Jump to content

Post your #FaceTheClimateEmergency pic!


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 130 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

i had but three hashers.. and the price to run them and the amount of heat was outrageous. I was almost able to heat my apartment in the winter off the heat they put out.

if I knew how I could have made a small heat based electrical plant and probably made more money from the energy that was being produced then the coins I was minting out through the hashers.

humans truly do some stupid things at times..

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Because the facts don't support her political agenda, of course. If it somehow contradicts her beliefs, it's . . .  

Daily reminder that your radiation exposure will be lower swimming in the coolant tank of a nuclear power station than it is living within something like 20 miles of a coal fired power station. So lon

Activists, scientists and people from all walks of life (and second life) are currently signing an open letter to the EU and global leaders. In a nutshell this letter demands that the climate cri

Posted Images

It took me a while, but I am now convinced of the fact of human-caused climate change.  However, I won't sign the petition and won't join a protest group and won't do a letter writing campaign.  I will do what I can, personally, to reduce my carbon and energy footprint (without giving up too many modern conveniences).

As a species, here are some of the things we need to cut way back on.

  • fossil fuel use
  • plastics
  • concrete
  • air travel
  • eating meat
  • chemical fertilizers (there are farming methods now that use no plowing and very limited fertilizers.)

And here are some positive things to do.

  • plant trees
  • eat legumes
  • adopt wind and tidal and solar power
  • adopt nuclear power (we can now make reactors that CAN'T melt down like Fukushima or Chernobyl)
  • live in a smaller home
  • insulate your home better

While it would make a statement to give up air conditioning, I think a lot of us won't be able to.  As the world gets hotter, we're going to need MORE air conditioned spaces (and yeah, I know that's a vicious cycle.)

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a shame that this thread wasn't used for its purpose, which was to post pics of your avi with the hash-tag generator at https://climateemergencyeu.org/#pbgen

But I came to understand that most people didn't read the original post, or let alone the open letter.

More important it seems to be to press the agenda of the nuclear energy lobby.

You should be proud of yourself. The nuclear power lobby thanks you.

Let's talk frank, shall we not.

I mean, why give up all of these important modern conveniences, when we can fix everything so very easily.

Need more powah for your A/C? Not a problem, my corn-fed comrade: Just build a nuclear power plant!

And hey, all those stories about Tschernobyl and Fukushima are totally exaggerated fake news anyway.

Let me tell ya. It's all not really a problem.

Heck. I'd love to live in Tschernobyl myself!

Not so warm in the summers, and such a nice place to take long walks. This is where we love to send our three-legged kids to school!

Nuclear power? Waste that needs to be maintained by far-future civilizations for hundreds of thousands of years?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Please be more noble, be more responsible, and build your own informed opinions instead of regurgitating populist junk-info that your telly feed to you.

Your brains have the same size as mine. Yes. You can make use of it. No. Power that creates toxic waste that destroys everything it touches and takes hundreds of thousands of years to dissolve is a bad thing. No. That's not fake news or an opinion. It's a fact. If you don't believe me, go ahead and rub your butt on a fuel rod - as long as you keep your pants on what could possibly happen? I promise you that you won't get pregnant.

tl;dr - the solution to everything is not nuclear energy, or God forbid renewable energy, it is to keep your pants on. Easy fix. Jesus loves you.

RIP thread.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Orwar said:

   This. And it's not just Germany. Green parties all over Europe have a religious hatred for nuclear power - why 'religious'? Because it's irrational and ideological against all scientific evidence. The general public just don't know better, they expect any nuclear reactor to go Chernobyl or Fukushima on them at any given moment without warning and basically seem to think that nuclear power plants are little more than dirty bombs with a timer set to random.

   The way people spoke about nuclear power after the HBO series Chernobyl was, to say the least, alarming. People don't seem able to differentiate between fact and fiction.

