OT - What's going on in France

[MikeD]

Originally Posted by Mzilliox

who provides the jobs? cmon with tat crap. we provide jobs for ourselves. entrepreneurs provide jobs, necessity provides jobs. Multiglobalist corporations provide something like a job, something like slavery, and something like a good waste of time should you have nothing better to guide your life. But sure, lets go with the well they provide jobs, so lets let corporations do whatever the hell they want.



Jobs, there's always jobs, why are jobs the catch phrase, one can always garden, farm and subsist, this is work, this is job, this is life.



Jobs, im so damn tired of jobs as the end all for humanity. Is this the best we got? Jobs? seriously? not happiness, health, nature, clean water, just jobs.



no wonder the world is so weird.

Yeah whatever...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[93KgBike]

General Motors just got a huge tax break. And they're using it to build factories in Mexico and China.

[Mzilliox]

Originally Posted by 93KgBike

General Motors just got a huge tax break. And they're using it to build factories in Mexico and China.

and why would they not? capitalism is not meant to serve humans, its meant to make profit. if we want a system that serves us, we need to change the system. one day there will be robots, and capitalism will favor them massively, as they dont complain or require pay. then what? what good are jobs then?

Seriously, these are the problems leaders need to address to keep citizen happy.

the economy doesn't need help, we do.

[cloudguy]

Originally Posted by Mzilliox

Seriously, these are the problems leaders need to address to keep citizen happy.

the economy doesn't need help, we do.

Not sure if I'm paraphrasing correctly, but my economist friend once told me that Keynes thought people in the future would work less and enjoy more leisure time, what with advances in efficiency, technology etc. So far that obviously hasn't panned out, but perhaps the robot revolution will force this leisure time upon us...more time for riding bikes and playing golf, at least until the robots kill us all.

[MikeD]

Originally Posted by 93KgBike

General Motors just got a huge tax break. And they're using it to build factories in Mexico and China.

Automotive tariffs are coming!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Jaybee]

nm

[MikeD]

Originally Posted by rain dogs

Changes in policy don't invalidate data that has already been collected and verified. As well, Germany was shutting down nuclear in 2011, three years prior to the last data point shown in the link.

If you have more up-to-date CO2 per capita numbers by all means share them please.

Additionally, German use of natural gas, hard coal, lignite and nuclear are all being reduced and have been reducing year after year since 2013, one year prior to those 2014 numbers. This shows info up to and including 2017

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/fact...xit-commission

In France, it appears that Macron has cancelled the apparent gas tax, so the protest has had results I guess

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...esident-macron

It's always important to remember that change doesn't happen overnight and there will be ups and downs along the way, but portraying Germany as an example of failure, hypocrisy or unwilling to advance their policy to meet climate targets is unfair. It's not going to be lions hugging lambs overnight, but rest assured the German government, as do the vast majority of the members in the EU, remain committed and are quite rightfully seen as leaders in not just the conversation, but more importantly in actions.

Lastly, I think every one of us can take a little pride each time we throw a leg over a bicycle, as little or much as we can, in terms of doing one ride's more part in the whole equation, not just for our own health but our community

Another perspective on Germany https://www.google.com/amp/s/foreign...hypocrite/amp/

In 2017, 40.3% of Germany's electricity was generated from coal!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[froze]

Originally Posted by MikeD

That and the high consequences of an accident and huge cost of the plants pretty much dooms fission nuclear power in the US.

Nuclear accidents are very rare, in fact coal mining is a lot more dangerous, but when you add up all the non nuclear energy accidents from 1907 to 2007 the total is 390,000 for the coal plants, and 324,000 for all the oil plants per year; and what's really crazy is about 1 person every 18 hours is killed due to ONE single coal plant; not to mention $41 billion dollars in property damage which is total for all plants. Those deaths don't even take into consideration deaths caused by burning fossil fuels which are estimated to be around 2.1 million PER YEAR!

While nuclear energy related deaths since 1957 till 2011 comes to just 44 which works out to 1 death per 3 years and that includes mining and transportation! Add to that 44 is another 16 for cancer related attributed to Chernobyl...but that is a Russian total and usually their estimates for that sort of stuff is extremely low, so I would guess the total is probably closer to a couple thousand and I think that may be on the low side!

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/0...gy-source.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents

People need to stop protesting nuclear power plants, it's silly and full of ignorance of the real facts, and instead they should be trying their best to shut down coal and oil and replace those with nuke plants and embrace nuclear energy. Of course you will get the coal industry to cry foul, but something needs to be done about the pollution and the CO2. The planet's biggest problem is China, that country is the biggest user of fossil fuel currently, and it's going to be difficult for China to make the switch but they are doing it though, they are currently ranked number 4 in the world for nuclear power capacity and are trying to increase it dramatically over the next 20 years to become the number 1 country and getting most their power from it but even then they will still be using coal and oil. Problem with China however is that their quality control has always been an issue, and I'm not real sure how well they will manage nuclear power to prevent a serious problem.

[MikeD]

Originally Posted by froze

Nuclear accidents are very rare, in fact coal mining is a lot more dangerous, but when you add up all the non nuclear energy accidents from 1907 to 2007 the total is 390,000 for the coal plants, and 324,000 for all the oil plants per year; and what's really crazy is about 1 person every 18 hours is killed due to ONE single coal plant; not to mention $41 billion dollars in property damage which is total for all plants. Those deaths don't even take into consideration deaths caused by burning fossil fuels which are estimated to be around 2.1 million PER YEAR!



