Teenager Thunberg angrily tells U.N. climate summit 'you have stolen my dreams'

[GalaxyMan]

3 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

The 'answer' is right there and has been for a long long time.  Nuclear energy to generate electricity is obviously the way to go.  Just look it up in Google and you will see that many years ago it was obviously the way to go - and it still is.  But the same emotional rubbish that was used to create irrational fear in people's minds about nuclear power, is now being used to demand we build 'green' power stations that use solar and are made from elves tits.  All of that irrational rubbish needs to be shut down in mainstream society and pushed back to where it belongs - amongst the fring dwellers of society - the ones that demand we all live in trees/caves and die of appendicitis or tooth decay.  Funny isn't it - the same nutters who are so 'rational' and 'scientific' about Religion and God, are completely irrational and unscientific about nuclear power.  Nuclear generation of electricity using Thorium is an alternative to uranium, and the technology to  use Thorium has been around since the 1960s (but it doesnt make nuclear bombs).  Nuclear Fission is the solution to the world's electricity needs now and Nuclear Fusion is the future.  

If it weren't for the waste issue, I'd agree. As to the future, clean (green) energy should be the only way forward. Anything else is just stupid. The sun is there and will be for a few billion more years. Need to harness that energy.

 

BTW: Kudos to Greta Thunberg. That little lady is a rock star. Incredible poise.

[samran]

6 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

The 'answer' is right there and has been for a long long time.  Nuclear energy to generate electricity is obviously the way to go.  Just look it up in Google and you will see that many years ago it was obviously the way to go - and it still is.  But the same emotional rubbish that was used to create irrational fear in people's minds about nuclear power, is now being used to demand we build 'green' power stations that use solar and are made from elves tits.  All of that irrational rubbish needs to be shut down in mainstream society and pushed back to where it belongs - amongst the fring dwellers of society - the ones that demand we all live in trees/caves and die of appendicitis or tooth decay.  Funny isn't it - the same nutters who are so 'rational' and 'scientific' about Religion and God, are completely irrational and unscientific about nuclear power.  Nuclear generation of electricity using Thorium is an alternative to uranium, and the technology to  use Thorium has been around since the 1960s (but it doesnt make nuclear bombs).  Nuclear Fission is the solution to the world's electricity needs now and Nuclear Fusion is the future.  

Just as long as we can store the waste in your back yard then.

[AussieBob18]

7 minutes ago, GalaxyMan said:

If it weren't for the waste issue, I'd agree. As to the future, clean (green) energy should be the only way forward. Anything else is just stupid. The sun is there and will be for a few billion more years. Need to harness that energy.

 

BTW: Kudos to Greta Thunberg. That little lady is a rock star. Incredible poise.

 

4 minutes ago, samran said:

Just as long as we can store the waste in your back yard then.

Storage of waste 'fear' is a sign of the irrational fear that has been created around nuclear energy.  I understand why you both think that way - but you are wrong.   The issue is 'nuclear power generation' - the generation of electricity using nuclear power - the issue is not the waste created by using Uranium in nuclear power. 

 

This article will say a little more about Thorium, but the reason uranium was used (USA and Russia) was because it created plutonium for nuclear bombs.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

 

And on top of that there are many safe ways to store nuclear waste now - have you heard of any big disasters involving stored nuclear waste - except in holloywood disaster movies?  And yet there has been heaps of holloywood climate change disaster movies - and all are entertyaining - but all are <deleted>.  And there are other options besides Thorium.  The whole nuclear energy debate has been corrupted - just like the climate change debate.

 

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

And on top of that there are many safe ways to store nuclear waste now - have you heard of any big disasters involving stored nuclear waste - except in holloywood disaster movies?

Pls allow us, or at least, me, to be a bit skeptical about the safe storing of nuclear waste.

There have been insistent rumours for years about careless storage of waste, and lately, my faith in the honesty of the humans is not increasing a bit.

[RideJocky]

Just as long as we can store the waste in your back yard then.

Of course there’s no waste from decommissioned solar panels and batteries...

