Post deleted by User.
Random Politics & Religion #02 |
||
|
Random Politics & Religion #02
Ramyrez said: » And hey, if they can manage steel and coal without tearing up the land and turning the earth, water, and air into a *** mess...go for it. For another, I know you don't look into this, but the EPA (yes, those nasty *** who like to add regulations for the sake of regulations) actually looks into how much pollution these plants produce. There are strict guidelines about the air/water/ground quality these companies use, and it has improved each year. You are probably thinking how life was back in the 1930s when you think of the pollution issues. But in reality, it's gotten much better. Not perfect, we don't have the technology yet to make it perfect, but much better. Asura.Kingnobody said: » For another, I know you don't look into this, but the EPA (yes, those nasty *** who like to add regulations for the sake of regulations) actually looks into how much pollution these plants produce. There are strict guidelines about the air/water/ground quality these companies use, and it has improved each year. You are probably thinking how life was back in the 1930s when you think of the pollution issues. Read the quotes and link I provided. On the air quality ratings, Pittsburgh is a 13%. Johnstown is a 2%. Want to guess who might live smack dab (almost exactly) between those two cities? When the weather gets really hot I get air quality warnings. It is not a "1930s" problem. And don't talk to me about regulations and policing. A WV coal baron blatantly disregarded mine safety regulations, got 29 miners killed, and got a paltry 1 year in prison and a $250,000 fine. Safety regulations -- be they environmental or for workers -- are a joke. Ramyrez said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » For another, I know you don't look into this, but the EPA (yes, those nasty *** who like to add regulations for the sake of regulations) actually looks into how much pollution these plants produce. There are strict guidelines about the air/water/ground quality these companies use, and it has improved each year. You are probably thinking how life was back in the 1930s when you think of the pollution issues. Read the quotes and link I provided. On the air quality ratings, Pittsburgh is a 13%. Johnstown is a 2%. Want to guess who might live smack dab (almost exactly) between those two cities? When the weather gets really hot I get air quality warnings. It is not a "1930s" problem. And don't talk to me about regulations and policing. A WV coal baron blatantly disregarded mine safety regulations, got 29 miners killed, and got a paltry 1 year in prison and a $250,000 fine. Safety regulations -- be they environmental or for workers -- are a joke. But I am saying that air quality has improved significantly, and more recently, than what you are inferring to. I also said that it's not perfect, as it requires two things: compliance and technology. Compliance is more than likely more lax in Pittsburgh than most other cities in the nation because of the industry of that city. Unless the federal government wants another ghost town (or city in this case) made due to their excessive regulations, they aren't going to go strongly after companies in Pittsburgh than they do in other parts of the country. Like cities/towns in Texas, for example. But if you really want to "clean up the city," so to say, then you first need to create industries in that city that don't have to rely on those companies that pollute. You know, give the EPA a better shot at taking down those companies without putting the entire city out of work. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Ramyrez said: » Don't put it in my backyard. There's not enough space between me and the nearby amazing Italian market to fit a nuclear plant. If you want to put it across the street, however, I don't mind if you wipe out my neighbors. Also, related. They just now finally wrote off the investment this year. Personally, I think it's BS, but what can you do now? Except go on a hippie-hunting spree that is. Opposition to nuclear power is a bipartisan problem. Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Ramyrez said: » Don't put it in my backyard. There's not enough space between me and the nearby amazing Italian market to fit a nuclear plant. If you want to put it across the street, however, I don't mind if you wipe out my neighbors. Also, related. They just now finally wrote off the investment this year. Personally, I think it's BS, but what can you do now? Except go on a hippie-hunting spree that is. Opposition to nuclear power is a bipartisan problem. So, believe whatever you wish. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Ramyrez said: » Don't put it in my backyard. There's not enough space between me and the nearby amazing Italian market to fit a nuclear plant. If you want to put it across the street, however, I don't mind if you wipe out my neighbors. Also, related. They just now finally wrote off the investment this year. Personally, I think it's BS, but what can you do now? Except go on a hippie-hunting spree that is. Opposition to nuclear power is a bipartisan problem. So, believe whatever you wish. What I said was a statement. Opposition to nuclear *is* bipartisan. There's little political will to pursue the amount of spending for them. The public is terrified of them. The bureaucracy behind them is well documented. You're kinda up a creek if the first thing people associate reactors with is Three Mile Island, Fukushima and Chernobyl. Do we think of coal disasters when we think of energy fail? Stuff like Deepwater Horizon or coal mine disasters? Not really. Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » What I said was a statement. Opposition to nuclear *is* bipartisan. There's little political will to pursue the amount of spending for them. The public is terrified of them. The bureaucracy behind them is well documented. You're kinda up a creek if the first thing people associate reactors with is Three Mile Island, Fukushima and Chernobyl. Do we think of coal disasters when we think of energy fail? Stuff like Deepwater Horizon or coal mine disasters? Not really. Also, Deepwater Horizon involves oil, not coal. Should we start making fun of you for making simple mistakes like this too? Not my best sentence but there's a reason I said Deepwater Horizon and coal mine disasters. To differentiate them from renewables.
