'Climate Change' and the coming 'Climate Lockdown'

DarthOne

☦️
that bacteria is found pretty much everywhere.
they even had problems with Mir space station with plastic eating bacteria

Even a random canadian teen doing a highschool science project was easily able to just find some

As for balls... there are many far more likely candidates for the low testosterone of modern men.
1. excessive masturbation with the normalization of porn
2. estrogen in the water supply.
3. pestecides in the water known to cause related problems such as atrazine. see:



Although to be honest, it is most likely a combination of all those things. Rather than just one singular issue.
That is usually how it works in biology. many minor problems compound together.

Also. kinda annoying that they keep on bitching at us to stop using plastics when it won't do jack shit for all the plastic already in the environment.
and when research shows that you can 100% eliminate all microplastic in water via correct treatment of the water.

which would remove the vast majority of microplastic consumed by humans

Instead of all the bullshit they are doing, the EPA should be making sure that all water treatment plants in america are filtering microplastics.


If those chemicals in the water are literally turning frogs gay then one can only imagine what it’s doing to us humans…

In before some LGBT activists demand that they have a right to have those chemicals in the water otherwise it’s LGBTQ genocide or something.
 

ThatZenoGuy

Zealous Evolutionary Nano Organism
Comrade
If those chemicals in the water are literally turning frogs gay then one can only imagine what it’s doing to us humans…

In before some LGBT activists demand that they have a right to have those chemicals in the water otherwise it’s LGBTQ genocide or something.
They already demand explicit access to other people's children, its only a matter of time before "Estrogen tablets in the water or LGBT riot!" becomes a thing.
 

DarthOne

☦️
They already demand explicit access to other people's children, its only a matter of time before "Estrogen tablets in the water or LGBT riot!" becomes a thing.
“Your terms are acceptable.”

6uvunv.png
 
Last edited:

Allanon

Well-known member
Sure, nature can compensate for things like extra CO2 caused by man.

But we sure ain't going to like HOW it will compensate.

The ironic part is that in dealing with this problem we can become more energy-independent- NOT with nuclear power or the like- I mean each home having its own power source. That frees us more from government, stress, financial debt, and corporations.

Yes it IS a serious problem and YES for once humanity needs to face up and deal with it, but I DO NOT WANT useless, bought-off, Baby Boomer run know-nothing governments' tyrannical "solutions" in my life.
 

Allanon

Well-known member
Climate-change being real or not is a drop in the bucket compared to pollution.
The planet can handle temperatures being odd, species have lived through much worse conditions than today, and they'll continue to live with worse conditions.
But the planet and humans are not capable of handling crap like microplastics and other toxic wastes being dumped all over the place.
Sure is strange how environmentalists are more than happy to ditch their car to 'save the planet', only to buy the latest iphone every year. I wonder where all those phones end up...

Not to mention the slave labor involved.
 

mrttao

Well-known member

TLDR:
EPA: 34 out of 36 studies say your pesticide atrazine is bad.
Most of these were funded by you. They still say it is bad.
The scientists you hired to do those studies say you tried to bribe them with millions of dollars to lie and say it is harmless.

Syngenta: here is "good science protocols" for how to test Syngenta(TM) brand pesticide.
Syngenta: here is New Study I made using protocols. showing it is harmless.

EPA: ok. we disqualified all 36 previous studies for not following your "good science protocols" you just wrote. They are now "bad science"
EPA: 100% (1 out of 1) of studies show your pesticide is totes harmless. approved! also since 100% of all scientists agree, it is now a "science consensus" so we will refuse to accept any new studies on the matter.

And this is why our water is full of pesticide that turns frogs intersex. And causes several other problems too.

Edit: Turns out Syngenta is directly owned by the CCP government
 
Last edited:

mrttao

Well-known member
In before some LGBT activists demand that they have a right to have those chemicals in the water otherwise it’s LGBTQ genocide or something.
Biden's minister of health is a trans, and he said that all children should be prescribed puberty blockers until they are 18 and can "consent" to puberty.


Also, while he was ordering lockdowns and mask mandates at peak covid, he ignored his own mandates to sneak off to glory holes... on the sucker's side.
as per videos that caught him in the act

He also ordered covid infect patients into nursing homes. killing a bunch of old people.

