Where I think that the environmentalists went wrong

I am old enough to remember when the environmentalists fought the nuclear power industry and basically put them out of business. Many of their plants closed. And what was the alternative given by these environmentalist at the time, you guessed it coal. They told us it was better for the environment and it was plentiful. At the time I thought it was a dumb thing to do. I had ridden past local coal plants and thought, this is better than the nukes. Remember that was before these plants were cleaned up to what they are today. And now the country is relying on those coal plants for a good percentage of our power generation. The nuclear power industry told us at the time it was developing much safer and smaller plants, but by that time no one would listen. So now the children of those environmentalists who shut down most of the nuclear plants are going after coal and they should. It would have been better if we would have had a good source of power to fall back on as we shift from coal to a cleaner fuel, but we don't. So I think that 40 years ago the environmentalists should have looked ahead and that is where they went wrong. This country seems only interested in that which is happening now and in the very near future.

independentusa said:

I am old enough to remember when the environmentalists fought the nuclear power industry and basically put them out of business. Many of their plants closed. And what was the alternative given by these environmentalist at the time, you guessed it coal. They told us it was better for the environment and it was plentiful. At the time I thought it was a dumb thing to do. I had ridden past local coal plants and thought, this is better than the nukes. Remember that was before these plants were cleaned up to what they are today. And now the country is relying on those coal plants for a good percentage of our power generation. The nuclear power industry told us at the time it was developing much safer and smaller plants, but by that time no one would listen. So now the children of those environmentalists who shut down most of the nuclear plants are going after coal and they should. It would have been better if we would have had a good source of power to fall back on as we shift from coal to a cleaner fuel, but we don't. So I think that 40 years ago the environmentalists should have looked ahead and that is where they went wrong. This country seems only interested in that which is happening now and in the very near future.

Click to expand...

The environmentalists looked ahead and stated "Develop Renewable Energies," like wind, solar, geothermal, etc. and the Government bolstered by BigEnergy lobbyists greasy palm transfers of wealth refused to adopt the proposals. Decentralized energy grids cut out the monopolistic Energy utilities. and Corporatism won't let that happen, because it cuts the Elites out of the profit loop..
That's the whole story and the truth.
/

independentusa said:

I am old enough to remember when the environmentalists fought the nuclear power industry and basically put them out of business. Many of their plants closed. And what was the alternative given by these environmentalist at the time, you guessed it coal. They told us it was better for the environment and it was plentiful.

Click to expand...

I believe your neglecting to mention Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.

Rogue Valley said:

I believe your neglecting to mention Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.

Click to expand...

Incidentally, reactor #4 at Chernobyl exploded and suffered a core melt-down precisely 32 years ago ... 26 April 1986.

independentusa said:

I am old enough to remember when the environmentalists fought the nuclear power industry and basically put them out of business. Many of their plants closed. And what was the alternative given by these environmentalist at the time, you guessed it coal. They told us it was better for the environment and it was plentiful. At the time I thought it was a dumb thing to do. I had ridden past local coal plants and thought, this is better than the nukes. Remember that was before these plants were cleaned up to what they are today. And now the country is relying on those coal plants for a good percentage of our power generation. The nuclear power industry told us at the time it was developing much safer and smaller plants, but by that time no one would listen. So now the children of those environmentalists who shut down most of the nuclear plants are going after coal and they should. It would have been better if we would have had a good source of power to fall back on as we shift from coal to a cleaner fuel, but we don't. So I think that 40 years ago the environmentalists should have looked ahead and that is where they went wrong. This country seems only interested in that which is happening now and in the very near future.

Click to expand...

I don't know how old you are but I grew up in that era and I don't find what they are doing today much different from then.
Back then the threat was this.

https://youtu.be/UFMsnicAtiY

Today it's this

https://youtu.be/GmjAp2eRDH0

I'm not opposed to discussing reasonable steps towards counter acting climate change, man made or otherwise. I think there are actions we can take to try to maintain a hospitable environment. These dumb hysterics however are a losing approach for my support.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

DaveFagan said:

The environmentalists looked ahead and stated "Develop Renewable Energies," like wind, solar, geothermal, etc. and the Government bolstered by BigEnergy lobbyists greasy palm transfers of wealth refused to adopt the proposals. Decentralized energy grids cut out the monopolistic Energy utilities. and Corporatism won't let that happen, because it cuts the Elites out of the profit loop..
That's the whole story and the truth.
/

Click to expand...

