Post New

Kamala Harris.....

(When she isn't busy wanting to spend billions to keep Mexicans out of America....)

Has a response:

DRILL BABY DRILL


FRACK FRACK FRACK


How many more Hurricanes does Club 401K and Fracking Drilling Kamala Harris want to create?

How many more Hurricanes does Club 401K and Fracking Drilling Kamala Harris want to create?

How are Kamala and Club 401K creating hurricanes? HAARP?

Despite what Climate Deniers say.....

Fossil Fuels create climate change.

And Kamala Harris pounds her chest all the time about oil drilling and fracking.

And Club 401K supports her.

Club 401K Supports Harris. Harris wants to keep drilling and fracking.

And that creates Climate Change.

That is unless the Cheney effect has proliferated on the Left......and Democrats are now Climate Deniers.

Drill baby drill. Frack Baby Frack.

Trump is trying to paint Kamala as a progressive in this campaign. Most Dems don't want the economic chaos and turmoil of abruptly ceasing drilling and fracking, we're practical to varying degrees. Kamala is countering Trump's attempt to paint her as a progressive. Electric vehicles are still impractical, hybrids are more practical, but the price needs to come down - most people can't afford them. We finally recognized our supply chain vulnerabilities with China, but that'll take 20-30 years to counter.

There is a kook section, mostly Republicans it seems, that thinks hurricanes are created by HAARP.

Who cares what Trump is saying?


Harris is the VP who was "last in the room with Biden" and is bragging about all the oil drilling - no different than her buddy Obama, and George W Bush and Dick Cheney did.

Now as President she wants to drill and frack more.

Hurricane Harris can't give us a break.

Who cares what Trump is saying?

In any campaign one side is throwing sound bites at the other and gauging which ones gain traction with the target demographic. We're seing a lot of this late in the game because the Trump campaign seemed a little lost when Biden ended his run and threw to Kamala. So her campaign is deflecting where they deem necessary. Nothing grand just standard campaign strategy as far as I can see. But they are smooth and we shall see.

Did Obama not brag about record oil drilling on his watch? Yes.

Has there not been record oil drilling on Biden's watch? Yes.

Have Biden and Harris said that Harris was last in the room with him? Yes.

Is Kamala stating in bold colors that she's pro oil and pro fracking? Yes.

Does oil and fossil fuels help cause Climate Change? Yes.

Does Climate Change lead to more hurricanes? Yes.


The Harris-W-Cheney-Halliburton side are Climate Deniers. Either that or they don't care.

Sure the Trumpers will say Harris is lying.

Not me. I know she's telling the truth about all of the above.

The Harris-W-Cheney-Halliburton side are Climate Deniers. Either that or they don't care.

Hardly, and the Biden Harris team has already explained the matter in a way that is more credible than either the climate change deniers on one side, and the “Let’s ban oil and go 100% renewable energy tomorrow!” crowds on the other.

We need a bridge to get from here to there. Oil and gas is the only way to get us there.
(Unless you want to entertain civilizational collapse)

And the markets will determine when that transition has been made.

A couple of things about this huge dilemna….

Forget “peak oil” for now. Eventually we’ll get there due to the fact that oil and gas are finite resources.

But we haven’t even reached “peak demand” yet. Data centers are poping up like mushrooms and along with crypto mining are putting demands on the electrical grid that nobody came close to prdicting just 10 years ago.

Add to that the growing electrical deman from the developing world….

Thank god for renewables. Their footprint may still be relatively small but their impact on electrical generation is not inconsequential- and it is growing rapidly- geometrically.

Data centers are poping up like mushrooms and along with crypto mining are putting demands on the electrical grid that nobody came close to prdicting just 10 years ago.

I read data mining is located in one of the -stan countries because they can produce the energy. Just how much energy do they take? I haven't read any comparative estimates.

BILL Z???? WOW!!!! NICE TO SEE YOU! A TMF VET AND ALUMNI!!!!!

On Harris.....

I'm merely cheering her for adopting the Bush Cheney love for oil and fracking and I'm glad she's told the Left to pound sand. Indeed,d Oil and Gas, Drill Baby Drill ....is part of the road to cleaner future. Not absolutism and those morons blocking cars and protesting oil.

"And the markets will determine when that transition has been made"

Here's to American Capitalism and the Free Market.

A perfect post.

Also nice that now every time there is a hurricane, we won't be shouting "Bush! "Trump!" "Big Oil!"


