So, what have you got against the Arctic cruise industry?
So, what have you got against the Arctic cruise industry?
In a LFTR U-233 is created and destroyed in the process; it doesn’t accumulate like plutonium in a uranium reactor.
There’s not much at any given time.
Bad “dudes” would have to take over a reactor, empty its (bulky hot) contents and separate U-233 to make a bomb
Actually, from what I read, that’s not quite true
In the book “Engines of change” it was mentioned that Nader DID go after VW, because of the Beetle’s swing axle . . . or whatever it was technically called
But the VW legal team was very good and absolutely SPANKED him into submission
Naturally, he won’t be seen publically mentioning his failures and/or mistakes
The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere “behaves” over relatively long periods of time.
Gas prices increase and decrease for various reasons. But a higher mpg lowers the lifetime ownership cost of a car. Car prices rise due to many factors. Carmakers since the days of the seatbelt have always told us that this safety or emissions regulations will cost too much. They have never been correct in their estimates and we now have all sorts of safety and emission control components in our vehicles and vehicles sales are at record levels. And buying a used car is common in the US and those cost alot less then new vehicles. Finally to support reaching the common good of slowing global warming, there are subsidies for electric and hybrid vehicles. And before any jumps on the subject of government subsidies, remember that this nation was stitched together because the government gave huge land grants as subsidies to private companies to build the transcontinental railroad. And that is only one of a long list of government subsidies in our history.
“HUH?” Oh, sorry Mike, I thought nearly everybody was familiar with that old saying, often attributed to Mark Twain (, but others disagree on the exact origin).
Mike I explained the difference between weather and climate. (It’s not rocket science.) Then you asked me if I knew the difference.
I defined it again. Now you are telling me the meaning.
Either you’re distracted or not reading and comprehending well or just looking for an argument.
That’s all I can do for you.
Except for the parts of the Republican party, and not the entire party, virtually the entire world, oil producers and coal exporters included, has signed a UN document agreeing that:
The science is solid and backed by the world at large. The skeptics in the US have no scientific experiments and data to back their claims. Only unproven or discredited theories. The scientific consensus has been built on since the late 1790’s when John Priestly, the discoverer of Oxygen, first pondered the question. Now is the time to join the rest of the world to solve this human created problem.
You’ve demonstrated time and again you’re unwilling to accept science or understand it. Probably the later. But if you say you understand then at the same time you keep making arguments that suggest you don’t.
The plutonium produced in light water reactors is also “burned up” in the reactor. Something like 30% of the energy comes from Pu-239 fission over the life of the fuel. Here’s an article on the dangers of nuclear proliferation and LFTRs:
Sorry Stew, I had to jump on…
Let me ask you a couple questions. Where did the government acquire this land they granted? Next, “…there are subsidies for electric and hybrid vehicles.” The government doesn’t give land for that, right? What does it give? Where does it get it?
Stew, let’s run with that for a moment. If that is true and everybody in the U.S. (and as many nations as can be persuaded to join) adopt all these “Climate change” abatement measures, how much influence will that have, exactly, on this perceived change or rate of change?
Good discussion, so far. Please answer those questions and we’ll go on from there. Thanks,
How could anyone know that? Not know the exact answer has nothing to do with whether the effect is present. It’s like saying “How many crimes, exactly, would be prevented if a city hires 100 extra policemen?”
I’m not going to talk about climate anymore unless egged or plutonium or atomic bombs. I will argue a little with auto makers not wanting to include safety because of costs. Back in 1957 our Ford came with seat belts, padded dash, and the recessed steering column, among other safety features I can’t remember. There was not regulation requiring them but they were added features to the cars. Auto makers originally balked at pushing safety because they thought customers would start to think the cars unsafe. Maybe not correctly but it wasn’t cost, it was marketing strategy. Not until regulations started getting a little nuts such as with air bags did they argue cost and of course they were right. Those features cost us more money when we buy a car.
I also will argue that used cars are not necessarily cheaper than new cars and certainly not “way” cheaper in the long run. If you buy a 2 year old car with 30K miles on it, you have lost the use of those miles. Plus you have lost the use of the warranty for any problems. Plus you likely also paid a higher interest charge if financed. Not to mention the risk of the care the car got in those two years and other factors. Just not the case anymore.
Again, please rein in the arguments about weather and climate. If I’m not mistaken, this discussion is happening in at least one other thread. I understand there’s a lot of interest, but this isn’t the venue for a debate about climate change. Thanks.
Were you here in the 60’s and 70’s, with rolling clouds of pollution so bad in the Jersey Turnpike that you couldn’t see, let alone breathe? With piles of foam on the rivers? With casual dumping of toxic waste any old where, and it’s the problem of whoever comes after to deal with it – no such thing as Superfund; if you’ve got carcinogens, just hope you don’t die.
Thanks, I prefer the EPA.
Why would it take a federal agency to get New Jersey to clean up its act? And why would the rest of the country need to suffer because of it? Silly argument in this day and age.
Unless you’re proposing building an airtight dome over New Jersey, then other states have to deal with whatever pollution emanates from there, which is why such arguments strike me as intentionally obtuse.
The simple fact is that those of us on this board are interested in/enamored with devices which cause pollution. I personally would like to be able to drive cars in 50 years, but if we allow the auto industry, as well as other pollution sources, unfettered license to pollute, then we will become China, where you can’t see the tops of buildings because of the smog, and you have to wear masks to try and keep your lungs clear.
And once that happens people will howl in protest that they can’t breathe outside anymore, and the likely reaction will be draconian to say the least. I highly doubt Americans who grew up breathing relatively clean air and being able to swim in almost any body of water in the country will stand for rivers catching fire again, or ash rain in LA, or constant asthmatic symptoms from breathing bad air, and when you combine that with the fact that the younger generation isn’t as enamored with cars as the rest of us, a very likely target will be the car.
So unless you want to trade your Acura in for a city bus, it’s in your best interest to stop decrying every environmental regulation you see.
Not all of that pollution was from NJ…Philly and NYC had a lot to do with it also (especially Philly).
Most of the Ohio River pollution came from Ohio, but Kentucky was most effected. So it’s up to Kentucky to clean it up. Hudson River between NY and VT was/is very polluted. Most coming from NY. If NY doesn’t want to clean it up, then VT is suppose to suffer for it? The Coal burning plants in the Mid-West smoke sends Acid rain to the North East. How the heck do we force the Coal Plants to put scrubbers on their exhaust chimney’s without Federal help?
How do we stop the excess pollution? Sue all the Midwestern polluting states into the Stone Age! The fees will be so high that it will double or triple their state taxes! Or we could depend on a joint solution from all the states in the form of federal regulations and control, as @MikeInNH suggested.
Because most of the air pollution is brought to NJ from coal-burning generating stations in Ohio, courtesy of the prevailing winds.
Sounds like “nobody knew health insurance could be so complicated”