Waste from discarded electronics (especially consumer electronics) has long been a problem.
These articles that were just posted describe the challenges ahead.
I don't think it would be realistic to expect that all the problems associated with End Of Life for solar panels would have been solved before the expansion of the solar panels industry.
Waste from discarded electronics (especially consumer electronics) has long been a problem.
These articles that were just posted describe the challenges ahead.
I don't think it would be realistic to expect that all the problems associated with End Of Life for solar panels would have been solved before the expansion of the solar panels industry.
I don't think it's common for people to throw away the panels... usually someone who already has solar... that has invested that money, will often just upgrade them. The solar company doing the work will almost always take the old photovoltaic panels and recycle them because in many cases they can be reconditioned.
The thing I'm concerned about is not solar panels... but the wind farms. They produce more waste, and cost more overall than they produce in return. In the end, the government basically subsidizes them.
When I drive through Texas, there are 10s of thousands of windmills. They do what they do, but it's a huge expense. A single Gen-3 or Gen-4 nuclear power plant would eliminate the need for probably half of those, and would literally be powered by the leftover 1970s and 1980s waste from the Gen-1 and 2 power plants.
The left's rage against nuclear power is one of the tragedies of insane anti-science policies, one of many, brought to existence.
The clawback of 50-years of technological progress is just sad, because they misplaced Climate Shift, away from science to a political weapon to gain control over agenda and tax grifting.
But we deserve the politics we get. So let's continue to enrich rent seeking leftists at the expense of everyone else.
The left's rage against nuclear power is one of the tragedies of insane anti-science policies, one of many, brought to existence.
The clawback of 50-years of technological progress is just sad, because they misplaced Climate Shift, away from science to a political weapon to gain control over agenda and tax grifting.
But we deserve the politics we get. So let's continue to enrich rent seeking leftists at the expense of everyone else.
Completely agree. Whenever you see responses to nuclear power on say, Twitter or anywhere else... and it's NOT a bot, the responses are totally asinine. They are so confident about that which they are so absurdly wrong about... saying that they don't want a Hiroshima or Nagisaki... like... really? Do you not recognize the difference between a nuclear power plant and an atomic bomb? And then they brag about being so well educated and intelligent because they have a bachelors degree in a totally worthless program from some **** school no one has ever heard of.
Here's a guy who seems not at all optimistic about the prospects for Small Modular (Nuclear) Reactors.
quote
Michael Barnard is a member of the Advisory Boards of electric aviation startup FLIMAX, Chief Strategist at TFIE Strategy and co-founder of distnc technologies. He spends his time projecting scenarios for decarbonization 40-80 years into the future, and assisting executives, Boards and investors to pick wisely today. Whether it's refueling aviation, grid storage, vehicle-to-grid, or hydrogen demand, his work is based on fundamentals of physics, economics and human nature, and informed by the decarbonization requirements and innovations of multiple domains. His leadership positions in North America, Asia and Latin America enhanced his global point of view. He publishes regularly in multiple outlets on innovation, business, technology and policy. He is available for Board, strategy advisor and speaking engagements.
"Shoveling Money Into Small Modular Nuclear Reactors Won’t Make Their Electricity Cheap"
quote
Wrights Law isn’t going to save the deep inefficiencies of SMRs. As I pointed out two years ago, the world tried tiny commercial nuclear reactors in the 1960s and 1970s, they were too expensive.
Does he look like a "raging against nuclear" Leftist? A leader of the anarchistic Occupy Fission movement?
Yes, but Rinse... who's even concerned about small nuclear power plants? We have many dozens of them already in service and they work perfectly fine. They are in the majority of our air craft carriers and deep sea submarines. But that's what they're better designed for.
This is a fairly liberal video, but decent enough to explain things...
The video is a little bit behind when it comes to the tech, even though the video is a year old. China is already building Gen-4 nuclear power plants (which we designed)... so people are already doing it.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 03-30-2023).]
Yet ANOTHER train "accidentally" flies off the tracks and of course it just happens to be carrying toxic materials, but totally not "suspicious" at all.
The corn syrup was just an unintended casualty of war against gooberment intelligence.
rinselberg, have you researched how much more Global Warming is added above your house by adding ethanol to gasoline?
I've never said that I was onboard with the programs or policies that incentivize farmers to grow the corn that's used to produce the ethanol that's blended into gasoline.
