Words Mean Something


Carborendum
 Share

Recommended Posts

You may have read about Biden's address:

https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1549835486172221442/video/1

Interesting things about words being used, mistaken words, stretching the literal for conceptual hyperbole...

  • His primary purpose for this address was to say what he's going to do to address the "climate crisis" and "create energy jobs."
    • Let's assume for a moment that the climate alarmists are 100% correct about greenhouse gasses, etc. There is only one solution with current or up-and-coming technologies that will address both of these issues: Nuclear power.  There is no other way. 
    • Wind, solar, hydro, ethanol, or bio-deisel simply do not produce the results that are sought to address the supposed climate issue while even producing anywhere near the energy that we use today.  If you were to scale up any of these, they would cause more environmental problems than petroleum based energy.
    • If you do not include nuclear as the front and center method of moving forward, you simply cannot be taken seriously on this issue, so stop talking about it right now.
  • He conflates coal power plants with oil refineries as if they are the same thing.
    • He first mentions the "gunk" to form on one's windshield due to coal power plants.
    • Then he likens it to refineries doing the same thing "at first frost".   
      • First frost = oil slick???  Since when do we hear of oil sitting atop a layer of frost on a windshield? 
      • An oil slick on windshields from refineries?  I haven't been able to debunk it.  But I've never heard of it.
      • I've never worked with coal power plants, but I've worked in and around refineries for the last 15+ years.  I've never heard of it from anyone.  And I've never noticed anything like that on my windshield.
  • He says that Claymont, DE has more refineries than Houston, Tx. 
    • This is not difficult since Houston only has two active refineries within its city boundaries.  And there are only three others in the surrounding area. 
    • I haven't looked into how many are in the Claymont area.  But it doesn't really mean much if there are more than in the Houston area.
  • He says he "has" cancer. 
    • Maybe he does.  Maybe he doesn't.  But his spokespeople are saying he meant "had" cancer.  Ok, he misspoke.  I can forgive him for mistakes.  But how often does he keep doing this?  Can we take him seriously if he so often "misspeaks"?  How are we supposed to trust him on anything?  A few mistakes here and there, sure. No problem.  But we all know his record.  And cancer is not something that you just throw around willy-nilly.
    • He says DE had one of the highest cancer rates in the nation.  "Had"?  Still does, actually.  And nothing has changed with the changes in the number of refineries or refinery activity.  The cancer rates in DE have not changed with refineries or energy production.

So, what can we actually take seriously from his speech?  "Shrug".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

 

  • There is only one solution with current or up-and-coming technologies that will address both of these issues: Nuclear power.  There is no other way.

The only other way is to go back to living life before electricity. How many of those who have made climate change their religion are willing to do that? I doubt they even know how. Life would be difficult without power, but I could survive. I doubt the majority of our nation could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, scottyg said:

The only other way is to go back to living life before electricity. How many of those who have made climate change their religion are willing to do that? I doubt they even know how. Life would be difficult without power, but I could survive. I doubt the majority of our nation could.

I think I agree with the unspoken message here.  If we do truly go green, we'll be living without electricity.  With some conditionals, I largely agree.  But my larger point was that Biden had two conflicting goals.  The only way that those TWO goals can converge is through nuclear.

Life before electricity solves the "green" half of the equation but not his other stated goal.  His other promise was to "create energy jobs."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, scottyg said:

The only other way is to go back to living life before electricity. How many of those who have made climate change their religion are willing to do that? I doubt they even know how. Life would be difficult without power, but I could survive. I doubt the majority of our nation could.

Most of the world's population would starve to death. As was famously observed in an academic paper in the late 1970s, modern agriculture is the science of turning petroleum into food. A pre-electric civilization would be incapable of sustaining 8 billion people in the world.

Petroleum can be replaced, but only with a similar fuel or with electricity and better battery technology. This is the promise of nuclear power: virtually unlimited electricity.

Frankly, I don't see any other possible way for us to move forward without losing most of the world's population. Petroleum is simply not sustainable, even if you disbelieve the global warming ideas.

Contrary to popular media portrayals, we will not be able to build enough windmills to generate the power we need. Besides, so-called green technology really isn't green at all. Nuclear power is far safer, far cleaner, and a far more abundant energy source than literally anything else available to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if recent films and television series (such as Chernobyl) were actually made to put fear into people that nuclear energy is bad and dangerous. If nuclear was adopted more widely, the left would lose one of their 4 great ideological pillars...and they cannot let that happen.

I also wonder if we were to put more money into nuclear energy if mankind would eventually have associated research that led to small size power sources from fusion/fission like we see in Star Wars and Star Trek. Perhaps that is just the sci-fi geek in me coming out, but there is no way we would ever get to that point relying on solar and wind alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Interesting development:  Nuclear seems to be gaining steam.  I'm not hearing much about it in the news. Strictly speaking, I'm not hearing ANYthing about it in the news.

But I'm getting an awful lot of recruiters telling me about opportunities for engineers in the nuclear field.  Unfortunately, I'm not well-versed in these particular specialties.  They don't use the same codes for design.

At some point the industry will grow to the point that they need to accept experienced engineers in the heavy industry sector that are willing to learn the proper codes.  When I hear that happening, then we will know that nuclear is a big thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2022 at 5:37 AM, scottyg said:

 

I wonder if recent films and television series (such as Chernobyl) were actually made to put fear into people that nuclear energy is bad and dangerous.

 

I loved the Chernobyl series.  From my perspective it wasn’t trying to make viewers fear ☢️ energy.  It reinforced the fact that idiots and insecure middle managers should never have the power to make decisions.  You cannot give a gun to a child.  

Earth is currently 0.72 on the Kardeshev scale.  If you look at humanity, and our progress in harnessing the availability of energy from the Earth, we have done pretty well…

We figured out the steam engine and managed to transition to coal and petroleum before de-foresting the entire planet.

Yeah we are gonna have some growing pains moving from fossil fuels to the nuclear age but its the obvious stepwise process.  

It is like God has a plan for us to progress - Please see 2 Nephi 28:30.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2022 at 12:26 AM, Vort said:

Petroleum is simply not sustainable, even if you disbelieve the global warming ideas.

Sure it is, but we must act now! I’ve petitioned my congressional representatives to legislate filling the Grand Canyon with livestock* and burying them to provide our great nation with future energy resources.

 

* and cats

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share