Tracking Earth's Future via Current Events, etc.

[Falcon Horus]

So, how much of the northeast can this HYDRO-power *really* feed; and for how many years is it expected to last?

I looked it up... [cue noone's surprise]

Welcome to the Champlain Hudson Power Express Website
The Champlain Hudson Power Express ("CHPE") project will bring up to 1,000 megawatts (MW) of clean, renewable power to the New York metro area.

The project is fully permitted and strongly supported and would help New York meet its ambitious clean energy goals CHPE is a proposed 330 mile long buried, HVDC buried transmission line that will transport clean energy into the NY metropolitan area.

The project would be one of the largest investments in New York State history and create more than 1,500 direct full-time jobs and 1,100 secondary jobs during construction. Throughout the first 30 years of operation, 800 additional long-term jobs will be created by the project. It will deliver clean power to meet growing demands, increase the security of the State's electric grid, reduce emissions and lower energy costs for consumers.

According to current estimates, the project is expected to generate annual tax payments of approximately $47 million over the first 30 years of operations. Taxpayers in Washington, Saratoga, Albany, Schenectady, Greene, and Rockland counties, as well as the City of New York will receive yearly tax benefits from the CHPE.

Canada is among the top players of hydro-energy providers --> Canada's top 10 hydroelectric dams (source: Mining & Energy CA)

And ... Helpful Energy Comparisons, Anyone? A Guide to Measuring Energy

F.e. from the above article, since terrawatts are mentioned:

Terawatts (TW) are millions of megawatts, and this is a helpful unit when you’re talking about the rate at which humans are using energy worldwide. In 2008, for example, humans used energy (this includes all types of energy, not just electricity) at an average rate of about 16.5 TW of power — the U.S. consumed about one fifth of that, at 3.3 TW.

2: Canada is not likely to go along with the deal. If I were them, I wouldn't.

Yes, they very much are and are very excited about the prospects too.

3: Your geography is in error. This almost has to discussing a hydro power plant along the St. Lawrence, rather than Niagara Falls. NF is at the very far western end of NY, about 600 -700 miles distant. There would be significant transmission losses over that distance.

Go here for the Champlain Hudson Power Fact Sheet (2017)

Even assuming the St. Lawrence location of the source, It's not likely to happen.

Find the route here --> About the project

Actually, most of your power comes from a puke plant.

Deliberate, I assume...

Getting modded is a badge of honor. I have 4 badges

I have 3.

[jelgate]

Sig violations dont count

[Falcon Horus]

Sig violations dont count

Then it's down to 2...

******************************

Question... So *WHY* are the leftists and DEM leadership so desperate to push for "IMPEACHMENT" now to not just Trump, but suddenly also AG William Barr? (Ummm... because they didn't get the report that they wanted... that's most likely why.)

They didn't get the "full" report because AG Barr decided to make up his own summary instead of using Mueller's. He pulled what he thought was relevant and gave them the cliffnote version. Gave everyone the cliffnote version.

They got the report they wanted, and impeachment would be an option but I wouldn't go for it, if I were them. It's not worth it. Besides the GOP won't vote "for it" when it goes to a vote anyway. He may be a handful, but he's easily the best distraction they can hope for.

Although, more recently, he's been more trouble than even they can handle apparently.

OH. There is a reason none of these people want to have those hearings go forth. If AG Barr is removed...resigned or impeached... then ALL of this goes away. No one will know any more, nor hear any more, because it will be back to getting President Trump out of office.

Err... POTUS already invoked executive privilege on the report... or something... Hang on, let me look it up for a moment cause I saw it in passing on my feed.

Here you go, from Time.com: Trump Invokes Executive Privilege Over Unredacted Mueller Report

And the DOJ threatened to keep the unredacted version out of the Dem's hands if they were to proceed with Barr's contempt, which they did put to a vote so the DOJ keeps the lid on the unredacted version.

But seriously, if you claim you have nothing to hide, that's the exact opposite of what anyone would do. What are they afraid of?

The end result was nothing happened, except that Trump became POTUS, and Obama started a team of folks to thwart Trump's moves in reversing Obama's "Legacy" of rules/regs implemented during Obama's 8 years as POTUS...