Here's to the leadership of Obama, Harris, and Biden and Bush and Trump: Drill Drill, Frack Frack, and let the Free Market decide when we'll make real shirts.

America has come together on energy and Climate, or at very least won't use it as a political blame game weapon and we hereby label as illegitimate - every single time that was done.

I was comfortable with Harris being George W Bush's 3rd term but now this 'market' stuff.... is that Jack Kemp? Reagan?

America has come together on energy and Climate,
Actually, no it hasn’t.

Trump has promised to end incentives re: alternative energy/Climate change.

For him, it’s Drill baby drill and nothing else. Bugger the bridge to an alternative energy future. Let the seas rise. Full speed ahead!

Bugger the bridge to an alternative energy future.

So where do batteries come from? Do you know?
How about the magnets for wind turbines? Speaking of wind turbines, are those easy to dispose of?
Then there's solar panels. They're easy to manufacture responsibly, right?

For him, it’s Drill baby drill and nothing else. Bugger the bridge to an alternative energy future. Let the seas rise. Full speed ahead!
******

VP Harris is all for drill baby drill and fracking.

I respect and believe what she says.

Here's to Fossil Fuels,,,,,,,,,, and "the market"

Thank you Bush, Obama, Biden, Trump and Harris in advance.

Cheaper gas is good........Americans love comfort and travel as they are entitled to.

o where do batteries come from? Do you know?
How about the magnets for wind turbines? Speaking of wind turbines, are those easy to dispose of?
Then there's solar panels. They're easy to manufacture responsibly, right?
&&&&

Dope - you and Trump and Cheney and Halliburton and me - we won this one.

All of the above you list is fact, but they want the feelings. They want to 'transition' and now they have excuses as to why that ain't happening anytime soon, AND not happening aggressively at all. They have decided long ago they want to brag about and promote more oil production. They've gone from applauding expensive gas as incentive to transition, to lauding cheap gas.

Vice President Harris's position on this is far more in our direction. And in the direction of "Murica' and Freedom. And nice big families. who like nice big gas guzzlers, dot go on nice road trips with the air conditioning going full tilt. Maybe even stopping at the WalMart to load up on huge quantities of processed foods and red meat.

Everything Progressives Love.


In these polarized times it's nice to see Limbaugh, Cheney, Halliburton, Trump, W Bush and Kamala Harris and you and me celebrate RECORD fossil fuel production in America.

Harris is a Uniter not a Divider....and she's the decider.

So where do batteries come from? Do you know?
How about the magnets for wind turbines? Speaking of wind turbines, are those easy to dispose of?
Then there's solar panels. They're easy to manufacture responsibly, right?

Batteries come from the fruit of the Energizer Bunny Tree, which is harvested semi-annually. Wind turbines are hybrids - an energizer bunny tree was crossed with the Bullhorn Acacia and then grafted onto a young California Redwood. When the lifecycle of a Wind Turbine is over, they are grafted onto a Triffid and allowed to roam the high desert until they pass. Hope this helps. :)

Batteries come from the fruit of the Energizer Bunny Tree, which is harvested semi-annually. Wind turbines are hybrids - an energizer bunny tree was crossed with the Bullhorn Acacia and then grafted onto a young California Redwood. When the lifecycle of a Wind Turbine is over, they are grafted onto a Triffid and allowed to roam the high desert until they pass. Hope this helps. :)

Yes it does!
It goes to how energy discussions go, and how they usually don't focus on the correct problem at hand.

We need a bridge to get from here to there [100% renewable energy]. Oil and gas is the only way to get us there.

Well, personally, I think nuclear fission is the way to go. The new types of small module reactors and molten salt water reactors are very clean and safe now. Hell, they can even put one in my literal backyard and I wouldn't mind. But popular opinion has been against nuclear since Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Fusion is still a pipe dream: 15 years off at least at best.

I've been following Copenhagen Atomics designs, which use thorium as fuel:

https://www.copenhagenatomics.com/technology/

Yes it does!
It goes to how energy discussions go, and how they usually don't focus on the correct problem at hand.

Your talking points are designed to take the discussion off into the weeds, not addressing the greater discussion that getting from point A to point B within a capitalist market system is to expect some short sighted resistance and stay out of the weeds. Have fun in the weeds Dope! :)

Batteries come from the fruit of the Energizer Bunny Tree, which is harvested semi-annually. Wind turbines are hybrids - an energizer bunny tree was crossed with the Bullhorn Acacia and then grafted onto a young California Redwood. When the lifecycle of a Wind Turbine is over, they are grafted onto a Triffid and allowed to roam the high desert until they pass. Hope this helps. :) - Lambo

------------

That cleared up a number of questions. Thanks.