While nuclear energy related deaths since 1957 till 2011 comes to just 44 which works out to 1 death per 3 years and that includes mining and transportation! Add to that 44 is another 16 for cancer related attributed to Chernobyl...but that is a Russian total and usually their estimates for that sort of stuff is extremely low, so I would guess the total is probably closer to a couple thousand and I think that may be on the low side!



https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/0...gy-source.html



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents



People need to stop protesting nuclear power plants, it's silly and full of ignorance of the real facts, and instead they should be trying their best to shut down coal and oil and replace those with nuke plants and embrace nuclear energy. Of course you will get the coal industry to cry foul, but something needs to be done about the pollution and the CO2. The planet's biggest problem is China, that country is the biggest user of fossil fuel currently, and it's going to be difficult for China to make the switch but they are doing it though, they are currently ranked number 4 in the world for nuclear power capacity and are trying to increase it dramatically over the next 20 years to become the number 1 country and getting most their power from it but even then they will still be using coal and oil. Problem with China however is that their quality control has always been an issue, and I'm not real sure how well they will manage nuclear power to prevent a serious problem.

Nuclear power in the US doesn't have much of a future. If the exorbitantly high cost and long timescale to construct the plants weren't enough, we lack the political will to dispose of the waste. The Yucca Mountain project, which was to be a repository for the high level spent fuel, dragged on for many years and was finally killed by NIMBYism. President Carter, a nuclear engineer ironically, stopped fuel reprocessing because of proliferation concerns, so the dangerous spent fuel sit in cooling ponds at power plant sites, instead of being more safely put in a repository or reprocessed. Things were looking up for a time, then the Fukashima accident occurred. Frankly, I'll be glad when they close Diablo Canyon, situated on the coast in seismically active California. Maybe someday fusion power will become a reality, but it always seems to be 40 years away. In the mean time in California, there's solar, wind, hydro, and natural gas plants. I suspect that's the way it's going to be for the future, with more solar and wind power.

[Davist]

Originally Posted by MikeD

In the mean time in California, there's solar, wind, hydro, and natural gas plants. I suspect that's the way it's going to be for the future, with more solar and wind power.

Of course the net result of increased renewables in CA has been +30% in PGE rates in the last 5 years and more "peaking" plants (read low efficiency) on line including coal fired, look at the "duck curve"... but agreed that it's the future, but not very bright with current implementation. If we'd use natural gas more as you mention perhaps (and get serious about storage, including the ONLY grid scale solution currently available, pumped hydro). Chemical batteries are both a toxic nightmare and there's not nearly enough (~1700 tons global production/year of lithium) for anything near what's needed..

This, of course, has nothing to do with yellow vest protesters in France, although EDF is the envy of the EU power generators with about 2/3 of the power fleet being nuclear and exporting more power than any other utility in the EU.

[froze]

Originally Posted by MikeD

Nuclear power in the US doesn't have much of a future. If the exorbitantly high cost and long timescale to construct the plants weren't enough, we lack the political will to dispose of the waste. The Yucca Mountain project, which was to be a repository for the high level spent fuel, dragged on for many years and was finally killed by NIMBYism. President Carter, a nuclear engineer ironically, stopped fuel reprocessing because of proliferation concerns, so the dangerous spent fuel sit in cooling ponds at power plant sites, instead of being more safely put in a repository or reprocessed. Things were looking up for a time, then the Fukashima accident occurred. Frankly, I'll be glad when they close Diablo Canyon, situated on the coast in seismically active California. Maybe someday fusion power will become a reality, but it always seems to be 40 years away. I read something about a thorium reactor that Bill Gates is putting money into. Then read that it produces U233, which is a highly radioactive isotope. In the mean time in California, there's solar, wind, hydro, and natural gas plants. I suspect that's the way it's going to be for the future, with more solar and wind power.

Actually renewable wind, solar, and hydro makes the cost of energy far higher than nuke power, the reason it doesn't seem like those renewables aren't so expensive is because the cost to construct the systems is heavily subsidized by the government, which in Spain's case nearly bankrupt that country. I seriously doubt the US can meet its needs using just natural renewable sources, maybe up to 25% but that will be it. And don't forget that the Tree Huggers wants the US to build solar panels and wind mills, but when we do build them the Tree Huggers complain that the windmills were killing birds so either production is halted or the windmills turned off; the Tree Huggers liked the idea of solar panels, so we built those and they cried about how they were upsetting the habitats of varies creatures so those were stopped. Here in America it's damn if we don't and damn if we do.

[cloudguy]

Originally Posted by froze

the Tree Huggers complain

"Tree Huggers"? Really!? C'mon Dude, get with the 21st century already.

[froze]

Originally Posted by cloudguy

"Tree Huggers"? Really!? C'mon Dude, get with the 21st century already.

Well what do you call them? oh, that's right something a bit more politically correct, like environmental activist, or perhaps green, or maybe...oh and this one sounds particularly nice...nature lover, yes, that one is really politically correct...no thanks, I had a friend who had to deal personally with these type, I'm staying with tree hugger.

[weisan]

The issue is not with energy sources but the way we consume. It has been and will always be.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by 93KgBike

General Motors just got a huge tax break. And they're using it to build factories in Mexico and China.

As much as the don would like to, punishing one company is illegal.