It is hilarious that the wikipedia article claims this is false... and cites a news article that literally admits it happens, but then engages in doublethink to claim it didn't.

The comments on said article are hilarious. Literally not 1 single user comment agrees with the article. every single comment is calling them out on contradicting themselves
 
Last edited:

Scottty

Well-known member
Founder
TLDR:
EPA: 34 out of 36 studies say your pesticide atrazine is bad.
Most of these were funded by you. They still say it is bad.
The scientists you hired to do those studies say you tried to bribe them with millions of dollars to lie and say it is harmless.

Syngenta: here is "good science protocols" for how to test Syngenta(TM) brand pesticide.
Syngenta: here is New Study I made using protocols. showing it is harmless.

EPA: ok. we disqualified all 36 previous studies for not following your "good science protocols" you just wrote. They are now "bad science"
EPA: 100% (1 out of 1) of studies show your pesticide is totes harmless. approved! also since 100% of all scientists agree, it is now a "science consensus" so we will refuse to accept any new studies on the matter.

And this is why our water is full of pesticide that turns frogs intersex. And causes several other problems too.

It's a pesticide. By definition it's supposed to be harmful to life.
 

ThatZenoGuy

Zealous Evolutionary Nano Organism
Comrade
It's a pesticide. By definition it's supposed to be harmful to life.
Strictly speaking it's a herbicide, not supposed to affect animals while killing plants.
Except who would have thought that something capable of killing plants has a very good chance of being harmful towards other organic life!
It's like designing a non-lethal bullet, its going to screw up eventually.
 

mrttao

Well-known member
Strictly speaking it's a herbicide, not supposed to affect animals while killing plants.
Except who would have thought that something capable of killing plants has a very good chance of being harmful towards other organic life!
It's like designing a non-lethal bullet, its going to screw up eventually.
Yep. which is why we have all those testing done to make sure it is actually safe to use in the environment at large.
Too bad we have such endemic corruption that the tests results were ignored.
 

Allanon

Well-known member
Again, global warming as they incorrectly call it, is a problem- I just don't want know-nothing government types shoving their "solutions" down our throats since it will be sheer stupidity and only make everything worse ("gee let's exclude Russia, India, and China from the treaty!"). The way Covid-19 was handled from Day One proves this.
 
Case for Nuclear Strengthens as First New Reactor in Decades Goes Online

DarthOne

☦️

Case for Nuclear Strengthens as First New Reactor in Decades Goes Online



By ANDREW FOLLETT

April 9, 2023 6:30 AM
America and the world are experiencing heightened energy insecurity. Nuclear power provides a reliable and clean source of energy — if the government lets it.


Something big has happened in the realm of nuclear power, strengthening the case for the energy source. Vogtle Unit 3 began supplying its first electricity to the grid on April 1. It's the first truly new reactor in the U.S. since 1996, 27 years ago.

Unit 3 is scheduled to enter commercial operations by the middle of this year, with the nearby Unit 4 projected to be complete later this year. Together, the new units will provide electricity to half a million homes and businesses in Georgia.

"It's great that the Vogtle 3 nuclear power plant is finally coming on line," Robert Zubrin, engineer and author of the new book The Case for Nukes, told National Review. "But it's the first nuke to start up in the United States in 3 decades, and it took 14 years to build. America's first nuclear power plant, at Shippingport, was built in three. That was in 1957."

Zubrin's book skillfully outlines the political and technical history of nuclear power in the U.S. while explaining how a recent spate of entrepreneurial developments in the field, such as mass-producible reactors that cannot melt down, are poised to revive the flagging industry — if the government can get out of the way.

Prior to Vogtle, Watts Bar, the newest U.S. nuclear reactor, finished its troubled construction process in 2016 — 43 years after it began. Construction was put on hold in 1985 because of a scandal involving contractors paying off corrupt TVA officials. Watts Bar Unit 1 was completed in 1996, but construction of Unit 2, when 80 percent complete, was suspended by another scandal and only restarted in 2007. The projected cost of this old reactor was initially $2.2 billion, but new compliance standards, inflation related to the old design, and overruns drove the costs up to $4.7 billion.