That cleared up a number of questions. Thanks.

Yup, with the main one being that the left really doesnt have any idea how we can supply energy…or power anything with it.

Dope1: Speaking of wind turbines, are those easy to dispose of?

Around 96% of a wind turbine is made from recyclable materials. Their outer shell, shafts, gearing and electrical components are typically made from steel, copper, aluminum, other precious metals and recyclable plastics.

There are more than 8,000 parts to one wind turbine and they can have an operational lifespan of up to 25 years (most last around 20-25 years). They can mostly be recycled at the end of this working life and have increasingly been made from reused materials that have already been recycled.

The blades are made from different materials, most of which is fiberglass. The average blade on a typical onshore wind turbine measures around 165ft (50m) in length. However, there is a growing trend for taller turbines – often found offshore at sea – with blade spans of anywhere up to 260-290ft (80-90m) in length.

Fiberglass is not totally recyclable. It’s non-biodegradable and made up of a composite of very fine strands of plastic and glass, which is extremely difficult to process at the point of recycling. Instead, it’s usually discarded as waste at landfills or incinerated.

However, while most first-generation commercial blades are being treated as waste, not all of them are destined for landfill. There are several innovative ways their raw materials are recycled to be used in other building materials or repurposed entirely in new structures.

Engineers and scientists have found a way to turn fiberglass into a key component used in the production of cement – an important material used in everyday construction.


https://www.engie.com/en/activities/renewable-ener...

https://blog.ucsusa.org/james-gignac/wind-turbine-...

But popular opinion has been against nuclear since Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.

You are right. Nuclear was the way to go, but we couldn't convince the greenies So that languished, and we coulda had an edge.

Well, personally, I think nuclear fission is the way to go.

I agree. But we need a bridge to get there as well…. Perhaps a looong bridge.

But man….. milestones in the sustaining of fusion reactions , and innovative advancements in containing plasma seem to be coming faster and faster.

Who knows? As little as two years ago, I subscribed to the popular notion that commercial fusion reactors would renAin perpetually…. Thirty years away.

Who knows? As little as two years ago, I subscribed to the popular notion that commercial fusion reactors would remain perpetually…. Thirty years away.

As is still the quip about true Artificial Intelligence. Despite ChatGPT and other LLMs, I think real AI is still quite a few years away.

But with current AI working both on their own improvements and on solving nuclear fusion, perhaps both are closer at hand than I think.

Around 96% of a wind turbine is made from recyclable materials

That's if someone recycles them.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05...

It also turns out the 96% claim...isn't true.

Wind Turbine Blades Can’t Be Recycled, So They’re Piling Up in Landfills
Companies are searching for ways to deal with the tens of thousands of blades that have reached the end of their lives.


Thats's 2020. What about now?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/30/climate/wind-tu...

Turbine Blades Have Piled Up in Landfills. A Solution May Be Coming.
Wind power has a waste problem that has been difficult to solve. Turbine blades made from a new plant-based material could make them recyclable.

Most blades for wind turbines measure longer than a football field and are nearly impossible to recycle.
At the end of their life span of around 20 years, they are chopped into pieces and buried in a handful of landfills across the Great Plains. Those few sites in Wyoming, Iowa and South Dakota have a spooky nickname: wind turbine graveyards.
But this waste problem from a growing source of low carbon energy could become a headache of the past.
Researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory have developed what they say is a turbine blade made from plant material that can be recycled. The new substance is made from inedible sugar extracted from wood, plant remains, used cooking oil and agricultural waste.

Maybe they get thew new plant-based blades right.

Maybe they get thew new plant-based blades right. - Dope

---------------

Just like they did with paper straws...

Just like they did with paper straws...

Yup.
Wind turbines and solar panels in and of themselves aren't bad things. I actually support them. We're currently building an outbuilding on our property and plan to hang solar panels on the roof, as a matter of fact.

But they're aren't, and never will be, the be-all, end-all that the greenies and their left wing enablers go on about them. When you throw in the left's push to Electrify Everything their "ideas" about the nation's energy future make less than zero sense.

Wind turbines and solar panels in and of themselves aren't bad things. I actually support them. We're currently building an outbuilding on our property and plan to hang solar panels on the roof, as a matter of fact.

