Our Primes don't seem to be helping

You don’t ban laws. You change laws. A ban is a law.

 

Cows would butt you but they do not kick forward! Either walk close behind or out of range of rear kick and if they step on your foot you hit the back of their knee to lift the foot! Beware of the sandpaper like tongue! Personal knowledge I milked one as a kid growing up on a small farm.

Posted via the PriusChat mobile app.

 

There fixed that for you.


Unsupervised!
iPhone ?

 

Look for more orange & red (gas & oil) in future updates to this graph. Granted the WSO is growing, but it's still quite small. There's a hard cap on what can be imported, because NIMBYs have disallowed new high-tension lines to bring more hydropower from Canada, and the existing lines are full.

 

True, but there are more- and less-efficient solutions to every engineering problem.

 

Zoning ordinances aren’t law and need limits placed if you want to stop legislating bad behavior

And yes a particular type of law at the local level can be banned by other laws at a higher level

 

Yeah, according to the blog I linked, the nucs are on their way out not so much on political or environmental reason, but mainly due to economic reason. That's all good, knowing what happened in Fukushima, but bad for NE as a region for achieving carbon emission free energy supply.

 

There is also hydro in addition to nuclear.

A coal plant is responsible for far more deaths than a similar sized nuclear one. Natural gas is much better than coal, but is not bloodless.

 

If you quantify the danger of nuclear plants by the number of related human death, then maybe right. But there are so much more levels of "dangers" which are intangible about use of nuclear. I am not saying I would rather live near a coal plant than a nuclear plant. Ideally, I don't want either of them near us.

 

The phrase 'gilding the lily' comes to mind when I see an argument for replacing relatively new, clean-burning, well-regulated gas cars with electric ones.

It doesn't do a thing for getting 2-stroke bikes and tuktuks off the road, or the sludgeburners off the ocean routes, and (within transportation anyway) those are causing a lot more harm.

Even if you account for popularity/scale, the machines most in need of curtailment aren't the ones for sale in American car dealerships.

 

I have control over what car I drive, but there's not as much I can do to affect what anyone else does.

 

You can't have it both ways.

Definition of "ordinance" (Ordinance | Definition of Ordinance by Merriam-Webster):

1a: an authoritative decree or direction : ORDER
// On that day the king signed three ordinances.
b: a law set forth by a governmental authority
specifically : a municipal regulation
// A city ordinance forbids construction work to start before 8 a.m.​

 

Can one of you let go, lol.

 

I don't care if it's a law, an ordinance, zoning, or a sticky note. I should be able to have native plants in my yard and not grass.

 

That's fine, I just got my Prime so people would think I'm a good person. The "Coexist" bumper sticker on my previous car wasn't a sufficient virtue signal. "No matter where you're from, we're glad you're our neighbor."

 

Like radiation exposure? People living within 50 miles of a coal plant receive a higher radiation dose than those living within 50 miles of a nuclear one.

Hazardous waste? Coal fly ash contains a range of heavy metals and radio isotopes, which tend to linger on in the environment for quite some time.There is a lot of it. 110 to 130 million tons is produced each year in the US, compared to the 99.2 thousand tons of nuclear waste since we started collecting and securing it. The ash isn't nearly as safely secured, and not all of the hazardous portions are contained in the ash. Much of it goes up the smoke stack along with the carbon and other emissions.

The intangibles of nuclear are far easier to deal with on a technical level. The hurdle is political. If the hundreds of thousands of premature deaths from just coal's particulate pollution could be linked to a handful of named events, public perception would be much different.

 

But your neighbor would find that extremely disturbing.

It’s also disturbing if your house isn’t lit at night and if you don’t use tar treated edging around the landscaping your required to have, you also need to waste water during drought and use chemicals to stop native species from growing in places the city doesn’t like . Don’t forget the roundup around the permitter or your foundation because a plant growing there is also very disturbing and frightening.

Failing this, For example if weeds grow in a crack in your driveway a city inspector needs to drive his 5mpg van to look at it
Then they have to kill a trees worth of paper to inform you of the weed.
Then you need to drive to the city manicipal building wasting more energy to discuss the weed.
Then the city inspector needs to go back to validate the weed is no longer present.

This is the only fair and judicious way to deal with the worlds most important problem as life itself would be impossible if someone didn’t arrange their yard in exactly the same way as everyone expects

 

I think the hurdle of overcoming the fear of nuclear danger is more psychological than anything else. No matter how much the safety of the nuclear plants is improved technically, there will always be more fear associated with "nuclear meltdown" than "coal plant spewing pollutants". Yes, I know it is illogical, but ask anyone who have lost their home, family, friends, and community in Fukushima, we know the answer they will give for a plan to built another nuclear plant anywhere.

 

People that lost homes to this probably will say the same about coal.
Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill - Wikipedia

Of the 20,115 workers involved in operations following the accident at Fukushima, only six have died, and none from acute radiation.
No visible effects detected on workers in Japan nuclear plant, UN assessment finds | UN News

There are concerns about long term public health, but it seems to be minor. "However, studies by the World Health Organisation and Tokyo University have shown that no discernible increase in the rate of cancer deaths is expected.[12] Predicted future cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near Fukushima have ranged[13] in the academic literature from none[14] to hundreds.[11]"
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster casualties - Wikipedia
Without nuclear, deaths from the required fossil fuel plants would likely have been over a million.

There were deaths among the evacuatees of Fukushima. Mostly of those already in poor health that were removed from their normal level of care. Over 50 was the high number for them. They might have lived if left where they were, or they might have been evacuated for some other reason. There was just a massive earthquake and tsunami after all. Natural diaster plus industrial complex tends to result in something bad. There were several spills and leaks of hazardous material during Harvey.

Side note, two to four of the deadliest radiation accidents on this list were with radiotherapy medical treatments. Number one was Chernobyl, which wouldn't have been as bad if the Soviets weren't lying to their own people about the danger immediately after the accident.
List of nuclear and radiation accidents by death toll - Wikipedia