suds

At present, fossil fuels account for 60% of electricity generation in US with natural gas accounting for more than 40% of that total. Renewables (wind, solar, hydro-electric) account for over 20% with hydro-electric accounting for 60% of that total. Nuclear accounts for 20%. With this in mind, how feasible is Biden's plan of 80% clean energy by 2030? How feasible is it even accounting nuclear as 'clean energy'? Another question is how reliable would this 80% clean energy plan be? Capacity Factor - A Ratio (of sorts) of actual energy output over a given period of time to the theoretical maximum electrical energy output over the same period. The capacity factor of nuclear is 92.5% while hydro-electric, wind, and solar, is 41.5%, 35.4%, and 24.9%, respectively. As one can see, hydro-electric is only marginally more reliable than wind mostly due to the possibilities of drought and maintenance shut-downs. To sum up, if one wants to get rid of fossil fuels and have a reliable system of electrical power production..... nuclear has to play a large role as a reliable baseline power source to back up the 'un-reliables' namely wind, solar, and hydro-electric. The IPCC gets it, because there's really nothing else.

If the goal is to make the electrical grid a stand alone system of say wind and solar power.... well good luck with that. Wind and solar are too UNRELIABLE. A back up power source such as large scale battery storage is currently not available at the grid scale (so claims the US Department of Energy). And if it was available it would be so expensive not to be worth a second thought. So here's where nuclear comes riding to the rescue. Today's nuclear reactors are specifically designed to be capable of 'flex operation' meaning their output can be ramped up or down from seconds to hours to seasons (DOE). This makes nuclear a perfect fit to work with renewable power as a RELIABLE BASELINE POWER SOURCE (DOE). So there you have it, knock yourselves out with all the wind and solar power you want but it has to be backed up (or integrated) with something more reliable to meet demand. Nuclear plants have the capability of producing maximum power 92% of the time (if called upon) which is twice more than natural gas or coal plants and 3 times more than wind and solar. Plus it's a lot cleaner than the fossil fuels. And of course the more wind and solar you have, the less you have to depend on nuclear. So as i said.... knock yourselves out.

It has really nothing to do with Ukraine, it's about the shift to 'clean energy'. Go back to sleep.

The IPCC 1.5C Report: nuclear energy’s role for effective action to mitigate climate change For immediate release 8 October, 2018 The IPCC has released a special report on the impacts of climate change and what would need to be done to limit temperature rises to 1.5C. Responding to the report, Agneta Rising, Director General, World Nuclear Association said; "Today’s IPCC report makes clear the potential benefits of limiting climate change to 1.5C, the urgency for action to achieve this and the necessity of nuclear energy as an important part of an effective global response." The IPCC report concludes that achieving the 1.5C goal will require global greenhouse gas emissions to start reducing almost immediately. This will require a faster switch to electricity for energy end use and for that greater electricity demand to be met by low-carbon generation, including nuclear. Nuclear generation increases, on average by around 2.5 times by 2050 in the 89 mitigation scenarios considered by the IPCC. Achieving a rapid decarbonization of the electricity sector will require, at first, deploying proven technology. The report recognizes that the projected increase in nuclear generation can be realized through existing mature nuclear technology or through new options such as generation III/IV reactors and SMRs. Generation III reactors have already come into operation in several countries. The report notes that, historically, ‘scalability and speed of scaling of nuclear plants have been high in many nations’, noting that France implemented a programme to rapidly get 80% of its (electrical) power from nuclear. The report also notes that ‘comparative risk assessment shows health risks are low per unit of electricity production’ and land requirement is ‘lower than that of other power sources.’ The report states that nuclear economics have been improved in countries where the electricity system allows for reduced investment risks, the realisation of benefits from series build or through stable relations between regulators and industry. However, in some other countries market conditions have increased investment risks of high-capital expenditure technologies, such as nuclear. The report also notes that the current deployment pace of nuclear energy is constrained by ‘social acceptability’ in some countries. Agneta Rising commented; "The IPCC report highlights the proven qualities of nuclear energy as a highly effective method of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as well as providing secure, reliable and scalable electricity supplies. To maximise nuclear energy’s contribution electricity markets need to acknowledge these benefits. We also need more effective harmonized regulatory processes to facilitate significant growth in nuclear capacity and an effective safety paradigm where the health, environmental and safety benefits of nuclear are better understood and valued by society."

It at least appears the democrats are finally coming around on nuclear. But i'll believe it when i see it. If you want to get rid of fossil fuels and save the planet from global warming then you need nuclear, and lots of it. With the technologies available today, there is presently no other alternative.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'overthrowing the government'. One of the spokesman for the truckers said at a news conference that they wanted to have a meeting with the opposition parties and GG about the possibilities of forming a new government. You have to understand that the liberals only have a minority government. Other then sounding a little far fetched it is not unconstitutional in my opinion. Or are you referring to something else?

So honking horns and someone flying a Canadian flag upside down is grounds for invoking the Emergencies Act? Not much sense in wasting any more of my time with this.

What we know so far is a lot of the things said about the protesters is simply not true which would also include what was said by prominent politicians and media. And just how did the convoy destroy these businesses? Did they loot them, set them on fire, vandalize them, or ...... ? And by drawing the line in the case of the convoy, I was referring to the Emergencies Act. Where did the convoy cross the line in your estimation? In my opinion, no line was crossed.

