to be invaded. He can't understand the sentence and keeps saying "we want Greenland, we are going to take it" and he calls this peace.
Honestly, I've never met such an idiot in my entire life.
Like I said, the only thing you understand is:
Fuck you.
Your response shows EXACTLY what you are: NOT a, member of the human species.
Justice concerns us all, except, Americans of your kind.
Greenland is a sovereign country that does not want to be forced to be taken by force by American creeps.
The island has the largest deposits of rare-earth elements outside China. Two thirds of the planet's fresh water outside Antarctica are frozen in Greenland, and its rock flour has unusually strong ability for soil regeneration and direct air capture of carbon. only registered users can see external links
Besides Trump is not the first 1 to realize that America could do alot more with greenland that greenland is doing with it's self.
As of 2021 Greenland's annual GDP was $3 billion, 0.007% that of the United State
with just that bit of info, it is obvious if the rare earth materials were mined for example the lives and economy of that island would be far better off.
Greenland does NOT want to be invaded.
I didn't want the Edison light bulb to go away but it did.
We Americans want a better life and we want to choose what we buy and so on.
We also want to be safe, and have affordable resources. Greenland is full of resources that could improve our lives. They are doing NOTHING to improve their own economy or to better the world. they are sitting on it and freezing.
Why not offer to take it off denmarks hands and improve it to it's own advantage and ours?
I understand english just fine, it is YOU that can't understand simple logic when it comes to improving the safety of our nation and it's economy.
Thru out history conquest has improved the conquered
"What did Romans do to conquered people?
Instead of punishing conquered nations, Rome often treated them as allies, encouraging them to take part in the glory and wealth of building the empire."
"+Was Rome bigger than the US?
Erik Bishop if drawn up today, the Roman Empire would include swathes of desert making its landmass greater than the USA."
And you fully support that I am sure.Because they tacked the slaver issue onto the end of the paperwork to justify the invasion.
Now do you see what I am trying to do here? I am trying to show your hypocrisy.
But you are the idiot for thinking you know it all and I don't.
--------------------------------------- added after 40 seconds
Greenland is protected by international law.
If the US invades, the US, you, village the law.
Who came up with these international laws?
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state…”
This essentially makes aggressive war illegal, except in two cases:
- Self-defense (Article 51) if a country is attacked.
- Authorization by the UN Security Council to maintain or restore international peace.
Who “came up with” it?
These rules were drafted during the San Francisco Conference of 1945, where the UN Charter was created. The drafting involved representatives from 50 founding nations of the UN, including major powers like the U.S., U.K., Soviet Union, and China.
The idea itself wasn’t entirely new, it built on the lessons of World War II and earlier efforts like the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, (primarily initiated by the US and France), which tried to outlaw war as a policy tool.
The U.S. played a major, leading role in organizing and shaping the United Nations and its charter.
The U.S., under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, was a driving force behind the idea of a post-WWII international organization to prevent future wars.
American diplomats, particularly Secretary of State Edward Stettinius Jr. and others like Alger Hiss, were heavily involved in drafting and negotiating the UN Charter.
The U.S. helped structure the Security Council and pushed for mechanisms that would prevent unilateral aggression.
The whole discussion started because I said, like every other country except the aggressor US says, Greenland does not want to be invaded. The whole world says so, and it's OBVIOUS.
I ve never met anyone who apertures aggressiveness, except you.
I don't support "invading" Greenland and harming people, but I do support the idea of bartering with their handlers and taking over the place and making use of it's natural resources for it's own betterment and that of the world
The only reason I hear from him, is that there are lots of Russian and Chinese ships navigating around it. So what? There is about 2000 miles between the US and Greenland.
They keep the lights on with constant socialist support from Denmark. That's not what the US would do. Your ideology
is pull yourself up by your own bootstraps or starve.
If I had even the slightest hope that it would be better for them, I would support you having it. With Trump? Nope, nothing!
And you don't either, but you are just willing to lie for him.
Emperor Tangerine can GO FUCK HIMSELF!
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