I've never said that every idea, project or policy that is promoted as "green" or that is promoted as "climate friendly" is actually a good thing.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-30-2023).]
The 10 most significant greenhouse gases, ranked in order from most to least, in terms of their accumulative planet-warming effect:
Water vapor
Carbon dioxide
Methane
Nitrous Oxide
Ozone
Trifluoromethane or "fluoroform"
Hexalfuoroethane
Sulfur Hexafluorid
Trichlorofluoromethane
Perfluorotributylamine and Sulfuryl Fluoride (a two-way tie for the 10th slot in the Greenhouse Gases "batting order")
This is a nice little summary, from Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D., at ThoughtCo., and it's fairly recent... January, 2020. Each of the greenhouse gases is described very briefly in plain language and accompanied by a thoughtfully chosen photograph or image.
Originally posted by rinselberg: The 10 most significant greenhouse gases, ranked in order from most to least, in terms of their accumulative planet-warming effect:
Water vapor
Carbon dioxide
Methane
Nitrous Oxide
Ozone
Trifluoromethane or "fluoroform"
Hexalfuoroethane
Sulfur Hexafluorid
Trichlorofluoromethane
Perfluorotributylamine and Sulfuryl Fluoride (a two-way tie for the 10th slot in the Greenhouse Gases "batting order")
I will give you a B- for that effort. It is weak.
Give us a scale. Give us a number.
If you would have taken more time to discern that hulla baloo, you would see that they only rated the percentage of water vapor. Why does it vary ? From 36% to 70% ? 36% ? What an interesting number.
Did you know, China is the #1 emitter of carbon dioxide in the world. 36%. The United States emits 11%. China and other countries are using more and more carbon dioxide. Using more and more fossil fuels.
Yet, your Green Cult seeks to force us at wallet point to start using world polluting electric vehicles, , .
Why does your hulla baloo not give facts ? Even allergy reports gives us ppm of the different "trigger" substances.
Is the CO2concentration .02%, like queers ? Like lesbians ? Like the transgender ? Like the bi sexual ? Gay ?
He's probably searching frantically to find quotes from "climate scientists" to parrot.
People like him have no thoughts of thier own, they exist in a "hive mind" (like the Borg), he must post your questions to the "collective" and wait for an appropriate response.
He's probably searching frantically to find quotes from "climate scientists" to parrot.
People like him have no thoughts of thier own, they exist in a "hive mind" (like the Borg), he must post your questions to the "collective" and wait for an appropriate response.
I guess "Fitz" is the first person to have ever said "I don't believe in the urgency, or even the priority for the world as a whole, including national governments, to take steps that are intended to reign in greenhouse gas-driven global warming." The first person to have said that, in those or similar words. Because "Fitz" is a man who truly has thoughts of his own. He couldn't possibly have been influenced by anyone else's revealed words on this topic.
Maybe he's been conducting his own research. Reviewing various meteorological records, and monitoring a small weather station that he's installed outdoors, next to his abode.
He's probably searching frantically to find quotes from "climate scientists" to parrot.
Yeah, it's ridiculous to be searching for data when it's so much easier to simply say it's all bullsh!t. I honestly don't know why rinselberg wastes his time trying to educate some of you guys. It's like trying to warn the dinosaurs of an upcoming end-times asteroid impact.
But to give this thread some needed levity... I present the following meme, with my last comment in mind.
I believe it's a Ford Mustang which was leaving an intergalactic Cars & Coffee.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 04-02-2023).]
This is a brief article—just a few paragraphs. If you've been active on this forum in any of these "climate change" or "global warming" conversations, this "one" is definitely for you!
I learned something from this article that I didn't know about, before.
Greenhouse gases "by the number"
If you assign the number "1" to carbon dioxide for its greenhouse effect, on the basis of a single molecule, methane is a "25", which means that a single methane molecule has 25 times more "greenhouse" than a single carbon dioxide molecule. Nitrous oxide is "298". The fluorinated greenhouse gases are even higher... sulfur hexafluoride is "22,800".