   "So the emotional impact of the miniseries was spot-on while the scientific impact wasn’t much better than The Simpson’s.
   Too bad. Chernobyl appears to be the highest rated show of all time on IMdb and was the best opportunity we had yet to get this right for the public, to tamp down the fearmongering of radiation that has killed more people than radiation ever has.
" - Forbes

   And probably on the same hype wave, Netflix decided to tackle the issue of nuclear power in their 'History 101' series:

   "FALSE: HAVING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS EQUALS HAVING NUCLEAR WEAPONS CAPABILITIES
   FACT: NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ARE NOT USED TO MAKE NUCLEAR WEAPONS

   "Toward the end of the episode, the narrator states that “if you have a nuclear power plant, you also have the means to make a nuclear weapon.”
This is not true. A commercial nuclear power plant is designed, constructed, and built to do one thing— produce heat and electricity." - US Energy Department, through energy.gov 
   Article: 
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-things-netflix-got-wrong-about-nuclear-power-its-history-101-series

   Furthermore, Germany's current anti-nuclear stance isn't an issue of the Merkel regime 'caring about the climate', it's just a political gambit; if they have as strict an anti-nuclear policy as the green party, they can level the playing field against a populist opponent to try stabilizing their rule (in Sweden the Social Democrats did basically the same, they made a deal with the green party to give them the minister posts relevant to climate - of course, with the green party now barely making it into government as they don't have that all-important one question to tackle anymore, the Social Democrats are hoping that people will make the shorter move to their party, than to go all the way over to the opposing conservative bloc). 

   It's a shame, really - I really do believe that our species is causing a climate change that will have catastrophic effects both on ourselves and on multitudes of other species of life adapted to what the world is like today; but the governing politicians in Europe are a bunch of machiavellian swine. 

   So, here's to facing the climate emergency.

 

Reiche die Apokalypse

 

I had seen something on this a little while back..

This guy has lots of fun facts and information,but also does lots of other stuff on his channel as well..

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not seeing the fun or the facts.

ProTip™: If you are currently happy with your YT algorithm, have an academic level of education, and generally agree with my statements - play this video in a private browser window - and voila your YT algorithm won't get polluted with alt-right and low-brow channel suggestions after clicking through vapor video links! 😘

Link to post
Share on other sites

Daily reminder that your radiation exposure will be lower swimming in the coolant tank of a nuclear power station than it is living within something like 20 miles of a coal fired power station. So long as you keep 5-6ft away from the rods.

Okay, so serious post:

You cannot run a national power grid on intermittent power sources, like solar or wind. That's just an unavoidable fact of life. You need a source of power that can intentionally vary its output to meet demand, irrespective of the environmental conditions, else you are entirely at the mercy of factors outside your control. 

As an example, in the UK we have had a few individual days where our coal fired power stations went dark. Our demand was met by the handful of nuclear power stations we have churning out a baseline load, natural gas stations providing a large portion, and renewables (especially wind) providing the majority of that day's power. But only a handful of such days. Those coal fired stations are required for the other 350 days a year, varying output to meet demand and the variable output of our renewables.

Remember that power networks have to produce electricity that almost exactly matches demand, within tight constraints. You can't just overproduce for a while, and build up a surplus for a rainy day, that's not how it works (and no, the vanity project that is Telsa's battery farms do not count).

Traditionally, load following power has been met with fossil fuel powered stations. Modern nuclear power stations can now also fill that role. So can geothermal power, although that's heavily restricted by the location of hot water reservoirs; I don't think we've worked out how to do that with hydro, but hydro causes an ecological disaster every single time it's been attempted, so is not without cost anyway - and entirely reliant on geography. Even if you do choose to fully exploit geothermal and hydroelectric power, you will still need a load following power source to fill the peak gap between your geo/hydro baseline and the lower output of wind/solar. And currently, your choices are nuclear or burning stuff. If you care about the planet, the choice is simple.

Burning non-fossil fuel power sources such as refuse is killing the planet too, and astronomically more dangerous for nearby people than even coal. People need to stop suggesting this as a solution. It's not. If we can solve the water problem, biofuels where absolutely necessary (eg flight) would be fine and a massive upgrade over fossil fuels, but it's not viable for mass power generation. 

And on the nuclear waste issue; coal fired power stations produce more weight of nuclear waste per unit of electricity than nuclear. Unlike nuclear, that waste is not kept in solid fuel that is easily contained and stored, but pumped into the atmosphere, into the air we all breathe. Sure, storage is a problem that we need to tackle... but as it stands, a single facility in Finland can easily cope with all current and past nuclear waste and still have a vast amount of capacity left over. There's just... not that much of it to deal with.

Oh, and modern nuclear power stations literally cannot cause a disaster like Chernobyl, Long Island or Fukushima. The fission reaction collapses rather than spiralling out of control when things go wrong... sure, someone is left with one hell of a repair bill, as the reactor itself gets tanked in the process, but that's a worthwhile tradeoff for obvious reasons.