Actually back then they were not thinking of what we call renewable energy sources we know are available today.

Rogue Valley said:

Incidentally, reactor #4 at Chernobyl exploded and suffered a core melt-down precisely 32 years ago ... 26 April 1986.

Click to expand...

Those type of reactors at Chernobyl were never built in the USA as they were deemed even then as not safe.

independentusa said:

Those type of reactors at Chernobyl were never built in the USA as they were deemed even then as not safe.

Click to expand...

Don't forget Japan

trouble13 said:

I don't know how old you are but I grew up in that era and I don't find what they are doing today much different from then.
Back then the threat was this.

https://youtu.be/UFMsnicAtiY

Today it's this

https://youtu.be/GmjAp2eRDH0

I'm not opposed to discussing reasonable steps towards counter acting climate change, man made or otherwise. I think there are actions we can take to try to maintain a hospitable environment. These dumb hysterics however are a losing approach for my support.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

If you truly believe in science, then you have to believe that climate change is happening and a lot of it is due to man. The problem is that every one has a different idea of what is reasonable. Right now in the Whitehouse and the EPA we have people who not only don't believe in climate change, their idea of reasonable is any regulation that effects the bottom line is unreasonable. I look at the change in regs of the coal industry that allow the coal companies to pollute rivers and streams with impunity. Not exactly reasonable in my opinion, but might be okay in yours.

independentusa said:

If you truly believe in science, then you have to believe that climate change is happening and a lot of it is due to man. The problem is that every one has a different idea of what is reasonable. Right now in the Whitehouse and the EPA we have people who not only don't believe in climate change, their idea of reasonable is any regulation that effects the bottom line is unreasonable. I look at the change in regs of the coal industry that allow the coal companies to pollute rivers and streams with impunity. Not exactly reasonable in my opinion, but might be okay in yours.

Click to expand...

I have a very different opinion than most on this topic. From my perspective it does not matter if we are destroying this environment or not. This planet is not a perminent home if we as a species are going to survive. The obstacle that we face is to learn how to live independent of earth or we are doomed to extinction. The more acessible energy is increases our probibilty to get off this planet. We are in a race to get off this planet before it becomes inhabitable.

My conflict with environmentalists is their answer is always to stop and stopping may prolong the end but it does not avoid it.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Rogue Valley said:

I believe your neglecting to mention Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.

Click to expand...

The nuclear power industry has made strides in both safety and size. They can now build small plants that use balls instead of rods and no longer threatoe nuclear disaster.

independentusa said:

Those type of reactors at Chernobyl were never built in the USA as they were deemed even then as not safe.

Click to expand...

Only ONE...the unit at Hanford, WA if memory serves me right.
Other than that, NO...they were banned in the USA.
Hanford was grandfathered in.

trouble13 said:

I have a very different opinion than most on this topic. From my perspective it does not matter if we are destroying this environment or not. This planet is not a perminent home if we as a species are going to survive. The obstacle that we face is to learn how to live independent of earth or we are doomed to extinction. The more acessible energy is increases our probibilty to get off this planet. We are in a race to get off this planet before it becomes inhabitable.

My conflict with environmentalists is their answer is always to stop and stopping may prolong the end but it does not avoid it.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Yeah but until we get off this planet it is our home and we need to maintain it

independentusa said:

The nuclear power industry has made strides in both safety and size. They can now build small plants that use balls instead of rods and no longer threatoe nuclear disaster.

Click to expand...