America currently operates 92 nuclear reactors across 54 commercially operating nuclear-power plants, providing 18.2 percent of the nation's electricity, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). That's down from 99 reactors in 2016.

The average nuclear plant employs between 400 and 700 highly skilled workers, has a payroll of about $40 million, and contributes $470 million to the local economy, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute trade group.

"With more experience, the time to build a nuke should have gone down. Instead, as a result of hostile hyperregulation it has quintupled, and the cost has gone up as the construction time squared. This is crazy," Zubrin continued. "If the FAA were run like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC] we would have no airplanes. If we are going to have a vibrant nuclear industry, this problem needs to be corrected. Drastic regulatory reform is in order."

Perhaps the best example of NRC meddling increasing the costs of the Vogtle reactors was the agency's forcing the company behind the project to spend $30 million and a month of time fixing a simple pipe brace, the kind of problem that should cost merely thousands of dollars and take a day or even just an hour to fix. However, the NRC ensured that the minor pipe problem required a full license amendment, thus creating more bureaucratic work for overpaid NRC bureaucrats.
The NRC receives 90 percent of its budget from direct fees on the nuclear industry, giving it even more of an incentive to artificially inflate costs than most government bureaucracies. The agency charged $290 an hour for staff time in 2022, a cost mostly borne by the nuclear industry.
Zubrin's book explains how the NRC's decisions are extremely erratic, with the agency regularly letting politics influence its decisions to allow reactors to operate. The agency regularly flip-flops at the behest of environmental activists and Democratic-appointed bureaucrats, seemingly so that the wind and solar-energy projects those groups favor don't have to deal with competition.

In 2018, Congress tried to simplify the NRC's awful licensing procedures, but the agency ignored Congress and tacked on an additional 1,200 pages of regulation.

Heavy government regulations combined with policies directly favoring wind and solar energy now make it essentially impossible to open a new profitable nuclear-power plant, according to an R Street Institute study. Each existing U.S. nuclear plant spends an estimated $4.2 million annually just meeting government-paperwork requirements and another $4.4 million to pay government-mandated security staff while paying $14 million in government fees, according to a 2017 American Action Forum report. The average nuclear-power plant employs an estimated 86 full-time employees solely to do NRC-mandated paperwork, meaning about 17 percent of the employees just handle red tape.

The NRC clearly wrecked America's once world-leading nuclear-power industry, reducing it from building nine new reactors when it was founded in 1975 and 1976, to a grand total of three in all the years since. In January, the NRC's bureaucracy proposed a series of ridiculous new rules for approving reactors that are mathematically impossible to meet and so strict that their only purpose seems to be to block any new reactors. (The proposed rules assume that every new nuclear plant would suffer an unprecedented catastrophic failure every single year.)

The NRC's mission is to enable the use of nuclear power to contribute to America's environment and national security via regulation, not to flat-out ban the use of nuclear energy. Yet it is not an exaggeration to say that Biden's NRC is drowning America's nuclear-energy industry in a tide of expensive red tape. Congress should ask the agency and the Biden administration to explain why it appears to be intentionally handicapping nuclear power.

America and the world are experiencing heightened energy insecurity, and as Zubrin's book explains, zero-emission nuclear power provides a reliable and clean source of energy. All the government needs to do to inaugurate a new era of energy is to get out of the way.
 
UK: £100 annual penalty for not switching to electricity

DarthOne

☦️

How £100-a-year gas 'penalty' will affect YOU: Experts warn government 'green drive' onto electricity will cost households up to £13,000 to fit heat pumps they need to avoid hiked gas bills


  • Ministers are set to change subsidy rules as part of their Net Zero strategy
  • It will risk increasing gas bills by up to £100 a year, while electricity bills fall
Experts today blasted government plans to force households onto electricity by hiking their gas bills.

Ministers are set to change subsidy rules as part of their Net Zero strategy which will see gas bills increase by £100 a year for millions of households while reducing the cost of electricity.

Heat pumps are among the few viable options to gas boilers to heating a home, but they come at an exorbitant cost - as much as £13,000 to install, it has previously been estimated.

Speaking to MailOnline today, experts called the policy 'wrong for the country', adding that it would penalise those who cannot pay the thousands of pounds required for a heat pump.