And I haven't even begun to mention the fact that we don't, globally, produce enough rare earth metals to actually transition to solar, let alone to electric cars or battery technology, even if there was the political will. Because, you know... rare earth metals are rare. And the California mine is pretty much dead, so we're reliant on China.

So yes, we do need nuclear power stations as part of a broader approach to energy generation. There is no "one source fits all" approach, and while nuclear is not a perfect source of power generation, it's by far the 'least bad' option for that part of the chain. 

...but what we really need to be doing is dumping a boatload of money into fusion research. If we can crack that, we solve the energy generation question and the waste generation question in one go. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please stop pushing political messages through your paid products.  If you want to do that - make a free version of them.

Sincerely,

One of the many annoyed by your unsolicited spam.

PS. And for the love of god - please get educated.

 

cxQoPYP.png

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

It its own strange and mysterious way. it truly is. she allows us to learn from our mistakes like any true parent while giving hints, but not directly calling us out for being dumb and not learning before we do something totally stupid.

i suppose you mean this as some kind of metaphor

i always find it a little odd tho when we assign sentience, even if metaphorically, to the planet because there are sentient beings on it. The planet could possibly be sentient, just that I have seen any measurable evidence of it yet

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Wendy Starfall said:

I'm not seeing the fun or the facts.

The YouTube video posted by @Ceka Cianci was actually quite factual so, not sure why you said it wasn't.

I was involved in the design stages of a Wind Farm in Australia and what the video said about wind farms is correct. They take up vast amounts of land and need to have all tall vegetation removed as well as wildlife control. The also give out electro-magnetic interference etc. which has an effect not only on health but also radio, internet and tv band spectrums. Additionally, with the wind farm I was involved in which, cost a total of around $700 million all up for all stages covering a total land space of around 5000 hectares, it can only provide power (non stop) for at most 150,000 Houses.

Looking at North America alone, in 2019 it had 128.58 million households (one group that occupy a housing unit). Going by this and using the windfarm I worked at as an example it would mean, to rely on wind farms only as a power source for the USA would require not only an amount equal to about $590.9 Billion but would also mean a total land space needed of about 4,286,000 hectares. To put it in perspective this is about 4000 square miles bigger than the entire state of Maryland. Battery tech is no where near where it needs to be, both capacity wise as well as deterioration wise) to solely rely on solar or wind or to mitigate the cost and/or land space needed. Not to mention the carbon footprint the construction has as well.

This is the prime reason why renewable energy of solar and wind are considered always to compliment major power generation facilities be that Coal, Gas or Nuclear.

I don't think anyone would disagree with people saying our climate is changing for the worse, but until someone comes up with a viable cost effective and truly environmentally friendly (that doesn't destroy vegetation by huge areas) power generation method our climate will not improve. At the moment Nuclear or India's Thorium reactors are the best for this, but unfortunately as people have mentioned are considered to risky now due to freak accidents.

I think people can also agree that a prime example of the extremities we will need to go to help reduce the speed of the climate change or mitigate it was seen during the lockdowns recently where we saw, in order for the planet to start to heal pollution wise, everything be that manufacture or travel needed to come to a complete standstill, ironically except power generation.

So I am with others. No signing any petition or creating a pic for me until that petition categorically explains how we can stop pollution without economically crippling the world, destroying our current living standard and not adversely affect the environment to also help it.

Edited by Drayke Newall
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wendy Starfall said:

I'm not seeing the fun or the facts.

ProTip™: If you are currently happy with your YT algorithm, have an academic level of education, and generally agree with my statements - play this video in a private browser window - and voila your YT algorithm won't get polluted with alt-right and low-brow channel suggestions after clicking through vapor video links! 😘

I was referring to his channel more than anything when saying fun facts.. From what I've seen of his channel so far he doesn't seem to get too political..

The video was posted because I was replying to someone else in the thread and saying, I had seen something similar said awhile back..

As for where you are trying to take what I posted..

Just a regular ole tip: Trying to insult someone right out of the gate might be satisfying for that moment, But now the moment is gone and you've shot your load..

Now you'll never know How great things could have been.. I feel so used!! \o/

 

hehehehe

 

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Wendy Starfall said:

Activists, scientists and people from all walks of life (and second life) are currently signing an open letter to the EU and global leaders.