This the thing you're referring to by chance --> Trump defends claiming there was an attempted 'coup'

The WHY was to oust Trump. Now, the DEM side wants to oust AG Barr. OH, he didn't respond with the results the DEM side wanted to hear.

Didn't read the report, did you?

While a few pages are redacted, most aren't. Volume I is more heavily redacted than Volume II and sometimes it's a bit jarring to read, but it's an interesting read nonetheless. Don't let the legal jargon scare you away.

I say read it and make up your own mind.

I've just started on Volume 1 -- only 350 more pages to go.

[COLOR="#0000FF"]BTW, it has been stated several times over in the news and on various talk radio programs that the UNredacted Mueller report *is* available in a special room for anyone to read it...

I'm afraid you are misinformed.

There is indeed the unredacted version, which is in the hands of the DOJ and AG Barr. However, Bar made the decision to redact parts of it in part to protect several legal issues still ongoing. This basically means that NO, the unredacted version cannot be looked into by just anyone...

Or as VOX explains it...

Will the public ever see the full report?

Democrats in the House and Senate have made no secret of their desire to see every word Mueller’s team wrote in their final report. Their main argument is that Congress has a right to see the entire document in order to perform their constitutionally mandated oversight duties.

“We’ve been doing everything we could for the last weeks and weeks to try and reach an accommodation with the attorney general under which we would see the report and the underlying evidence,” Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, told reporters this week.

It’s unclear if they’ll ultimately get their wish, though, especially since Barr has the right to redact what he wants within the law and within reason. In addition, Trump could exercise executive privilege to try to keep information related to him in the Mueller report secret.

[note: which we know Barr did, and so did Trump]

If Democrats disagree with any of this, though, they can issue a subpoena for an unredacted copy. That would likely pit Congress against the administration in a nasty, drawn-out legal fight, and there’s no guarantee if Democrats would win it.

Which means a redacted copy — while less than ideal — is probably all most of us will ever get to see. If that makes you [redacted] mad, I get it.

[Falcon Horus]

1/8 of the global animal and plant life species will most likely be extinct in the next decade or so, due to... take a guess!! No, it's not the lizards Annoyed, it's mankind. Latest UN report.

Giraffes are officially on the endangered species list. Giraffes people!

Look at THIS GUY and tell me you don't care!

https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/7ce...t=390&fit=crop

I love those guys. They are the mascots of a local zoo here, in my neighborhood, and they are adorkable.

Do you bring your own re-usable bags to do groceries? Have you tried reducing your meat consumption per week? Commuting instead of rotting in traffic jams all day? Do you recycle everything you can instead of throwing it in the trash? Building ''green bridges'' to permit wildlife to safely cross urban areas? No need to clear land, build in heights instead. Remove intensive growing of corn for ethanol production which kills the minerals in the soils, use rotary crops, and replace it by actual foods intended for humans. Clean and renewable energy generation for most basic systems in a city.

Yes. Yes. No, but I would like to buy a more eco-friendly car. Yes. Yes. Yes. Not up to speed with current agricultural innovations on the neighboring farmsteads. Yes (our city is green and going greener still).

[mad_gater]

I looked it up... [cue noone's surprise]



Canada is among the top players of hydro-energy providers --> Canada's top 10 hydroelectric dams (source: Mining & Energy CA)

And ... Helpful Energy Comparisons, Anyone? A Guide to Measuring Energy

F.e. from the above article, since terrawatts are mentioned:





Yes, they very much are and are very excited about the prospects too.



Go here for the Champlain Hudson Power Fact Sheet (2017)



Find the route here --> About the project



Deliberate, I assume...



I have 3.

actually I read somewhere that nuclear power plants are far more environmentally friendly than you might think....yeah there's always a risk of another Chernobyl or 3-Mile Island incident but on the whole, US-built nuclear reactors tend to operate under some very strict safeguards making such a repeat event highly unlikely

[Annoyed]

actually I read somewhere that nuclear power plants are far more environmentally friendly than you might think....yeah there's always a risk of another Chernobyl or 3-Mile Island incident but on the whole, US-built nuclear reactors tend to operate under some very strict safeguards making such a repeat event highly unlikely

US nuclear power is a very safe, clean energy source. But it doesn't require that the US decimate its economy as a sacrifice to the envirogods, so it's opposed by most.

