Donald Trump Issues One of His Greatest Takedowns of Windmills

brietbart.com ^ | 12/23/2019 | Charles Spiering

[simpson96]

Always go with the opposite of what liberals want, and you will be correct.

[rktman]

Gee, disposal may be an issue? Who would have guessed? Grrrrrrrrreta knows.😵

[reasonisfaith]

Only half of the west is trying to kill itself. The other half has always been doing things right.

Guess who’s winning?

[867V309]

Nuclear power is the way to go for cheap, dependable energy.

Nuclear power is way less cheap when you figure-in government subsidized insurance, waste disposal and decommissioning costs.

OTOH, windmills suck

[marktwain]

Nuclear power is way less cheap when you figure-in government subsidized insurance, waste disposal and decommissioning costs.

Only because those costs have been massively inflated by the campaign to demonize nuclear power.

[867V309]

Only because those costs have been massively inflated by the campaign to demonize nuclear power.

...well, let's see.

how much would you charge to insure for the replacement of an entire city in case of a meltdown?

basically, no company could do it, so the government limited the liability of the power companies, essentially making taxpayers assume the cost.

not to mention that we don't know the cost of securing nuclear waste for the next 10-20,000 years because we haven't done it!

[Salamander]

Just saw a Michelob beer truck parked with “organic” written all over it, with a background of verdant hills desecrated with stinking bird blenders.

I’m guessing they’re pushing that as a Good Thing.

Blech.

[Salamander]

The closest ones to me are over in Keyser WV.

We went there one day to look at a Harley and even though they were a half mile away up on the mountain, I could “feel” the subsonics...like a weird pulsation in my head.

Could not wait to GTFO of that town.

I feel sorrow for the people who have to live there.

[freedom1st]

President Trump’s criticism of windmills was in a speech where he was introduced by Rush Limbaugh who flat out stated that “Climate Change is a Hoax”.

[Salamander]

THIS!

Exactly!

It’s maddening.

[marktwain]

not to mention that we don't know the cost of securing nuclear waste for the next 10-20,000 years because we haven't done it!

Nuclear waste does not have to be secured for 10-20,000 years. That is a myth.

Radioactive waste is either very hazardous with a short half-life, or a not very hazardous with a long half life.

The shorter the half-life, the more radioactivity. The longer the half-life, the less hazardous.

[Salamander]

They’re on the way.

https://oceanwind.com/About-Ocean-wind

Cannot tell me that’s not gonna screw stuff up.

Did the Texas wind farms alter the Gulf Stream because it’s all messed up now.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Wind_farm_map_2015.png

[867V309]

Radioactive waste is either very hazardous with a short half-life, or a not very hazardous with a long half life.

nice try.

Pu239   plutonium    a fission byroduct, has a halflife of 24,110 years.

It has been estimated that a pound (454 grams) of plutonium inhaled as plutonium oxide dust could give cancer to two million people.

[Deaf Smith]

I always wondered if my 1981 term paper at Texas Tech University contributed to the gross expansion of wind turbines over the years.

A feasibility study of wind flow of the Texas High Plains & Rolling Pains.

Forecasted output and recovery of costs of investments.

Conclusion was that such projects would have to rely on government subsidies such as those in place in 1981.

[TianaHighrider]

Nuclear power IS dangerous. This is a FACT. The history of nuclear power is a warning. As long as we have viable alternatives (natural gas, coal, oil, hydro, etc.) we would be crazy to take the widespread, thousands years, horrendous risks.

It is almost like the socialism argument of “they just didn’t do it right”. NO, the ‘product’ is too DANGEROUS. It has been PROVEN too dangerous. This isn’t like the ‘fake dangerous’, like global warming. This is something we actually know to be REAL, and has been done before.

Chernobyl, as horrible as it was, could have been far worse.
People make mistakes. And systems fail. Materials are not perfect. And there are no dummy proof, fail-safe, nuclear disasters that don’t have the potential to end all life as we know it in a VERY short time like Nuclear power can.

[palmer]

Pu239 plutonium a fission byroduct, has a halflife of 24,110 years. It has been estimated that a pound (454 grams) of plutonium inhaled as plutonium oxide dust could give cancer to two million people.

That means the atmospheric bomb testing gave cancer to 44 billion people (10 metric tons released). The alpha radiation released by Pu239 is stopped by a piece of paper or a few inches of air.

[palmer]

And there are no dummy proof, fail-safe, nuclear disasters that don’t have the potential to end all life as we know it in a VERY short time like Nuclear power can.

The worst case explosion and neltdown killed dozens of people.

[867V309]

That means the atmospheric bomb testing gave cancer to 44 billion people (10 metric tons released).

10 metric tons of Pu?   link please  :)

The alpha radiation released by Pu239 is stopped by a piece of paper or a few inches of air.

once the Pu is in your lungs, exactly how does this work?

[867V309]

The worst case explosion and neltdown killed dozens of people.

...well, if you mean chernobyl, the 31-or-whatever dead released by the soviets was an obvious face-saving communist lie.     I don't know whether you're pretending not to know that, or you're just an idiot.

and I don't care.

[palmer]

How does it get in my lungs? Where are the 44 billion cases of cancer? https://www2.clarku.edu/departments/marsh/projects/community/plutonium.pdf