UN Andrew Yang proposes ‘giant space mirrors’ to combat climate change - Yang Giggedy Gang 2020: This doesn't sound very mathematically sound, Yang

Climate change is just global warming in a clown suit. Andrew Yang is just one of its cultists.

Andrew Yang proposes ‘giant space mirrors’ to combat climate change

“Space mirrors would involve launching giant foldable mirrors into space that would deploy and reflect much of the sun’s light [away from the planet],” he said.

nypost.com

Presidential candidate Andrew Yang’s climate plan aims to get the US to net-zero carbon emissions with a range of new initiatives — including investing in major geoengineering projects like giant mirrors in space.

Like many of his fellow Democratic presidential candidates, Yang has proposed using a wide range of tools to ramp up renewable energy, reduce reliance on fossil fuels, establish new standards on emissions for buildings, cars and the entire electric grid and boost nuclear energy capacity.

However, his 20-year, $4.87 trillion climate plan differs in one way and that’s in terms of geoengineering — the notion that humans should take deliberate and large-scale action concerning climate in order to stop or slow down the planet’s warming.

Yang’s plan would provide $800 million to NASA, the Department of Defense and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to research geoengineering, which includes investigating “giant foldable space mirrors” as an emergency measure of last resort.

Yang2020.com
“Space mirrors would involve launching giant foldable mirrors into space that would deploy and reflect much of the sun’s light [away from the planet]. This method would be extremely expensive, which is why it should be investigated as a last resort. However, since we would be able to ‘undo’ the mirror after deployment if needed, it’s less permanent,” Yang has written.

The entrepreneur proposed that America become a global leader in green technology.

“We’re the most entrepreneurial country in the history of the world. It’s time to activate the American imagination and work ethic to provide the innovation and technology that will power the rest of the world,” Yang wrote.

Although most mainstream climate plans proposed by Democratic presidential candidates have a technology investment component, one expert urged a bit of caution.

Yang2020.com
“I think that he’s essentially on the right track to focus on science and technology, but I think that his faith in technology may be a little bit misplaced,” Steven Cohen, director of the research program on sustainability policy and management at Columbia University’s Earth Institute, told The Verge.

“It’s one thing to do the research … but another thing to count on it to save the world.”

 

[The Final Troondown]

 

[Zaragoza]

How bought dropping huge blocks of ice into the ocean and then BAM! Fresh weather!

 

[Yop Yop]

What if an asteroid hits the mirror and turns it into a giant death ray pointed at earth?

And what if the death rays only hit the entire state of Florida and rids us of Florida Man once and for all?

Also. Better idea. What if we just nuke global warming? Fuckin trump needs to step up his game. I can't keep thinking up all these brilliant ideas on my own guys.

 

[Caesare]

No, that's the Japanese. The chinese are the assholes who's workmanship is so shoddy even Somalians would tell them to shape the fuck up.

I must've gotten them mixed up. They all look the same to me.

 

[moocow]

That's interesting, thanks, but I'd have to point out that I don't think it's fair to compare deaths & injuries between nuclear power & traditional mining due to the huge amount of time that man has been mining coal, compared to how long we've been using nuclear power.

Isn't most coal mining done by machines now too ? I'm sure they'd still be mining by hand in parts of the 3rd world & even using machines, there'd be lots of dust around, although I'd guess workers can now use breathing equipment rather than a handkerchief tied round their face.

Is there really such a thing as safe, permanent storage for spent fuel ? don't they still have problems with leakage into the water table ?

Why isn't it fair to compare deaths & injuries between nuclear power's lifespan and coal's lifespan? They're both power sources and they've both killed people. Tally up the numbers and you find out which one's more dangerous. We can also certainly see which of the two has emitted more radioactive particles and products into the environment (it's coal, btw, from burning it).

Mining is indeed done by machine these days, but those machines require operators. Those operators are still at great risk. Black lung is still a thing.

Spent fuel is stored first in cooling ponds on-site (at nuclear power plants) to cool for awhile (think "years") then stored in very thick, very strong sealed steel casks designed to last thousands of years and moved to more permanent storage. There is no "leaking into the water table" -- nuclear fuel is not a liquid.

 

[Rancid Flid]

Why isn't it fair to compare deaths & injuries between nuclear power's lifespan and coal's lifespan? They're both power sources and they've both killed people. Tally up the numbers and you find out which one's more dangerous. We can also certainly see which of the two has emitted more radioactive particles and products into the environment (it's coal, btw, from burning it).

Mining is indeed done by machine these days, but those machines require operators. Those operators are still at great risk. Black lung is still a thing.