[Gatefan1976]

US nuclear power is a very safe, clean energy source. But it doesn't require that the US decimate its economy as a sacrifice to the envirogods, so it's opposed by most.

I agree with your premise,, your reasoning is flawed.

[Chaka-Z0]

Clean but not renewable and not without it's risks and impacts on the environment.

Not good enough

[Gatefan1976]

Clean but not renewable and not without it's risks and impacts on the environment.

Not good enough

Nuclear is a viable "stop gap", which is why I agree with his premise, just not his arguments. Hydro-electric? only good if you have access to it, Geo-thermal? only good if you are able to harness it.
Wind? Only good if your area get's wind consistently.
Nuclear is sorta like coal or oil, it's an amazing energy source, but it should only be used as the stop gap remedy, not a "solution"
There is no "solution", there is merely the best option -at the time-

[Chaka-Z0]

I agree with everything you said. But really there's not many places in the world that don't have access to at least one type of renewable energy or a combination, it's absolutely possible.

There is no reason really to use nuclear at all. Do you know how long it takes to dismantle a nuclear power plant? It leaves a major big stink on the map. Plus the trash. That's no good for a transition technology.

Even for spacecrafts, it's only a matter of time before a true hydrogen engine replaces the nuclear reactor.

[Gatefan1976]

I agree with everything you said. But really there's not many places in the world that don't have access to at least one type of renewable energy or a combination, it's absolutely possible.

There is no reason really to use nuclear at all. Do you know how long it takes to dismantle a nuclear power plant? It leaves a major big stink on the map. Plus the trash. That's no good for a transition technology.

Even for spacecrafts, it's only a matter of time before a true hydrogen engine replaces the nuclear reactor.

Without coal or oil, we would have no spacecraft, or even the concept of fission or hydrogen based reactors.
There is a cost to all advancement, and we must decide weather we are willing, or capable of paying it.
Consider the electrical globes people like annoyed and MG argue against. They are NOT wrong in pointing out the costs of having them, to the environment, to ourselves, or our children.
Where their point falls down is, it was a necessary step to make them to move beyond them.

Capitalism requires development, and LED's and other such developments would not happen without the bridging step of incandescent lights.
Can we argue the path we took was wrong?
Absolutely.
EDIT:
Going back to your first statement. I agree that we can combine alternate energy, in fact, it's probably the best way to go, yet the problem is, not all area's can use such methods in combination or harmony, or effectively.
It's the best outcome, but I don't think we are able to do it YET.
But I think we should do out best to get there.

[Gatefan1976]

This is how I feel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ab4BRAQElw
Link only as it is NSFW

[Annoyed]

I agree with everything you said. But really there's not many places in the world that don't have access to at least one type of renewable energy or a combination, it's absolutely possible.

There is no reason really to use nuclear at all. Do you know how long it takes to dismantle a nuclear power plant? It leaves a major big stink on the map. Plus the trash. That's no good for a transition technology.

Even for spacecrafts, it's only a matter of time before a true hydrogen engine replaces the nuclear reactor.

It's only a matter of time before some superior technology is available for conventional uses, too. But that day has not yet arrived.
That's one of the things that pisses me off about the enviros. They want to ban what we have now BEFORE there is something ready to take its place. Like the CFL light bulb farce.

[Falcon Horus]

actually I read somewhere that nuclear power plants are far more environmentally friendly than you might think....

No need to convince me, I am in agreement... it's not ideal but as far as the alternative goes, nuclear power is a solid substitute for coal and oil.

There is no reason really to use nuclear at all. Do you know how long it takes to dismantle a nuclear power plant? It leaves a major big stink on the map. Plus the trash. That's no good for a transition technology.

Assuming that plants are well looked after, it's a worthy source of power.