Mike Foster, chief executive of the Energy and Utilities Alliance, accused ministers of 'force the wrong green solution down [the public's] throats' and warned families would be 'hit in the pocket'.

He added: 'Slapping green levies on a gas bill used to keep people warm in winter penalises those who can't afford the £13,000 needed for a heat pump. Those that can afford it now get a £5,000 subsidy and in these plans £100 a year off their energy bills too.

'Under these plans, Doris the pensioner living alone is penalised for trying to keep warm, but it becomes cheaper for Johnnie to play video games all night. That's the wrong priority for this country.'

Ministers want to 'rebalance' levies on the main two types of energy, encouraging people to use electricity instead in a move intended to accelerate the switch to cleaner power.

But Pimlico Plumbers founder Charlie Mullins said today that there simply were not enough trained engineers to remove to 'take the old stuff out or put the new systems in'.

Mr Mullins, who sold his business in 2021, added that the price of engineers would also increase because the demand for callouts would be so high.

He told MailOnline today: 'It's the poor people who are going to suffer. It's a bad policy, it's again penalising households.

'Talk about £100 a year, but that's only an estimate - the more gas you use, the higher it's going to be. I think it's quite a cheek that they're doing it.

'The other problem is it doesn't work. We don't have enough gas engineers, we don't have enough to take the old stuff out or put the new systems in. So this additional cost could go in for a long time. They won't have the engineers to do the work.

'The other thing is it's going to be an expense to do it. Not only is it going to be another additional cost, and then you've got all the landlords to do it which means it is going to increase rent.

'It's the working class people who are going to have to pay for bad judgement by the government and it's the wrong time to bring out this policy given the prices with the war.'

He continued: 'If you think gas traders are expensive now, when this gets passed they're going to be charging a fortune because they don't have the amount - it's going to be a supply and demand issue.

'Rural areas and communities are reliant on gas out of London, where they don't have two options. It just hasn't been thought about enough, that's for sure.

'They've been pushing us onto new boilers and less emission, so what about all the people who've just had new stuff put in? They don't want to change the system because it's new.

He added that it takes three years for boiler engineers to get fully trained, and if 20million boilers required changing, that would 'probably require a million engineers to do something like that'.

He said: 'These are not small jobs, they're not cheap. Practically it can't be done. Cost wise, people don't have that type of money and you don't have the engineers to do it.'


While gas produces greenhouse gases, electricity can be generated from renewable sources such as wind and solar.

Households are currently funding the shift to green energy through state levies on electricity, making it more expensive than gas.

Along with subsidies for insulation and the vulnerable, those charges add up to £131 on a typical annual electricity bill.

By contrast the levies on a typical gas bill are just £34.

Ministers are concerned that the difference will turn people off replacing their gas boilers with alternatives such as electric heat pumps.

The proposed rebalancing could see gas bills rise by up to £100 a year, according to the Daily Telegraph. The plans are set to go for consultation, and there is no timetable for implementing them yet.

Matt Copeland, head of policy at National Energy Action, told MailOnline today: 'While it is important to reduce electricity bills to make heat pumps more affordable for low-income households, this must not be done at the expense of millions of fuel poor gas users, who do not have the means to move to low carbon heating without financial support.'

And the campaign group Net Zero Watch warned that the policy would make heating 'even less affordable for millions of poor households'.

Its director Benny Peiser said: 'While energy analysts are warning of a renewed energy cost crisis later this year, the government seems oblivious of the growing economic pain to households and businesses.

'Mr Sunak and his ministers won't be able to blame the next energy crisis on Russia; instead, the government will rightly be held responsible for its total failure to reduce the rising cost of green levies.'

Good Morning Britain host Susanna Reid grilled Energy Secretary Grant Shapps about the new policy on the programme today, asking him: 'The trouble is, all people hear is, my bills are going to go up. Will they?'

Mr Shapps replied: 'No, and in fact that £100 shift would be from gas to giving the money off electricity instead, largely because the whole economy is moving towards electricity.'

Reid then interjected, saying: 'Hang on, hang on, so can we just establish that? Sorry, Mr Shapps. You're saying that gas bills will not go up in order to shift towards electricity?