Great project!  Sometimes I think we may be heading for extinction, but in the end I'd rather be hanging out with people at least trying to make the world a better place than those who don't give a damn.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Drayke Newall said:

The YouTube video posted by @Ceka Cianci was actually quite factual so, not sure why you said it wasn't.

   Because the facts don't support her political agenda, of course. If it somehow contradicts her beliefs, it's . . .

6 hours ago, Wendy Starfall said:

alt-right and low-brow

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Lindal Kidd said:

adopt nuclear power (we can now make reactors that CAN'T melt down like Fukushima or Chern

It wasn't even that reactors could melt down; they were defective parts and governments knew it too.  The rods were defective.  Plus, in California, trucks take the nuclear waste and dump it out in the desert.   This was most likely from our San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant in California where the waste was taken in containers and buried out in the desert.  The San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant was unsafe and was finally shut down after decades of "trying" and I hope remains so as it's on an earthquake fault-line too.   I believe Karen Silkwood was murdered because she was trying to tell the truth.   I noticed none of you mentioned the movie "Silkwood".  

Where do you propose to store this nuclear waste?  

For those of you who don't know, part of California is the Mojave Desert.  Lots of nuclear waste against the will of the people is buried in the Mojave Desert of California.  

I'd vote for partial brown-outs after 9 pm before Nuclear Plants with nuclear waste.  

Edited by FairreLilette
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Nick0678 said:

aylj2aX.png

   Whilst that is true, Europe and Northern America have a long history of pollution whereas China's industrialisation is relatively late. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

ok.. so china and the usa need to go.. nuke-em both! :P

Nah but it is rather interesting if you think that actually these days everything is made in china , the u.s industry same as the european one are practically non existent still the CO2 levels are high.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Nick0678 said:

Nah but it is rather interesting if you think that actually these days everything is made in china , the u.s industry same as the european one are practically non existent still the CO2 levels are high.

Yeah but that's 50 states for the 14% and it looks like at least 1% if not 2% for each country in Europe.  So, it's Europe that must go then.   Jeeeeeeesh, Europe is way high.  No wonder it's the EU being asked.  It's like 50% or more.  

Edited by FairreLilette
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

Yeah but that's 50 states for the 14% and it looks like at least 1% for each country in Europe.  So, it's Europe that must go then.  

Well i only see 4 Countries there that can be controlled by EU guidance's, that's Germany, Italy, France and Poland and make a total of 5%.

The rest might be located in European Continent but are not in the European Union same as Canada isn't part of the United States.. UK has left the EU.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Nick0678 said:

Well i only see 4 Countries there that can be controlled by EU guidance's, that's Germany, Italy, France and Poland and make a total of 5%.

The rest might be located in European Continent but are not in the European Union same as Canada isn't part of the United States.. UK has left the EU.

 

 Europe with 44 countries is the 50% or more I meant.  How many countries are in Europe?  44?  

I thought there were more countries in the EU than those mentioned above? 

Oh well, I gotta get going for real life stuffs.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FairreLilette said:

 Europe with 44 countries is the 50% or more I meant.  How many countries are in Europe?  44?  

I thought there were more countries in the EU than those mentioned above? 

Oh well, I gotta get going for real life stuffs.  

You need to understand the difference between EUROPE and EUROPEAN UNION. European Union does not control EUROPE.

The European Union member countries are: 27 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.

But EUROPE includes 51 independent COUNTRIES. Including transcontinental countries, partially located in both Europe and Asia. Armenia and Cyprus politically are considered European countries, though geographically they are located in the West Asia territory.

We are talking about what can be controlled under the European Unions guidelines towards the European Unions members. yes the members are not just those 4 due to their CO2 emissions being below 1%. This graphic shows from 1% and above so only  4 countries of the European Union are in the list with a total of people living in those specific countries around 250 millions and producing a total 5% of Global CO2 emissions..

Turkey is shown as Europe in the graph provided above but is not a European Union member , United Kingdom is shown as Europe but again it's not a European Union member , European Union has no authority over them, same way it doesn't have any authority over anyone who is part of Europe but not a member of EU.

(Members are processed interdependently because the European Union is an Economical Union and not a country neither a definition what/who is Europe, members can leave anytime they like if they are not satisfied with the Unions policies same way UK did as of January 2020 )

Fact is European Union contributed a total 10% of CO2 emissions, 3rd in Rank when it also had United Kingdom (2019) as a member. 

(28 countries 513.5 million people)

35lmNHB.png

Edited by Nick0678
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 130 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...