[RideJocky]

You asked for "any idea" and i answered.
If my answer is meaningless to you, (i guess you mean to say that ) that's fair enough.

I asked how they made money from it, but thanks for trying.

[RideJocky]

Who gets to decide who has children or not? 

The same people you want deciding who gets a car and air conditioning and who doesn’t.

[Bluespunk]

5 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

The same people you want deciding who gets a car and air conditioning and who doesn’t.

 

I haven’t done that. 
 

Deary deary me, trying to portray wanting less environmentally damaging alternative energy sources as taking things away. 

[Nyezhov]

50 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

Nuclear energy to generate electricity is obviously the way to go. 

Naw dude ya see, generate cheap electricity 24/7 and fill up all those electric cars and create plenty of grren jobs would ruin the ecofascist dreams to rule the proles...

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, Nyezhov said:

Naw dude ya see, generate cheap electricity 24/7 and fill up all those electric cars and create plenty of grren jobs would ruin the ecofascist dreams to rule the proles...

Hi Nyevhov are you turning communist ? Everything ok with you ?

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

You choose to doubt, you really have no clue as to what they are willing to do. 
 

As to your claim you have a solution, you really don’t. Who gets to decide who has children or not? 
 

Which failed path do you wish to retread? That of the eugenics movement or China’s one child policy?

Not my only solution. I have many times in the past given many solutions. Seems none of the man made climate supporters has any ideas or practical solutions, and if they have posted them I haven't read them, which would be strange as I read all the climate threads.

I notice you haven't posted any solution in your reply, so I repeat my question. What are your solutions?

 

No, I don't know what they are willing to do because they have not said what they are willing to do, which seems strange. Surely such clever children would have some viable solutions, or perhaps they don't actually know and are just talking a day off school to make a noise.

 

Who gets to decide who has children or not? 

Gaia does, when disease, a volcanic eruption, or a tsunami kills hundreds of thousands, or maybe millions.

 

BTW, the China one child policy didn't fail- they just stopped it too soon to say if it did or not. To know would require several generations.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, samran said:

Just as long as we can store the waste in your back yard then.

Waste storage is simple but the governments don't want to spend the money on digging deep shafts to put it down. They don't get exotic holidays to gossip about climate change if they spend the money on safe nuclear waste storage.

[Bluespunk]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Not my only solution. I have many times in the past given many solutions. Seems none of the man made climate supporters has any ideas or practical solutions, and if they have posted them I haven't read them, which would be strange as I read all the climate threads.

I notice you haven't posted any solution in your reply, so I repeat my question. What are your solutions?

 

No, I don't know what they are willing to do because they have not said what they are willing to do, which seems strange. Surely such clever children would have some viable solutions, or perhaps they don't actually know and are just talking a day off school to make a noise.

 

Who gets to decide who has children or not? 

Gaia does, when disease, a volcanic eruption, or a tsunami kills hundreds of thousands, or maybe millions.

 

BTW, the China one child policy didn't fail- they just stopped it too soon to say if it did or not. To know would require several generations.

You have on a number of occasions postulated there are too many people and this is a cause of the current climate problems.

 

So I ask you again, how will you achieve this?

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, Bluespunk said:

You have on a number of occasions postulated there are too many people and this is a cause of the current climate problems.

 

So I ask you again, how will you achieve this?

One world government.

Don't complain if you don't like the answer, and don't say it's not possible. Who knows what will happen if the climate alarmists are correct and the sky does indeed fall and the oceans wash over us?

[thaibeachlovers]

PS, you still haven't given a single solution yourself. in response to my question. So, what is your solution?

[Bluespunk]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

One world government.

Don't complain if you don't like the answer, and don't say it's not possible. Who knows what will happen if the climate alarmists are correct and the sky does indeed fall and the oceans wash over us?

It's not alarmist, it's the truth.

 

Now you are entering your fantasy solution of a world government. How do they solve the "problem". Eugenics and the one child policy of China both failed. So how do they choose-what will they do?

