Skip to main content

Coal plant carbon dioxide and radioactive emissions

Image
By scooby

 Coal plant carbon dioxide and radioactive emissions: How do we convince other countries to stop building new coal plants while we produce green energy driven by a “global warming” concerns?


https://www.energylivenews.com/2021/02/04/china-built-over-three-times-as-much-coal-plant-capacity-as-the-rest-of-the-world-in-2020/

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0932/ML093280447.pdf

Comments

Anonymous said…
We could lead by example. We stopped testing weapons with the belief that other countries would suspend their efforts. North Korea and Iran didn't seem to follow that example.

We could try the carrot approach, but giving a pallet of cash to Iran didn't prove to be helpful.

When Trump did the stick approach it got North Korea's attention, for a short while.

If a country has large coal deposits they will build that type of plant over a nuclear plant simply based on the cost.

I don't have an answer, but I am sure that driving our economy into the ground and becoming dependent on other countries for our energy needs to provide an example will not work just like our suspension of testing.
6/14/2021 8:55 AM
Anonymous said…
We do this by creating a Global government, by getting rid the of need of winner take all capitalism, creating equity, and being welcoming to migrating communities which due to climate change will be in the billions. The idea of private home ownership needs to be overcome. The labs can play a big role in this.
6/14/2021 9:49 AM
Anonymous said…
6/14/2021 8:55 AM

Very well said. Thank you.
6/14/2021 3:57 PM
Anonymous said…


The labs should divert some of their LDRD funding on looking how to scientifically make are more green and equitable future. This would include looking into how to meet people basic needs with dignity and respect. How to reduce wealth inequalities, make sure that large portion of our society do not have to live in fear. Covid has offered the labs a unique opportunity to doing something to make the world better rather than working on weapons of mass destruction that supports a western system that says it is about freedom when in fact it is about oppression.
6/14/2021 4:49 PM
Anonymous said…
9:49 can you provide any shred of evidence for the actual utility of your socialist agenda? Since when do “the Labs” provide ANY role in the elimination of private home ownership or a Global government? You spew to the point of froth.
6/15/2021 4:55 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.
124 comments
Read more

tcp1 looking good

By scooby
I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...
105 comments
Read more