We're also watching India make enormous strides with THORIUM.
The United States closed the thorium development window about six years into the Cold War because the government forced a Sophie's Choice, either develop P/Ur fuel cycle with its weapons potential or Thorium, which does not have weapons potential. The military won out and we abandoned Thorium fuel cycle reactor development.

trouble13 said:

I have a very different opinion than most on this topic. From my perspective it does not matter if we are destroying this environment or not. This planet is not a perminent home if we as a species are going to survive. The obstacle that we face is to learn how to live independent of earth or we are doomed to extinction. The more acessible energy is increases our probibilty to get off this planet. We are in a race to get off this planet before it becomes inhabitable.

My conflict with environmentalists is their answer is always to stop and stopping may prolong the end but it does not avoid it.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Even if we were able to get off the planet, where would we go? There is not another planet in this solar system that can sustain life without help form earth. And there is no power source large enough to get us to another star system within a hundred to a thousand life spans. The idea of warping our way is really just science fiction. The idea of moving enough of us to another planet outside our system even if we solved the problem of traveling there is an impossible problem. It will be several hundred years of further scientific research to achieve such goals and we need a healthy planet to get there if we ever do. My final argument in this area is do you see us spending the time, money and research in space travel now to ever reach your goal?

independentusa said:

Even if we were able to get off the planet, where would we go? There is not another planet in this solar system that can sustain life without help form earth. And there is no power source large enough to get us to another star system within a hundred to a thousand life spans. The idea of warping our way is really just science fiction. The idea of moving enough of us to another planet outside our system even if we solved the problem of traveling there is an impossible problem. It will be several hundred years of further scientific research to achieve such goals and we need a healthy planet to get there if we ever do. My final argument in this area is do you see us spending the time, money and research in space travel now to ever reach your goal?

Click to expand...

Interstellar travel will only be possible when/if we crack the quantum/consciousness code because it is the consciousness that needs to travel, not the physical body. Physical bodies can be made on demand. Quantum particles can reach across billions of light years instantaneously, or even exist simultaneously.

BBC - Earth - The strange link between the human mind and quantum physics

The notion of transporting physical bodies across millions of trillions of miles of the physical universe at anything even approaching a fraction of the speed of light is absurd.

PS: I honestly do not ever remember any environmentalists hugging coal, except perhaps those few crackpot types who were maybe suggesting we revert back to a 19th century mode of living altogether and dispense with the modern industrial platform of the 20th.

independentusa said:

Even if we were able to get off the planet, where would we go? There is not another planet in this solar system that can sustain life without help form earth. And there is no power source large enough to get us to another star system within a hundred to a thousand life spans. The idea of warping our way is really just science fiction. The idea of moving enough of us to another planet outside our system even if we solved the problem of traveling there is an impossible problem. It will be several hundred years of further scientific research to achieve such goals and we need a healthy planet to get there if we ever do. My final argument in this area is do you see us spending the time, money and research in space travel now to ever reach your goal?

Click to expand...

I absolutely see a push for space travel. Elon Musk is working on it. Should he have to pay a carbon tax for all the fuel he burns? I have no problem with conservation provided it isn't impeding progress.

Also I'm a believer that if man is causing climate change than man should also be powerful enough to control the environment in psitive ways. For instance if one of the concerns is co2 then create machines to remove it from the atmosphere. Critics may laugh at them for wasting their money but nobody is going to object to them trying to do it.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Unitedwestand13 said:

Yeah but until we get off this planet it is our home and we need to maintain it

Click to expand...

We need to figure out how to get off it by any means necessary.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

independentusa said:

Actually back then they were not thinking of what we call renewable energy sources we know are available today.

Click to expand...

They were thinking of most of them and stated if a Government mandate for use was legislated costs would come down and research costs woould come down. The battery packs were just more expensive. Same for solar. Same for wind. Geo thermal corrodes pipes and perhaps they have developed usable ceramic or plastic parts. It was just more expensive awaiting mass production techniques.
/

independentusa said:

The nuclear power industry has made strides in both safety and size. They can now build small plants that use balls instead of rods and no longer threatoe nuclear disaster.

Click to expand...

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima all human error with disastrous consequences ongoing.
/

DaveFagan said:

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima all human error with disastrous consequences ongoing.
/

Click to expand...