And Mr Shapps replied: 'So one of the proposals, which we said we will consult on today, is there are a bunch of levy changes essentially.

And this is quite a minor point of the overall plan, by the way, but there's about £100 which at the moment is on people's electricity bills which could go on the gas bills instead.


'If it went on the electricity bills we think it would save people money overall and so that's why we're proposing making that shift. But it really makes no difference to most people. Most people are paying electricity and gas.'

Speaking on Sky News, Mr Shapps said Britons would need to switch from gas to cleaner energy 'over the next decade or two'.

He said: 'We all know that electricity can be a big way to decarbonise, but we also know these are big changes. So this is not a sort of rip-out-your-boiler moment.

'This is a transition over a period of time to get to homes which are heated in a different way and also insulated much better.'

He admitted 'we're in the low numbers still' for the uptake of heat pumps, with around 42,000 installed last year, adding: 'This programme, which is latent, it's at the beginning. There are technical issues that people are having to deal with in order to meet the switchover.'

Listing the steps he has taken in his own home, including turning down the boiler flow, Mr Shapps said: 'I'm gradually doing things. I'm not sort of some eco-warrior in this. I just want to try and save money on my energy bills like everybody else.'

Mr Shapps, who does not have a heat pump, said the Government's Powering Up Britain strategy had extended a scheme offering households £5,000 to replace their gas boilers.

But he added that energy company workers were going to survey his house this month 'to see about whether heat pumps can work'.

He told GB News: 'Sort of living the dream, as it were - or I'm hoping to. We'll see what happens when they come around to my house.'

Meanwhile, families could be offered hundreds of pounds off their energy bills if they agree to have a wind farm nearby under plans set to be announced today.

Ministers will launch a consultation to ensure local communities can benefit from the development of onshore wind farms where there is local support.

Mr Shapps confirmed that families who choose to support onshore wind could benefit directly through lower bills.

Ministers have previously looked at a scheme to give households up to £350 a year off their bills in return for supporting the construction of local wind farms.

When Rishi Sunak became Prime Minister, he scrapped moves to relax the planning laws that have led to a virtual moratorium on wind farms since 2015.

But he faced a mounting backbench rebellion after an amendment was tabled to allow onshore wind where there is community consent.

Labour then joined forces with the rebels to support the amendment and No10 was forced to reconsider.

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said: 'We have always been clear that we support the development of onshore wind where there is local support.

'Today's package of measures ensures councils will have more flexibility to respond to the views of their residents, while we will shortly consult on further measures so that communities that choose to support onshore wind in their area can benefit directly from doing so, including through lower bills.'

Former prime minister David Cameron introduced an effective ban on onshore wind farms in 2015.

Developers were forced to address all local concerns about a potential wind farm and just one person could hold up an entire project.

Calls to end the ban on new onshore wind farms have grown amid efforts to secure the UK's energy independence after Russia's invasion of Ukraine squeezed supplies.



How much heat pumps will cost to install


AIR SOURCE HEAT PUMPS (£5,000-£12,000)
Air source heat pumps absorb heat from the outside air at low temperature into a fluid to heat your house and hot water. They can still extract heat when it is as cold as -15C (5F), with the fluid passing through a compressor which warms it up and transfers it into a heating circuit.

They extract renewable heat from the environment, meaning the heat output is greater than the electricity input – and they are therefore seen as energy efficient.

There are two types, which are air-to-water and air-to-air, and installing a system costs an average of £10,500 but can be more or less, depending on the size of your home and its insulation. A Government grant of £5,000 and no VAT now means the actual average is at £4,975.

GROUND SOURCE HEAT PUMPS (£11,000 - £20,000)
Ground source heat pumps use pipes buried in the garden to extract heat from the ground, which can then heat radiators, warm air heating systems and hot water.

They circulate a mixture of water and antifreeze around a ground loop pipe. Heat from the ground is absorbed into the fluid and then passes through a heat exchanger.

Installation costs between £11,000 to £20,000 depending on the length of the loop, and running costs will depend on the size of the home and its insulation.

The Government is offering a £6,000 grant and no VAT on installations. The systems normally come with a two or three year warranty - and work for at least 20 years, with a professional check every three to five years.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top