There is a huge shroud of ignorance and fear around nuclear power and coupled with political indifference, creates a nonstarter. Probably make more ground in solar, hydroelectric or wind but those are also political footballs. An offshore platform blows up, devastates coastline, spills for months and we're not demanding all hydrocarbon production to cease so why should we think the same about nuclear? Whom do think will win tonight’s Democratic debate?
20%Hillary Clinton 20%Bernie Sanders 7%They all seem to end in ties 53%I don’t care/won’t watch Total responses: 86,157 votes A poll from msn.com, you people make me sick... Asura.Kingnobody said: » Ramyrez said: » And hey, if they can manage steel and coal without tearing up the land and turning the earth, water, and air into a *** mess...go for it. Asura.Kingnobody said: » That's like asking to separate the wetness from water. Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » Not my best sentence but there's a reason I said Deepwater Horizon and coal mine disasters. To differentiate them from renewables. Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » There is a huge shroud of ignorance and fear around nuclear power and coupled with political indifference, creates a nonstarter. Probably make more ground in solar, hydroelectric or wind but those are also political footballs. An offshore platform blows up, devastates coastline, spills for months and we're not demanding all hydrocarbon production to cease so why should we think the same about nuclear? But also, don't forget mob mentality. A single person or a very small group of people can be reasoned with, but the more people involved, the stupider and more hardheaded they are. Case in point: The Trump and Sander supporters. Polar opposites of stupidity. KN are you talking about the already active nuclear plant in Houston? They were trying to expand that one when I was still there, I guess they didn't go through with it. It still has two reactors tho.
Shiva.Viciousss said: » KN are you talking about the already active nuclear plant in Houston? They were trying to expand that one when I was still there, I guess they didn't go through with it. It still has two reactors tho. No real difference in risk factor, beneficial to everyone in the area, yet, still got nixed for no apparent reason, due to a minority of public outrage. Huge loss to my city's utility company. Could have used that money to Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » Not my best sentence but there's a reason I said Deepwater Horizon and coal mine disasters. To differentiate them from renewables. There is a huge shroud of ignorance and fear around nuclear power and coupled with political indifference, creates a nonstarter. Probably make more ground in solar, hydroelectric or wind but those are also political footballs. An offshore platform blows up, devastates coastline, spills for months and we're not demanding all hydrocarbon production to cease so why should we think the same about nuclear? Also, people as a general rule don't do a very good job of objectively evaluating risks. Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » Probably make more ground in solar, hydroelectric or wind but those are also political footballs. Surprised nobody mentioned my link from last page: The largest coal company in the US filed for bankruptcy yesterday. Caitsith.Zahrah said: » Shiva.Viciousss said: » KN are you talking about the already active nuclear plant in Houston? They were trying to expand that one when I was still there, I guess they didn't go through with it. It still has two reactors tho. He's not mentioning the waste facility outside of Midland and Perry signing in approval of waste from Los Alamos either, because "hippies". When it comes to nuclear power I think the constituents should just be ignored. Build the plants to the best possible specifications (its 2016, not the 70s) turn them on and reap the benefits, they are practically endless. The "risks" are dependent on a 10.0 earthquake, a tsunami, or a Category 7 hurricane hitting the exact right spot, in other words, they are pretty safe.
I remember Hurricane Rita came and tore through Texas from Houston to Dallas, was there a nuclear meltdown? Nope. Classes weren't even cancelled. Sylph.Jeanpaul said: » Surprised nobody mentioned my link from last page: The largest coal company in the US filed for bankruptcy yesterday. The coal industry for years have been running at a net loss, but it's being subsidized by the US government. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Because it's not surprising at all. It's not that they aren't aware, it's that they just don't care enough, nor have reason to care enough.
Coal needs to be let go. Nuclear has always been superior and now other alternatives have emerged but coal just keeps being drug along. And its sad how its just become a political football, just the other day I saw the Fox headline "Obama's war on coal" or "Mitch McConnell is going to save the coal industry from the evil Dems." Like really, can we please just move on from coal already not because of partisan bickering, but because it sucks.
You know who pretty much supplies a majority of the workers that go to work in nuclear plants? The navy!
Nuclear plants are a huge expense and the staff you need t maintain them costs a great deal more than the others... The benefit being that it's actually cheaper to produce energy... Highly regulated materials... Negative public image from other leaks or tradgedies like in Japan... There's all sorts of stuff swirling around nuclear power plants...
Y'all keep talking like 3 Mile Island wasn't a thing or in the states. I agree nuclear power is cleaner, more efficient especially with the current generation of technology. But that doesn't mean its not a reminder when decisions are made.
Yeah, I don't care about what happened in 1979, other than Star Wars making its debut.
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » There is a huge shroud of ignorance and fear around nuclear power and coupled with political indifference, creates a nonstarter. Probably make more ground in solar, hydroelectric or wind but those are also political footballs.... Utility-backed solar group raised over $7M to counter TPO proposal in Florida Get the Facts - Floridians for Solar Choice Please note that the state has so little marginal power that they will give consumers interruptible power options. Live in FL and you can get interruptible power on your hot water heater, freezer, and pool, perhaps other appliances too. There was going to be a nuclear power plant in Oklahoma but protests apparently stopped it. The concrete was poured for the facility but stopped there. There are still large concrete drainage pipes sitting in a field visible from the highway too.
|
|
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|