Lets see, bith three mile island and Chernobly happened more than thirty years ago. The japanese built their power plants on an island that has daily problems with the shakes, I lived ther for three years, and on the ocean, not a good place for them. The Fukushima accident was caused by nature and where it was located. Look at all of the coutnries that use nuclear power and have no problems. Germany derives 7% of its power from Nukes and France a whooping 75%. with no problems

independentusa said:

I am old enough to remember when the environmentalists fought the nuclear power industry and basically put them out of business. Many of their plants closed. And what was the alternative given by these environmentalist at the time, you guessed it coal. They told us it was better for the environment and it was plentiful. At the time I thought it was a dumb thing to do. I had ridden past local coal plants and thought, this is better than the nukes. Remember that was before these plants were cleaned up to what they are today. And now the country is relying on those coal plants for a good percentage of our power generation. The nuclear power industry told us at the time it was developing much safer and smaller plants, but by that time no one would listen. So now the children of those environmentalists who shut down most of the nuclear plants are going after coal and they should. It would have been better if we would have had a good source of power to fall back on as we shift from coal to a cleaner fuel, but we don't. So I think that 40 years ago the environmentalists should have looked ahead and that is where they went wrong. This country seems only interested in that which is happening now and in the very near future.

Click to expand...

Yeah, we Americans always give it the knee jerk reaction without thinking ahead or what that knee jerk reaction to the present will mean in the future. That old saying, "It seemed like a good idea at the time," applies.

I will add this, in a lot of instances the environmentalist and the EPA went over board on some things. There was another word used when I was a kid, conversationalist. Conserving our environment and keeping it clean long before environmentalist took over. Whenever the EPA or environmentalist comes up, I sort of cringe. I grew up on a farm and we had a field where when the spring rains hit, most of it was under a foot or less of water for three or four weeks. Then dry the rest of the year. My dad, grand dad had been plowing and planting that field forever. But the EPA came and rated it a wetland, stopping any and all plowing and planting. I've been against the EPA ever since as were most farmers around my area back then.

Common sense application of the rules and regulations of government agencies isn't something that goes together.

Come on folks ...come on. You can't be serious. The main concern voiced by environmentalists during the "lets go whole hog nuclear" era was distrust that the body politic, plus political leadership and the power industry would handle the waist responsibly. Does anybody want to argue with them on that score?

The simple fact is that what has charitably been referred to as "good ole' American capitalism" has not been terrible well intended EVER and has in many ways simply not failed as spectacularly as communism. Did the French people trust their nuclear power industry to deal with waste responsibly? Yes they did. Has the French nuclear power industry dealt with their waste responsibly? I would say miles more responsibly than we would have here had we gone all in nuclear.

On the scales of Freedom, the US is now ranked down around 48th in the world. On the scales of Health Care we are still ranked down around 33 in the world while still paying more for it than anybody else which is what the first baby step of the ACA could have helped resolve. We are more divided than ever and our leaders seem bound and determine to divide us further for their own political gain and probably one mid-term election away from wiping out SS, Medicare and Medicaid returning us to the dark ages of the 19th century if the GOP has its way!

So ya' know what, its time to get over the make America great again nonsense. Read a history book and actually have some understanding for how we got here because without knowing how we got here, you have no idea where we are. Enter Mr Clueless, Donald Trump.

I refer you to his Fox and Friends rant yesterday where he proudly proclaimed about our racial history that "A lotta' people don't know that it was actually a Republican that did the THING". The thing Donald! What in the name of God are you talking about? You mean that THING somebody just informed you of, like the 13th Amendment?

independentusa said:

Lets see, bith three mile island and Chernobly happened more than thirty years ago. The japanese built their power plants on an island that has daily problems with the shakes, I lived ther for three years, and on the ocean, not a good place for them. The Fukushima accident was caused by nature and where it was located. Look at all of the coutnries that use nuclear power and have no problems. Germany derives 7% of its power from Nukes and France a whooping 75%. with no problems

Click to expand...

Fukushima was built below tidal marders that had been in place for hundreds of years to maintain awareness of the tidal threat. That's human error.
/