Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Time to start building more nuke plants as long (Score 1) 269

by geekoid (#47541247) Attached to: Greenpeace: Amazon Fire Burns More Coal and Gas Than It Should

"It failed to prevent a partial meltdown of the reactor core."
I succeeded on repvents a full meltdown, as designed.

"It failed to prevent a significant release of radiation to the general environment as 15 curies (560 GBq) of iodine-131 (the most concering portion due to biological uptake to the thyroid)":
According to the official figures, as compiled by the 1979 Kemeny Commission from Metropolitan Edison and NRC data, a maximum of 480 petabecquerels (13 million curies) of radioactive noble gases (primarily xenon) were released by the event.[45] However, these noble gases were considered relatively harmless,[46] and only 481–629 GBq (13–17 curies) of thyroid cancer-causing iodine-131 were released.[45] Total releases according to these figures were a relatively small proportion of the estimated 370 EBq (10 billion curies) in the reactor.[46]

i.e. Not Much.

Comment: Re:Greenpeace... (Score 1) 269

by geekoid (#47541209) Attached to: Greenpeace: Amazon Fire Burns More Coal and Gas Than It Should

"The former requires fundamental breakthroughs which have yet to materialize and may never arriv"
what? I thought dam technology was already here. Are you telling me I get to invent pumping water into a reservoirs to store potential energy and the release it when the is a higher demand?
Sweet.
I can think of many ways to store the surplus energy.

Comment: Re:The other Eisenhower warning (Score 1, Insightful) 286

Which is exactly what it does. It informs. Just right now the people being informed don't like what the science shows, so they claim science is not being 'fair'.

The scientific community is under attack by the pubs.

When to argue against solid scientific facts, yes, they are being anti-science, regardless of their degree.

I've never heard anything more wrong the a scientist speaking outside their expertise.

Comment: Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (Score 2) 286

Why don't you talking about the other non profit radios station, you know the ones the are more numeroius then NPR? of, right they're religious and play to you neo-con idiocy.

"And while the incurious and stupid might be confused by such accounting gimmickry... I am not."
oh, you can't be wrong, there for everyone else is stupid.

Psychopathy at its finest.

Comment: Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (Score 5, Informative) 286

This administration has never tried to kill fracking.

You are a fucking liar.
"The EPA and similar organizations have been trying to stop and forbid fracking for years."
false.

"The DoE was used as a tool to hurt people."
nonsense.

It's a political fight becasue the pubs made it one. The DoE funding wasn't political.

You should actual learn history and mission of the DoE, you fucking limp wristed cum stain.

Comment: Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (Score 2) 286

The things being "destroyed"(they aren't) are heavy polluters who are making the world less habitable for humans.

Why don't you go on about how the coal gets money and that's destroying green jobs? oh, right, becasue you a fucking tool, sparky.

Comment: Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (Score 1) 286

3 million green jobs right now, and growing.

"This is the recurring problem with the left. They promise everyone a world of rainbows and unicorn cheeseburgers. But when push comes to shove... you fail. You don't deliver. All your promises don't come out... the reality checks bounce... and then what happens? People like me are stuck in some disintegrating city eating gruel and standing in line to get government rations."
completely false.

Comment: Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (Score 3, Interesting) 286

"The US coal industry is on the brink of collapse.
I wish! Sadly, they aren't.

"f where you're going to get energy from now that you've shut down the nuclear power plants"
Who wants to shut down Nuclear plants? Not me. I want to see thorium plants and generate electriscity form burning our current high yield 'waste'.

Anyway, we would get all are energy needs from a 100 mile to a side solar furnace plant.
Every bit.
We could start that right now. Doesn't even need to be all at once, we could roll out out a 20 year plan.

Sylindra went under what the Chinese flooded the market with solar panels sold under their cost.

You are so stupid that your whole premise seem to be based that we just shut one thing off and then start the next. I understand it can be hard for simpletons like you to do more then one thing at a time, but for actually thinking adults, it's not really that hard.

"Just think of a computer as hardware you can program." -- Nigel de la Tierre

Working...