Spent fuel is stored first in cooling ponds on-site (at nuclear power plants) to cool for awhile (think "years") then stored in very thick, very strong sealed steel casks designed to last thousands of years and moved to more permanent storage. There is no "leaking into the water table" -- nuclear fuel is not a liquid.

https://www.thestate.com/news/business/article215355955.html

Radioactive uranium has leaked through the floor at the Westinghouse fuel factory on Bluff Road, contaminating the soil in an area of Richland County with a nearly 35-year history of groundwater pollution from the plant.

There have been many incidents like this over the years, which is probably why we've never made the switch to full nuclear power.

 

[moocow]

There have been many incidents like this over the years, which is probably why we've never made the switch to full nuclear power.

We haven't made the switch to full nuclear power because of NIMBY and environmentalist nonsense.

Here's a fun incident involving coal: there's a coal mine that's literally been on fire since 1962. It's still burning and they can't stop it.

It's also looking to me like you're not quite as "neutral" and inquisitive as you first presented yourself to be. Seems like your mind's already made up.

 

[Ruin]

And just like that thanks to our handsomest politicians global warming was stopped for all time!

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

He should really not get ahead of himself and just focus on his yangbux, since even in sane world the entirety of Congress would fight against him getting that through, let alone in clown world. Any other insane ideas like this is just a pie in the sky.

Get it? Because a big mirror is shaped like a pie? #dadjoke

 

[Rancid Flid]

We haven't made the switch to full nuclear power because of NIMBY and environmentalist nonsense.

Here's a fun incident involving coal: there's a coal mine that's literally been on fire since 1962. It's still burning and they can't stop it.

It's also looking to me like you're not quite as "neutral" and inquisitive as you first presented yourself to be. Seems like your mind's already made up.

No, my mind isn't made up. I've admitted I don't know a great deal about the subject except for what my life experience has shown me, so perhaps you would be good enough to explain why we haven't moved fully to nuclear power yet ? Could it possibly be because we just aren't experienced enough yet to be confident in our ability to do it safely ? Thanks for the link but I know all about that place & others, not because I'm clever or super well informed but because I'm an oldfag with life experience who's lost their naivety & idealism.

You said " There is no leaking into the water table" but I've just shown you that there is & you say it's a dumb post, so forgive me if I don't take you too seriously with any future points you make about this. Why is proving you wrong dumb ?

Some reading for you :

BRACEVILLE, Ill. - Radioactive tritium has leaked from three-quarters of U.S. commercial nuclear power sites, often into groundwater from corroded, buried piping, an Associated Press investigation shows.

Radioactive leaks found at 75% of US nuke sites




Radioactive leaks found at 75% of US nuke sites




Nuclear power plant accidents and incidents
with multiple fatalities and/or more than US$100 million in property damage, 1952-2011[10][24][26]