The reason that carbon dioxide is so important, compared to these other greenhouse gases, is its abundance in the atmosphere; its persistence in the atmosphere; and the fact that humans cause many times more carbon dioxide emissions, on a per molecule basis, than any of the other greenhouse gases that enter the atmosphere from human activities and processes.
rinselberg's critical thinking skills are not very good. Because he doesn't want to challenge what he's been told. He believes what they told him to believe reading articles which claim his beliefs are true.
Logic is not his long suit. He will never read something which challenges his views.
Originally posted by cliffw: Logic is not his long suit. He will never read something which challenges his views.
That's "rich".
Maybe I scrolled through it. Maybe I have some thoughts or questions about it. Maybe it's in the back of my mind to "drill down" on one or more points that were raised in this article.
Maybe it just doesn't seem important for me (as judged by me) to do or say anything more about it right now.
Government policies should be based on factual data, not predictions especially since the dire predictions from the last 100 years have been completely wrong.
First they called it Global Warming. It was easy for the sheep to believe their wild claims as most people have seen an ice cube melt. Why did they change Global Warming to Climate Change ?
All of the Climate Change's wild claims have been predicted for the sheeple, without one shred of factual data to explain how it can happen. Not one of those wild claims have been proven to be true. Again, (you will need to use logic) how is two degrees going to make a rat's azz ? The temperature varies that much between Bandera and San Antonio, 40 miles. The temperature varies 10 to 30 degrees between Texas and Michigan. No one is dying. Crops are growing.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 04-04-2023).]
It's called "climate change" now, as I've explained in a earlier post, so that nobody can challenge it.
People could refute "global warming", very easily btw, mostly because it wasn't getting warmer anywhere on the globe and people started to notice.
So they came up with"climate change", because who can argue the climate doesn't change? It does. And has been since the Earth had an climate.
The con artists work in symantics, all con artists do to convince their "mark(s)" that the information their being expected to believe is true, basically "the information I'm about to reveal it true, and here's a bunch of reasons why" then they let loose on a tirade of buzzwords and "facts", some of which are based in truth (because most lies are based on some bit of truth), and others that are complete fabrications, because who can prove otherwise, they prepared graphs. Because they're "scientists, and everyone knows scientists would NEVER lie" (except about anything and everything, if there's enough grant money involved).
And those who are open to the lie, and want to believe (because it may line up with something they "suspected", or something they heard at one time by someone in a position of "authority"), will believe. Even if it goes against their own observations, which become skewed to fit the lie they heard, and they start to rationalize and justify it in their own mind, that's when it becomes true to them. (this also happens to explain the "transgendered", but that's another topic altogether).
The same happened with the "scamdemic", those in positions of "authority" changed the names of the common cold and influenza to "covid19".
And those who were open to "the lie", fell for it.
Why do you think they were able to get nearly the entire world to wear masks so easily? Because the majority of people, believed the lie, those who were "on the fence" took their cues from the rest of the sheep, and because of most people's need for "acceptance from their peers", they followed suit and did the same.
And then they completed the con by convincing their marks (the ignorant of the world), that everything they said was true and for the marks own good (all cons generally involve playing on the marks well being, even if it's against their better judgement), to follow their orders if they wanted to "live", because any deviation from their orders would result in a horrible death (which they reported in horrific detail, and of course were NOT TRUE), to really sell the con.
People began to rationalize it, justify it, and because they were fed a steady stream of propaganda on the "glass teat" (aka, television), of people allegedly dropping dead in the streets, ER's being reported as "overflowing with the sick and dying" (which was a lie), everybody was dying from "covid19" (the buzzword), even people who died from other reasons were listed as "covid19" deaths.
Got shot in the head and died? Covid19. Had a heart attack and died? Covid19. Got into an accident and were killed? Definitely covid19.
These are the "examples" used to scare the mark and used to say "see we told you, death numbers are through the roof, and if you don't want to die too, you better do as we say" (convincing the marks it was for their own good).
And then came the reason for the con, to get people to take poison, aka the "vaxxine", for an ailment that, turns out, WAS the seasonal cold and flu rebranded and wasn't nearly as "deadly" as they claimed.
Why do you suppose there were nearly ZERO deaths from influenza during the height of the "covid" con?
Where did the common cold and flu go? Are they saying that "covid19" CURED the cold and flu?
Which leads us back to "climate change (aka, globull warming)", these terms are no longer scary to most because they've heard them a better part of their lives.
Their control over people was waning, time to "up the ante", time move on to the next phase of the con job.