But they're aren't, and never will be, the be-all, end-all that the greenies and their left wing enablers go on about them.

I don’t know a single person who thinks they are the “be all, end-all”. What they are is a part of the mix of energy sources that are needed to keep a vibrant economy humming, and which lessen our dependence on any single energy source, as our experience in the 1970s demonstrated how dangerous it is to allow the economy to be over-dependent on one form to the exclusion of another.

PS: It seems we’ve managed to make ourselves reliant on Russia for uranium. Maybe not such a great idea.

U.S. Ramps Up Hunt for Uranium to End Reliance on Russia
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/30/business/energy...

PPS: We are reliant on China for the production of solar panels.

Is China Overproducing Solar Again? IEA Report Says Yes: 80%
https://prosperousamerica.org/is-china-overproduci....

I don’t know a single person who thinks they are the “be all, end-all”. What they are is a part of the mix of energy sources that are needed to keep a vibrant economy humming, and which lessen our dependence on any single energy source, as our experience in the 1970s demonstrated how dangerous it is to allow the economy to be over-dependent on one form to the exclusion of another.

Then it's a good thing nobody wants to be dependent on foreign sources of stuff, right?

I mean, it's insane to hand a big chunk of money over to nations that don't have our best interests in mind, right?

Right?

The end all be all is oil and gas and fossil fuels - with a side order of alternatives.

Here's to Obama and Harris and Biden for knowing that.

Maybe they get thew new plant-based blades right. - Dope

---------------

Just like they did with paper straws...

Oh come on……

The issue with wind turbine blades is that they are made with an epoxy resin compound that heretofore was not recyclable after ~20 years of being subjected to the stresses that wind turbine blades are subjected to.

One year ago, Siemens
introduced a blade, that though an epoxy resin, CAN be recycled:

https://www.compositesworld.com/news/swancor-sieme...

Of course, this does not solve the issue of the current turbine blades now in use. At least for the next 20 years, we will be faced with the problem of turbine blade disposal, but my guess is that the cost of doing so will be less than the cost of recovering from just one major hurricane that hits the Gulf Coast and then wallops North Carolina.

Turbine blades fabricated with new materials derived from plants? Who knows? I don’t. They’re doing some neat things these days in the arena of materials science. And now, combining AI with molecular modeling- geeminy crickets!! The stuff they’re coming up with these days is phenomenal.

Peace,
Bill Z

Of course, this does not solve the issue of the current turbine blades now in use. At least for the next 20 years, we will be faced with the problem of turbine blade disposal, but my guess is that the cost of doing so will be less than the cost of recovering from just one major hurricane that hits the Gulf Coast and then wallops North Carolina.

Interesting. So we only have hurricanes because of Global Warming, is that?
There's no potential for strong storms?

Your compatriots are also pushing back on the idea that we change over to 100% wind and solar.

Interesting. So we only have hurricanes because of Global Warming, is that?
There's no potential for strong storms?

Strawman. That's not what anyone is saying, except people building strawmen.

The data say that there is more energy to power storms, which is why we are getting more powerful storms than in the past. Category 5 storms were very uncommon. But the last couple of decades we have almost one per year.

Strawman. That's not what anyone is saying, except people building strawmen.

Not a strawman. That’s the implication he dropped.

But the last couple of decades we have almost one per year.

Let’s be precise. Lots of storms hit Category 5 while at sea. Happens all the time as a matter of fact. What matters is what they are when they reach landfall.

To celebrate Helene.....

The Fact still remains: President Obama wisely promoted more drilling for oil and held it up as a badge of honor. Ditto TRUMP. Ditto BIDEN, and now, pro-fracking Kamala Harris.

It's too bad these people want to save a nickel on a gallon go gas in exchange for more Climate Change but what can we do.

It's too bad these people want to save a nickel on a gallon go gas in exchange for more Climate Change but what can we do.

It's political realities, not science. People want to save that nickel, and will vote for whomever they think can make that happen. Further, if you just shut off the fossil fuels, we would be in immediate crisis because alternatives can't -yet- pick up the load. We're making progress, but deploying new infrastructure is expensive.

I would love it if we could strangle fossil fuels TODAY. But we can't. If we build enough nuclear reactors**, we could. But we first have to build them.

A new solar farm went up within the past few years near Phoenix. We are deploying more. It just takes time. They've announced another one to be built just west of Phoenix (announcement last April; not sure if they've started it yet).