 

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

PS, you still haven't given a single solution yourself. in response to my question. So, what is your solution?

Give me a proper answer and I will provide you with reams of links to things we need to do.

[rabas]

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Pls allow us, or at least, me, to be a bit skeptical about the safe storing of nuclear waste.

There have been insistent rumours for years about careless storage of waste, and lately, my faith in the honesty of the humans is not increasing a bit.

 

Fusion. No, really.

 

Polywell is one of several projects working on practical small scale fusion reactors, which with proper funding could come on line much faster than massive international fusion projects like Tokamaks. Unfortunately, these smaller projects are underfunded because the  Tokamaks eat all the money keeping many scientists and companies well fed. A useful Polywell reactor could fit in my living room or a submarine, the US navy has contributed funds to Polywell.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell

 

[RideJocky]

I haven’t done that. 
 
Deary deary me, trying to portray wanting less environmentally damaging alternative energy sources as taking things away. 

Sorry, my bad.

[samran]

2 hours ago, AussieBob18 said:

 

Storage of waste 'fear' is a sign of the irrational fear that has been created around nuclear energy.  I understand why you both think that way - but you are wrong.   The issue is 'nuclear power generation' - the generation of electricity using nuclear power - the issue is not the waste created by using Uranium in nuclear power. 

 

This article will say a little more about Thorium, but the reason uranium was used (USA and Russia) was because it created plutonium for nuclear bombs.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

 

And on top of that there are many safe ways to store nuclear waste now - have you heard of any big disasters involving stored nuclear waste - except in holloywood disaster movies?  And yet there has been heaps of holloywood climate change disaster movies - and all are entertyaining - but all are <deleted>.  And there are other options besides Thorium.  The whole nuclear energy debate has been corrupted - just like the climate change debate.

 

Read your own article. The technology is largely experimental and uncosted, oh and still produces plutonium. 

 

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Waste storage is simple but the governments don't want to spend the money on digging deep shafts to put it down. They don't get exotic holidays to gossip about climate change if they spend the money on safe nuclear waste storage.

So, deep ‘safe’ storage in both of your backyards then? Being the leading proponents of it and all...

[GalaxyMan]

7 minutes ago, samran said:

 

So, deep ‘safe’ storage in your backyards then? Being the leading proponents of it and all...

Yes, that 50,000-year half-life isn't anything to worry about, is it? ???? Fusion would be a far better alternative. Very little in the way of waste by-products, I believe. I still prefer solar, though I see it as huge collectors in orbit, beaming down a steady supply of electricity planet-wide. There are just no cons, as there are with fission or fusion.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

It's not alarmist, it's the truth.

 

Now you are entering your fantasy solution of a world government. How do they solve the "problem". Eugenics and the one child policy of China both failed. So how do they choose-what will they do?

 

Give me a proper answer and I will provide you with reams of links to things we need to do.

I'm not interested in links. I can google as well as anyone. As someone that has criticised me for my solution, I want to know what yours is. Do you even have one?

 

Why do you say the China policy failed when it hadn't been going long enough to know? I said that before, but you chose to repeat the same thing. Saying something over and over doesn't make it true.

[thaibeachlovers]

29 minutes ago, samran said:

So, deep ‘safe’ storage in both of your backyards then? Being the leading proponents of it and all...

So, your answer to a rational solution is mockery?

 

Any one with a brain cell knows that nuclear waste has to be stored in deep shafts in a geologically stable area. Unfortunately no government seems to want to do the work. Probably because there are no votes in it and all our governments only do things for the next election cycle. There are no statesmen anymore, IMO.

[thaibeachlovers]

28 minutes ago, GalaxyMan said:

Yes, that 50,000-year half-life isn't anything to worry about, is it? ???? Fusion would be a far better alternative. Very little in the way of waste by-products, I believe. I still prefer solar, though I see it as huge collectors in orbit, beaming down a steady supply of electricity planet-wide. There are just no cons, as there are with fission or fusion.