The reason behind the "scamdemic" was to get people to take their poison, by choice, by the marks own hand, freely, to make them think they did it to save others, to be "heroes". And also freeing the perpetrators of any and all responsibility for mass murder and genocide/
And why?
To depopulate the planet all in the name of "climate change", to "save" mother Earth. The ultimate "sacrifice" in the name of "science", and the marks would know they saved the world.
And those who remain, that didn't fall for the CON, will be controlled by the powers that be for all time.
Or so they think...
[This message has been edited by Fitz301 (edited 04-05-2023).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: "This graphic explains why 2 degrees of global warming will be way worse than 1.5" David Roberts for Vox; October 7, 2018. https://www.vox.com/energy-...grees-climate-change
Are you always bamboozeled by bullzhit ? Are you trying to bamboozel me ? Why was not the graph you posted in that article ?
Graph ?
quote
Originally posted by Fitz301: The con artists work in symantics, all con artists do to convince their "mark(s)" that the information their being expected to believe is true, basically "the information I'm about to reveal it true, and here's a bunch of reasons why" then they let loose on a tirade of buzzwords and "facts", some of which are based in truth (because most lies are based on some bit of truth), and others that are complete fabrications, because who can prove otherwise They prepare graphs. Because they're "scientists, and everyone knows scientists would NEVER lie" (except about anything and everything, if there's enough grant money involved).
Of course you the Greenies claim they have facts. They make wild claim predictions of future outcomes (with the necessary scare factor). Yet, there is no data, year by year, decade by decade, century by century, of the amount of past devastation to the Earth. In none of the categories that your article included. They have a projected models, , of future devastation. Not mentioning not one of the projected models they claimed has come true.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: The meaning of "two degrees"... it does not mean that each day, everywhere, is just mildly warmer than before.
What does it mean ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: On top of that, these references to "two degrees" are two degrees (warmer) Celsius, which is 3.6 degrees (warmer) Fahrenheit.
That Celsius claim you make is more smoke and mirrors. It is made by the IPCC, who use the metric system. Converted from our claims. Remember, we invented Global Warming.
By the way, where does the IPPC's budget money come from ? Break it down.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 04-04-2023).]
He always posts "facts, figures & graphs" about the CON, let's see graphs about how much money these so-called "scientists" are receiving and where this money is actually going?
More importantly, where is this money coming from, and by whom.
[This message has been edited by Fitz301 (edited 04-04-2023).]
Well, I guess we are just going to have to give up all personal transportation and kill all the animals because....you know, methane and CO2. They fart and burp and it's offensive so I'm told.
Coconuts just wont do it. I want a Percheron. Anybody got a watermelon or 2 handy ???
Well, I guess we are just going to have to give up all personal transportation and kill all the animals because....you know, methane and CO2. They fart and burp and it's offensive so I'm told.
Coconuts just wont do it. I want a Percheron. Anybody got a watermelon or 2 handy ???
(Yes, thats sarcasm)
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 04-04-2023).]
Maybe I scrolled through it. Maybe I have some thoughts or questions about it. Maybe it's in the back of my mind to "drill down" on one or more points that were raised in this article.
Maybe it just doesn't seem important for me (as judged by me) to do or say anything more about it right now.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw:
Maybe ? Probably not.
There is a lot in the article which should convince you your thoughts have been wrong.
It may not be evident to you, but, you can not convince us of your Gawds scam, without ...
We have always tried to convince you of your "proof" being flawed. Yet, you can not even make a weak challenge to our logic to your beliefs.
Here's a guy who seems not at all optimistic about the prospects for Small Modular (Nuclear) Reactors.
Here's a guy who is a poseur that has ZERO formal education or credentials in nuclear power.
Just the kind of "expurt" that Leftists love.
Really makes Todd's point for him....how timely.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Completely agree. Whenever you see responses to nuclear power on say, Twitter or anywhere else... and it's NOT a bot, the responses are totally asinine. They are so confident about that which they are so absurdly wrong about... saying that they don't want a Hiroshima or Nagisaki... like... really? Do you not recognize the difference between a nuclear power plant and an atomic bomb? And then they brag about being so well educated and intelligent because they have a bachelors degree in a totally worthless program from some **** school no one has ever heard of.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 04-05-2023).]
since demoncraps took over...
