[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

I don't see a tidal wave hitting Houston. Over 250 nuclear plants in the US since the 70s. No reason we shouldn't have more.

You know Houston's on the water, right? It's been charted to be a direct hit for a tropical storm numerous times. San Onofre in SoCal was just shuttered for acknowledged weaknesses very similar to the American designed generator at Fukushima.

[Red Bread]

I'm actually fine with properly designed nuclear reactors, but we don't really have any of those in the US since we ignore recycling of rods like the EU and would rather fill a large hole in the ground with spent rods. Brilliant.

[Fundguy1]

Yes, but that's flooding, not a tidal wave. Houston isn't on the ring of fire for earthquakes etc. This was fukashima. Nothing like a hurricane, which I have Bern through several category 4 before.

[David70]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

I said reserves, not production. We have 40% of the world's oil reserves. An oil reserve is oil thats there that you can get. When Obama closed federal lands down, he took away 32% of the world's oil reserves. Prices went up making fracking and tar sands economically viable, and although we now had 8% instead of 40% of the world's oil reserves, our production increased. Fracking and tar sands brought prices down much to the consternation of Obama as he wanted $4 a gallon to push his climate change agenda but now it was back to $2 and from fracking which the left hates.

Your sights you list are correct but do not apply. Supply is how much is out of the ground. We are awash in supply. Production is how fast it is coming out. Two totally different things.

Not following your numbers. The U.S. has 40% of the world's oil supply but Obama took away 32% of the world's oil supply so he took what was available from 40% to 8%? 32% is on federal land and only 8% on private? Interested in seeing a source.

Then he did all of this as the U.S. increased production well over 50%.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

I'm actually fine with properly designed nuclear reactors, but we don't really have any of those in the US since we ignore recycling of rods like the EU and would rather fill a large hole in the ground with spent rods. Brilliant.

That'd be fine and probably done but we haven't made any in almost 40 Yrs. It's time.

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

That'd be fine and probably done but we haven't made any in almost 40 Yrs. It's time.

And who pays for those? Unlike refineries (another comically under developed resource) we can't pin those costs on petro chemical corporations.

With decreasing taxes and the fantasy of clean coal, I wouldn't stay up late waiting on magical nuclear power plants to receive funding.

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

Yes, but that's flooding, not a tidal wave. Houston isn't on the ring of fire for earthquakes etc. This was fukashima. Nothing like a hurricane, which I have Bern through several category 4 before.

Cool image. But the primary issue was flooding in Fukushima too. Point being, wind has a lot fewer drawbacks than nearly any other available resource.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

And who pays for those? Unlike refineries (another comically under developed resource) we can't pin those costs on petro chemical corporations.

With decreasing taxes and the fantasy of clean coal, I wouldn't stay up late waiting on magical nuclear power plants to receive funding.

They were routinely proposed and shot down and would have been paid for by investors. The government stopped them due to liberal yelling and wouldn't have paid a cent unlike the billions of dollars pissed away on failed alternative resource solindra bs deals by Obama.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

Cool image. But the primary issue was flooding in Fukushima too. Point being, wind has a lot fewer drawbacks than nearly any other available resource.

The real drawbacks is economic, they don't pay for themselves, and only in small sections of the country is it feasibly windy enough.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...bad-investment

[Red Bread]

Hehe, yep, that one did not go well.

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

The real drawbacks is economic, they don't pay for themselves, and only in small sections of the country is it feasibly windy enough.

You know your buddy Elon has some solar panels for you, right?

[Fundguy1]

I don't see any solar panels ever, and I live in Florida. They're actually banned in my neighborhood for being an eyesore by the HOA. Not that anyone wants them. Some people heat their pools with solar but that's a different type of panel.

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

They were routinely proposed and shot down and would have been paid for by investors. The government stopped them due to liberal yelling and wouldn't have paid a cent unlike the billions of dollars pissed away on failed alternative resource solindra bs deals by Obama.

Do you get your facts from Breitbart by chance? $535M loaned from the US government, and $25M clawed back in bankruptcy. Stupid, yes, but using the term billions usually requires billions of dollars, not millions.

[Z K]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

I'm actually fine with properly designed nuclear reactors, but we don't really have any of those in the US since we ignore recycling of rods like the EU and would rather fill a large hole in the ground with spent rods. Brilliant.

The way the US handles nuclear waste is terrible. We go bury them in the ground where many years later it'll seep in the ground and cause problems... very terrible idea. Nuclear waste can take thousands of years to become safe. They need to do it better.

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by Z K

The way the US handles nuclear waste is terrible. We go bury them in the ground where many years later it'll seep in the ground and cause problems... very terrible idea. Nuclear waste can take thousands of years to become safe. They need to do it better.

Not when some idiot congressman only has to worry about two or four years down the road and is busy cashing monster checks from PACs. Get out of here with your science and concern for the future!

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

I don't see any solar panels ever, and I live in Florida. They're actually banned in my neighborhood for being an eyesore by the HOA. Not that anyone wants them. Some people heat their pools with solar but that's a different type of panel.

Aside from the right example, I wouldn't object to the Tesla panels.

[img]http://news.energysage.com/wp-conten...ing-tiles-.jpg[/img]

And for the record, in TX, we pay for ice to be dumped in our pools, heating them isn't a problem.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

Do you get your facts from Breitbart by chance? $535M loaned from the US government, and $25M clawed back in bankruptcy. Stupid, yes, but using the term billions usually requires billions of dollars, not millions.

That was one of many. I'm talking about all of it. As i mentioned and you misread.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

Cool image. But the primary issue was flooding in Fukushima too. Point being, wind has a lot fewer drawbacks than nearly any other available resource.

Fukashima was hit by a 128 foot wall of water and was pleased on the beach in Japan. That's different than some storm surge from a hurricane and no reason we need to build them on the beach unlike Japan who only has mountains.

[SpeedChamp]

No we will see ICE's until 2050.

[ron_jeremy]

Originally Posted by SpeedChamp

No we will see ICE's until 2050.

Sure, but it will represent only about one digit of all vehicles, mainly trucks and petrol enthusiast, just a tiny niece of the market.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by ron_jeremy

Sure, but it will represent only about one digit of all vehicles, mainly trucks and petrol enthusiast, just a tiny niece of the market.

Why? Where's the superior tech? I don't see one yet. I don't see ev superior to ice yet in one single way except immediate torque. You can get that from a hybrid. Tesla may have some fun gadgets, but any ice car can have those too. Name one other way they are superior.

[c1pher]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

Why? Where's the superior tech? I don't see one yet. I don't see ev superior to ice yet in one single way except immediate torque. You can get that from a hybrid. Tesla may have some fun gadgets, but any ice car can have those too. Name one other way they are superior.

Go for a drive in a Tesla for a couple hours and then you're stuck waiting for it to charge back up. Sure a supercharger can almost top you off in 30 minutes, but just because Elon Musk says you should take a break from driving anyway, doesn't mean you want to. I like that I can go 400-500 miles on a tank of gas in the right car, but even if I can't, I can pull over fill up in a couple minutes and I'm back on the road. I think it was short sighted to get rid of the battery hot swap concept. They said no one used it. I was actually waiting for a solution like that because it negates the fill up advantage.

Plus do we really know all the environmental impact of pulling up all the metals needed for the batteries and the factories that create the batteries? And what happens with the spent batteries? Can they be recycled? I am reading they cannot for the most part.