If not, that's when the trouble arises, as Belgium is well aware.
We have two nuclear power sources which have been in use for so long that there are ruptures detected in the hull of the thing. They had to shut it off so many times already, and restart it again after they "fixed" that the alternative, however, is fairly lost on us.

In this case, it's best to either build a new one, or decommission entirely.

And I forgot to add the following, by Mark Lynas, a British science journalist:

Nuclear 2.0 – Why a green future needs nuclear power

As an environmentalist I had become of age within a movement that regarded anything “nuclear” as irredeemably dangerous and evil, yet its potential to help tackle climate change was undeniable. Even though I knew that doing so would anger and antagonize my green colleagues, I started to research and write about the real risks and benefits of nuclear power. As I did so, I began to discover that most of what I had originally believed about atomic energy was inaccurate. I had thought that nuclear waste was an insoluble problem, that using civilian reactors raised the risk of nuclear war, and that radiation of accidents such as Chernobyl had killed thousands or even millions of people. As I looked more closely at the scientific data, however, I found that most, if not all, of the anti-nuclear ideas I had grown up with were either myths or misconceptions. In fact, here was a reliable energy source with virtually unlimited fuel, which could power entire countries while producing no CO2 at all during its operation.

[Chaka-Z0]

EDIT:
Going back to your first statement. I agree that we can combine alternate energy, in fact, it's probably the best way to go, yet the problem is, not all area's can use such methods in combination or harmony, or effectively.
It's the best outcome, but I don't think we are able to do it YET.
But I think we should do out best to get there.

It's only a matter of time before some superior technology is available for conventional uses, too. But that day has not yet arrived.

No need to convince me, I am in agreement... it's not ideal but as far as the alternative goes, nuclear power is a solid substitute for coal and oil.

Assuming that plants are well looked after, it's a worthy source of power.

You guys all bring very good points, but let me make mine clear. FH's bolded line above summarize why I'm against any further nuclear power-plants projects. First, I do agree that nuclear in theory is a clean way to generate power, I'm not asking to get rid of it right here right now, but rather put a veto on any new plants projects and gradually get rid of it and decommission every plant there is on our planet in the years to come.

Here's the hiccup, it takes one major event such as a tornado or high tide to cause a catastrophe. Human error is most likely never going to be an issue again, Chernobyl really was a stupid move from a scientist and the facility didn't have adequate safety measures which has been resolved since then, but Fukoshima just goes to show how little control we actually have over this powerful energy generation process. Nuclear power generation is a Russian roulette game.

Two aspects I base my opinion on. First, the plant itself. If it gets struck or damaged by whatever natural phenomenon that are becoming custom AND random due to CC the core can go into meltdown and explode, releasing mushroom clouds of radioactive material in the atmosphere that doesn't really leave our planet but gets carried with the wind. If we're lucky the clouds remain in an inhabited area, if not it gets stuck in the clouds and falls on our heads when rain comes. Also when that happens, radioactive material is leaked via the water reservoirs used to cool the plant off and that water gets released into the environment when the shielding breaks off, destroying its immediate surrounding wildlife and fauna.

Second, the nuclear trash graveyards called coffins are located on the surface, kind of a pit that's dug and covered with concrete or other types of mantle to shield it from the rain. But here's the thing, it's been heavily documented that those coffins never last as long as advertised by the contractors and are prone to leakage. If you don't believe this just do a bit of research and you'll see tons of reports of scientists reporting high concentration of radioactive materials in the waters and soils surrounding those coffins. This water eventually gets mixed with ground water, and falls down into the main channels which might end up in your drinking water and also kills fishes and other species (or you get a 3 eyed fish like in the Simpsons). Those graveyards needs to remain there for THOUSANDS of years, do you guys honestly believe that we can ensure its proper maintenance over thousands of years? What if an idiot politician, say Trump, shows up and decides he doesn't want to invest in that anymore because he doesn't believe in the environment?

We are way over our heads with this. Nuclear should never be considered as an alternative or a transitional energy production, it served its purpose for a time and now we have countless of different means to achieve energy production, there is no need to build any more plants or renew those currently in place.