Internationally, many countries are making progress. Norway just announced that EVs outnumber petrol vehicles for the first time.





**Solar only works when it's sunny, wind farms only work when it's windy. Nuclear is vital to make up the difference when those modes are not working. Improvements in battery tech would help the renewables (solar/wind), but nuclear will have to play a part because solar/wind are not 100% reliable.

So we only have hurricanes because of Global Warming, is that?

Why do you say crazy shit and then attribute it to someone else? Jeez, Dope. I’d forgotten that aspect of your arguments.

And your statement that suggests I am arguing that we should “change over to 100% wind and solar” is false as well.

There’s also nuclear and geothermal…… though a complete weaning from oil and gas, at least given our current technological capabilities, will not occur any time soon. When and if such a transition occurs, it will happen because folks are no longer willing to pay for something they don’t need.

I can remember ten years ago when many (I cannot recall if you were one of them) argued strenuously that we’d NEVER see EV trucks.

Not a strawman. That’s the implication he dropped.

No it’s not.

Why do you say crazy shit and then attribute it to someone else?

You're the one that made the implication. Looks like you haven't learned to actually take even mild pushback on something you say; here you go right with an ad hom 2 seconds into the conversation.

Never change, buddy!

And your statement that suggests I am arguing that we should “change over to 100% wind and solar” is false as well.

You people are the ones constantly braying about massive huge big hurricanes attributed to global warming. I'm merely taking what you're saying and doing the logical extrapolation.

Perhaps you should be clearer about what you post.

I can remember ten years ago when many (I cannot recall if you were one of them) argued strenuously that we’d NEVER see EV trucks.

EV trucks are teh stoopid unless battery tech is solved. Solid state is the way to do that and those aren't that far off.

So we only have hurricanes because of Global Warming, is that?

You make sh!t up, just like Trump, without the slightest regard for facts and reality.

Dope:Interesting. So we only have hurricanes because of Global Warming, is that?
There's no potential for strong storms?

Misstating the opponents position is called a straw man fallacy, a hallmark of the Dope.

Dope:Your compatriots are also pushing back on the idea that we change over to 100% wind and solar.

Straw man. Only in Science Fiction and Fantasy were wind and solar ever the mainstay of energy sources.

Misstating the opponents position is called a straw man fallacy, a hallmark of the Dope.

PA lib pile-ons are so 2003. Get with the times.
And tell your boy not to try to be sly with inferences, lest they be stomped on. The inferences, that is.

Straw man. Only in Science Fiction and Fantasy were wind and solar ever the mainstay of energy sources.

Oh, really?

Please proclaim your love for nuclear power, then. Right here, right now.

I read liberal posts on energy policy and they're quite interesting. It's like the South Park episode with the Underwear Gnomes. IFKYK.

Strawman. That's not what anyone is saying, except people building strawmen.

Not a strawman. That’s the implication he dropped.

There was no such implication.

There was no such implication.

If you say so.

Oh, really?

Please proclaim your love for nuclear power, then. Right here, right now.

I agreed on here yesterday with another person that nuclear power was the way to go. Back on the old TMF on the climate boards I advocated for nuclear power and so did EVERY LIBERAL SCIENTIST ON THAT BOARD. On other boards too. I remember Advocatus Diaboli arguing that it was worth losing a few square miles of land every 10 years to push nuclear power to deal with climate change. So it's all around you Dope, and has been for the life of TMF and longer.

EVERY LIBERAL SCIENTIST ON THAT BOARD

Good for them. Maybe they’re not as dumb as their PA brethren, who when Fukushima happened lost their minds despite not understanding the nature of that incident.

So…you’re flat out wrong.

Nuclear is becoming cool.

No not the nuclear war that Goldman Sachs Liberals are egging on.....

This is the energy.

From Czech Republic to France to the USA.....


Fossils-Nuclear.

Here's to Harris and Democrats!

So…you’re flat out wrong.

No. Wind and solar were never considered main sources of energy.

Wind and solar were never considered main sources of energy.

Whatever you say. libs have tried to shut down nat gas, fracking and coal, and drag their feet on nuclear.

Are lefties just...unaware that you need to generate electricity so as to power things? And where does the juice for the EV you want to mandate come from?

Whatever you say. libs have tried to shut down nat gas, fracking and coal, and drag their feet on nuclear.