Work out a way that politicians can get elected by putting your solar collectors up there, and there will be masses of them going into orbit before you can say lotsatax.

[samran]

28 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So, your answer to a rational solution is mockery?

 

Any one with a brain cell knows that nuclear waste has to be stored in deep shafts in a geologically stable area. Unfortunately no government seems to want to do the work. Probably because there are no votes in it and all our governments only do things for the next election cycle. There are no statesmen anymore, IMO.

Not mockery. At the end of the day, it is someone's backyard - I was just wondering if you were happy if it was yours (and you haven't answered that, but I suspect you are an NIMBY given your avoidance).

 

As for the storage option, like a lot of things, nuclear has its proponents, but the its expensive as hell when you take into account the entire life cycle and the storage isn't as cheap as people think it will be. I still haven't seen an organization (country, company religion or government) last 50,000 years which will be needed to monitor the waste, so until you show me that, the idea is shonky as far as I, and many others are concerned. We can't even fully figure out what the dead sea scrolls from 3000 years ago are telling us, so how is a civilization 50,000 years hence going to know what to do with a faded yellow and black nuclear hazard sign?

 

A decentralised, renewables based power grid is the way of the future, with households generating the vast bulk of their power via solar, selling the rest to the grid. Battery technology is now at a point where you can balance that load out across the day making wind technology more viable. Add in good old energy efficiency technologies, and we are starting to go places.

 

For industry, economics I suspect will soon dictate that they migrate to special industral zones near old school coal mines (with mine mouth power) or with natural gas sources, but without the huge (and expensive) poles and wire infrastructure. While they still have a part to play, they'll be a much smaller portion of the entire fuel mix, and thus with lower carbon footprints. And even this can be offset with a reasonable carbon tax which could ensure that any economy could ultimately be carbon neutral, as opposed to carbonless.

 

The industry is way ahead, and investing as such. All the while, you blokes, are still for whatever reason fighting what amounts to a culture war on this, and picking on 16 year old girls. So proud you all must be.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, samran said:

At the end of the day, it is someone's backyard

OK, so digging a hole under the Nullarbor desert where no one lives is in who's backyard, exactly.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, samran said:

picking on 16 year old girls. So proud you all must be.

A 16 year old girl that is old enough to have sex, drive a car, leave home and get a job, travel the ocean on a sail boat and address the UN. Seems fair game to me. If she can't take a bit of stick, she should have stayed at home. No one forced her to address the UN, did they, and if she is as clever as they say she is, she should have known what the reaction would be.

[mauGR1]

9 minutes ago, samran said:

The industry is way ahead, and investing as such. All the while, you blokes, are still for whatever reason fighting what amounts to a culture war on this, and picking on 16 year old girls. So proud you all must be.

Good post, but in the last 2 or 3 pages i haven't seen a negative comment against Greta, have you noticed ?

Oh, well, perhaps i spoke too fast.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Good post, but in the last 2 or 3 pages i haven't seen a negative comment against Greta, have you noticed ?

Oh, well, perhaps i spoke too fast.

‘In the last 2 or 3 pages’.

 

In an 83 page thread.

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

A 16 year old girl that is old enough to have sex, drive a car, leave home and get a job, travel the ocean on a sail boat and address the UN. Seems fair game to me. If she can't take a bit of stick, she should have stayed at home. No one forced her to address the UN, did they, and if she is as clever as they say she is, she should have known what the reaction would be.

Well, if not for Greta, we (and millions around the globe) would not be having this discussion, so, let's give her at least a little consideration.

She is deserving a lot of respect for her bravery, and she's only 16, can't expect her to think like a 60 yrs old.

[thaibeachlovers]

8 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, if not for Greta, we (and millions around the globe) would not be having this discussion, so, let's give her at least a little consideration.

She is deserving a lot of respect for her bravery, and she's only 16, can't expect her to think like a 60 yrs old.

IMO that's the problem. Adults are treating her as though she is an adult and actually knows stuff. However, 16 year olds haven't been around long enough to actually know much about anything. They don't have the maturity to know that they don't know anything either.