Those who live downtown likely work downtown, so it's not as if they really need transportation to get around. At the time of the protests, downtown Ottawa was pretty much a ghost town anyway. Small businesses affected by the protest were able to claim up to $10000 from the federal gov't for losses. Less than 1/2 of the $20 million set aside by the government has been paid out. Protests as a rule do inconvenience a lot of people, but that's the price we all pay for living in a free and democratic nation. The question is .... where do you draw the line between the rights of protesters and those affected by the protests? If you can't bear the noise and inconvenience of protests maybe you should rethink about living so close to the parliament buildings.

There are many different types of fraud. There are also differences between 'criminal fraud' and 'civil fraud'. James launched a civil lawsuit against Trump and some of his family. Civil law deals with disputes between one entity and another. In other words, there has to be a victim of sorts. So who was the victim with Trump's dealings with the big banks? Are the banks complaining? By victim I take it to mean the 'actual' victim and not a 'supposed' victim.

Exactly. The duties of the New York Attorney General's office includes 'Serving as the guardian of the legal rights of the citizens of New York'. Alan Dershowitz questions why James has taken up defending the largest banks in the US who haven't sued him at all. If there is no civil complaint then there is no problem. It's plainly judicial overreach for political purposes.

I agree. Culture may have been a better word.

I have no idea how Children's Aid works but I'd be surprised if it operated based on race or ethnicity. So it seems there is a difference.

As I understand it, the term genocide was first coined by Polish lawyer Raphael Lempkin in 1943/44. I agree. And if the prohibition did happen to exist at the time we probably wouldn't have done it. In hindsight, I get the sense that the government (and churches) at the time felt they were doing nothing wrong. As the world goes on we learn from our mistakes, and the only way to do that is by admitting to them.

The 10 Patterns of Genocide by The Lempkin Institute For Genocide Prevention Gender-neutral mass murder Mass murder of battle-aged men and atrocities against women and chlldren Sex-selective mass murder (gendercide) to prevent specific groups from reproducing Mass rape Gross human rights violations and mass cultural destruction (including the re-education of children) Man-made famine (genocide by attrition) Environmental Despoliation Appropriation of biological resources Denial and/or prevention of identity (creating conditions preventing communal identity development Direct killing of women and killing of men through work Can anyone deny that #5 and #9 don't apply to Canada? Certainly not the worst of the worst but genocide all the same regardless of intent.

Open borders and the welfare state cannot co-exist without serious detriment to the welfare state. Open borders reduces jobs, wages, and thus living standards, to those of us who can least deal with all the social upheaval. Not long ago the great socialist Bernie Sanders was dead set against open borders for those very reasons. Now he's all for it. If the idea is to create a fairer world, a world where wealth was distributed more equally amongst nations, then perhaps this is the way to do it. The wealthy don't care as they own property and mansions all over the world. They can choose to live wherever they want.

Can we at least all agree that Biden isn't fit to run a lemonade stand? Don't americans have the right to know who's running their country because it ain't Joe. Joe's just the fall guy.

Gold is no different than anything else. It will go to 'zero' when there's absolutely no demand for it. It has behaved as a currency and store of wealth for the last 2500 years which is good enough for me and most central banks. Be honest now, if you had to choose between bitcoin not backed by anything other than what get rich quick enthusiasts were willing to pay for it, or a gold backed crypto issued by the Perth Mint and backed by the Australian government.... which would it be? If you chose bitcoin it wouldn't surprise me because i have to believe most people are in the crypto game to make a killing. You can win big and you can lose big. I don't know enough to answer your other questions as the details provided in most cases are at best rather sketchy.

There are cryptocurrencies that are backed by physical gold unlike bitcoin which is backed by nothing and is the reason for the wild price fluctuations. Those cryptocurrencies backed by gold (or some other stable underlying asset) are sometimes referred to as 'stablecoins'. A gold backed cryptocurrency utilizing blockchain technology is worthy of serious consideration. Why gold in particular? Mainly because the price of gold is priced according to the USD, interest rates, inflation, supply and demand, and world geo-politics. In effect, a gold backed cryptocurrency would become a derivative of the underlying gold asset. Russia has plans for a ruble gold backed stablecoin, and China for its own yuan gold backed digital currency. For those who claim 'you can't eat gold' well i have news for you. In 2008 Zimbabwe with hyperinflation running rampant, gold was the only means to buy bread. 1 loaf of bread was had for .1 g of gold panned by Zimbabweans from nearby rivers. Today in Venezuela where the socialists have turned the bolivar into a national laughingstock, gold along with currencies such as the USD and peso are routinely accepted as barter for goods and services.

Even with all the funding in world, mental illness issues are not going to be resolved overnight. Stricter background checks are not going to prevent anyone from acquiring a firearm if they're determined to get their hands on one. So what other alternatives are there to protect kids in school from mass shootings other than making a school's front door the front line of defense? What's more important.... children's safety or optics?

Better background checks and controls might help, but let's not forget there are over 400 million privately owned firearms in circulation and a wide open southern border where a T-72 tank could be easily smuggled in. If I was a parent i'd like to see one school entrance for entering and exiting along with the hiring of armed ex-police or military to monitor the one entrance. Arming teachers might not be a good idea. Let's keep the number of guns in the schools to a minimum.

So let me get this straight now. This 'Celsius' is not allowing holders of bitcoin to withdrawal (cash in) their bitcoin for real money? Unregulated and not backed by the CIDC? How is this not a ponzi scheme??

If people don't feel safe where they live it's going to take a lot for big government to 'convince' them to give up their guns. This is where democrats have it all backwards.

You can't blame low turnout for the results when the polling was so accurate. For myself it was a first for mail in voting.

Is it true you and jbander are among the last 8 or 9 misguided souls still watching CNN? I could almost swear on it.