I think people want a responsible approach. Industry is known for doing whatever is cheapest and screw the environment if they can do that. Greens get overzealous and overdo it. There was a cloud of natural gas over several states that appeared to be leaks from wells not properly closed. Some of it might be natural. Fracking did cause well water problems in areas and small frequent quakes. They wrote contracts that didn't include clean up and there were sludge dumps (some might be toxic) and well scrap concrete left behind on Republican farms - they weren't happy. Coal we need to move away from. Nuclear horror movies and accidents created a fear of nuke power that Q probably agrees with.

But around Fukushima time about half of Republicans supported nuclear power while 35-40% of Dems did. Dems were just more vocal, and we argued over it. Actually since Dems are somewhat better educated they probably understand better what happened at Fukushima than many Republicans, but trust industry less. After all, look at all the election lies y'all bought into.

I think people want a responsible approach. Industry is known for doing whatever is cheapest and screw the environment if they can do that.

Industry responds to the best economic incentive. That's the nature of business. Being a rampant polluter is not in the economic best interest.

But around Fukushima time about half of Republicans supported nuclear power while 35-40% of Dems did. Dems were just more vocal, and we argued over it. Actually since Dems are somewhat better educated they probably understand better what happened at Fukushima than many Republicans, but trust industry less.

Lulz. democrats have degrees in gender studies and basket weaving. 'Educated' doesn't mean anything. You people melted down along with the Fukushima reactor but since the PA left wasn't up on any of the technical details, they weren't aware of critical design flaws in that design and the relative lack of proper failsafes there.

As for lies, I bet you really believe that TRump is going to track pregnancies, don't you?

PS. Unless you're from somewhere around the Mason-Dixon line, it just comes off as hackey when you say "y'all".

Industry responds to the best economic incentive. That's the nature of business. Being a rampant polluter is not in the economic best interest.

And who made it not in their economic interest? The ones who did rampantly pollute so we have to police them.

the PA left wasn't up on any of the technical details, they weren't aware of critical design flaws in that design and the relative lack of proper failsafes there.

Name the three biggest problems with design there. And we didn't know two of what I consider the biggest problems up front. So just give me what you consider the big three. I was there watching the discussions Dope. Betcha can't name two of the top three.

As for lies, I bet you really believe that TRump is going to track pregnancies, don't you?

Long on accusations aren't you? Trump will commandeer the Justice Dept to go after retribution where he can. How's that?

And who made it not in their economic interest? The ones who did rampantly pollute so we have to police them.

So you think that people are willing to accept rampant pollution in this day and age? No, they're not.
Did regulations play a role? Sure. But society doesn't want rivers that catch fire, either.

Name the three biggest problems with design there. And we didn't know two of what I consider the biggest problems up front. So just give me what you consider the big three. I was there watching the discussions Dope. Betcha can't name two of the top three.

1. The reactor was cooled by forced convection, as opposed to natural
2. The failsafes were placed along the shoreline...where the tsunami blew them away

There's two. You're welcome.
You people were nuts over Fukushima and claimed THESE THINGS ARENT SAFE. And thus demonstrated that vaunted PA knowledge of "science", which is...

...not knowing the difference between "science" and a Pop Tart.

Long on accusations aren't you?

That was Tim Walz last night. Please catch up on the news.

So you think that people are willing to accept rampant pollution in this day and age? No, they're not.
Did regulations play a role? Sure. But society doesn't want rivers that catch fire, either.</i?

Sigh, what is meant by "And who made it not in their economic interest? The ones who did rampantly pollute so we have to police them." The lesson is - you have to regulate, police, take em to court, etc., otherwise you may find that it's shell corp. owned by another shell corp, disappearing into a Cayman Corp. Ways upon ways...

Recently we've found ways to map the natural gas/methane gas leaks, even the ones in Asia, so the plugging begins. And no one should be leaving behind piles of sludge on farms, etc.

1. The reactor was cooled by forced convection, as opposed to natural
2. The failsafes were placed along the shoreline...where the tsunami blew them away

Those are there, but they aren't the biggest:

1. The wall was too low. They didn't take into account the larger potential tsunamis. They also didn't factor in that a large earthquake could lower the land by six feet - which is what happened.

2. They built the backup generators on the ground, instead of up high, the pumps, etc., should have been water tight. So the backup generators get knocked out and the pumps didn't work.

That's per memory. You're still long on accusations.

"PA lib pile-ons are so 2003. Get with the times. "

Dunk tank geek.... kerspalsh.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.