Date	Location of accident	Description of accident or incident	Dead	Cost ($US millions 2006)	INES level[27]
July 26, 1957	Simi Valley, California, United States	Partial core meltdown at Santa Susana Field Laboratory’s Sodium Reactor Experiment.	0	32
September 29, 1957	Mayak, Kyshtym, Russia	The Kyshtym disaster was a radiation contamination incident that occurred at Mayak, a Nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in the Soviet Union.			6
October 10, 1957	Sellafield aka Windscale fire, Cumberland, United Kingdom	A fire at the British atomic bomb project destroyed the core and released an estimated 740 terabecquerels of iodine-131 into the environment. A rudimentary smoke filter constructed over the main outlet chimney successfully prevented a far worse radiation leak and ensured minimal damage.	0		5
January 3, 1961	Idaho Falls, Idaho, United States	Explosion at SL-1 prototype at the National Reactor Testing Station. All 3 operators were killed when a control rod was removed too far.	3	22	4
October 5, 1966	Frenchtown Charter Township, Michigan, United States	Partial core meltdown of the Fermi 1 Reactor at the Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station. No radiation leakage into the environment.	0	132[28]
January 21, 1969	Lucens reactor, Vaud, Switzerland	On January 21, 1969, it suffered a loss-of-coolant accident, leading to a partial core meltdown and massive radioactive contamination of the cavern, which was then sealed.	0		5
1975	Sosnovyi Bor, Leningrad Oblast, Russia	There was reportedly a partial nuclear meltdown in Leningrad nuclear power plant reactor unit 1.
December 7, 1975	Greifswald, East Germany	Electrical error in Greifswald Nuclear Power Plant causes fire in the main trough that destroys control lines and five main coolant pumps	0	443	3
January 5, 1976	Jaslovské Bohunice, Czechoslovakia	Malfunction during fuel replacement. Fuel rod ejected from reactor into the reactor hall by coolant (CO2).[29]	2		4
February 22, 1977	Jaslovské Bohunice, Czechoslovakia	Severe corrosion of reactor and release of radioactivity into the plant area, necessitating total decommission	0	1,700	4
March 28, 1979	Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, United States	Loss of coolant and partial core meltdown due to operator errors. There is a small release of radioactive gases. See also Three Mile Island accident health effects.	0	2,400	5
September 15, 1984	Athens, Alabama, United States	Safety violations, operator error, and design problems force a six-year outage at Browns Ferry Unit 2.	0	110
March 9, 1985	Athens, Alabama, United States	Instrumentation systems malfunction during startup, which led to suspension of operations at all three Browns Ferry Units	0	1,830
April 11, 1986	Plymouth, Massachusetts, United States	Recurring equipment problems force emergency shutdown of Boston Edison's Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant	0	1,001
April 26, 1986	Chernobyl, Chernobyl Raion (Now Ivankiv Raion), Kiev Oblast, Ukraininan SSR, Soviet Union	A flawed reactor design and inadequately trained personnel led to a failed backup generator test. This test led to a power surge which overheated the fuel rods of reactor no. 4 of the Chernobyl power plant, causing an explosion and meltdown, necessitating the evacuation of 300,000 people from Chernobyl and dispersing radioactive material across Europe (see Effects of the Chernobyl disaster). Around 5% (5200 PBq) of the core was released into the atmosphere and downwind.	28 direct, 19 not entirely related and 15 minors due to thyroid cancer, as of 2008.[30][31]	6,700	7
May 4, 1986	Hamm-Uentrop, West Germany	Experimental THTR-300 reactor releases small amounts of fission products (0.1 GBq Co-60, Cs-137, Pa-233) to surrounding area	0	267
March 31, 1987	Delta, Pennsylvania, United States	Peach Bottom units 2 and 3 shutdown due to cooling malfunctions and unexplained equipment problems	0	400
December 19, 1987	Lycoming, New York, United States	Malfunctions force Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation to shut down Nine Mile Point Unit 1	0	150
March 17, 1989	Lusby, Maryland, United States	Inspections at Calvert Cliff Units 1 and 2 reveal cracks at pressurized heater sleeves, forcing extended shutdowns	0	120
March 1992	Sosnovyi Bor, Leningrad Oblast, Russia	An accident at the Sosnovy Bor nuclear plant leaked radioactive gases and iodine into the air through a ruptured fuel channel.
February 20, 1996	Waterford, Connecticut, United States	Leaking valve forces shutdown Millstone Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2, multiple equipment failures found	0	254
September 2, 1996	Crystal River, Florida, United States	Balance-of-plant equipment malfunction forces shutdown and extensive repairs at Crystal River Unit 3	0	384
September 30, 1999	Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan	Tokaimura nuclear accident killed two workers, and exposed one more to radiation levels above permissible limits.	2	54	4
February 16, 2002	Oak Harbor, Ohio, United States	Severe corrosion of control rod forces 24-month outage of Davis-Besse reactor	0	143	3
April 10, 2003	Paks, Hungary	Collapse of fuel rods at Paks Nuclear Power Plant unit 2 during its corrosion cleaning led to leakage of radioactive gases. It remained inactive for 18 months.	0		3
August 9, 2004	Fukui Prefecture, Japan	Steam explosion at Mihama Nuclear Power Plant kills 4 workers and injures 7 more	4	9	1
July 25, 2006	Forsmark, Sweden	An electrical fault at Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant caused one reactor to be shut down	0	100	2
March 11, 2011	Fukushima, Japan	A tsunami flooded and damaged the plant's 5 active reactors, drowning two workers. Loss of backup electrical power led to overheating, meltdowns, and evacuations.[32] One man died suddenly while carrying equipment during the clean-up.[33] The plant's 6th reactor was inactive at the time.	2+	1,255–2,078 (2018 est.)[34]	7
September 12, 2011	Marcoule, France	One person was killed and four injured, one seriously, in a blast at the Marcoule Nuclear Site. The explosion took place in a furnace used to melt metallic waste.	1

Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Radioactive leaks from Bugey nuclear power plant, near Lyon, France

Sortir du Nucleaire 7th March 2018, In December 2017, a radioactive leak was detected at the Bugey nuclear power plant, 35 km from Lyon. Four associations complain and call for the immediate shutd…

nuclear-news.net

http://isssp.in/heavy-water-leakage-at-the-kakrapar-nuclear-power-plant/

Florida: Nuclear Power Station Leaking Radiation into Sea

Meanwhile, in Florida, the Turkey Point nuclear power station appears to be leaking radiation into the waters off the coast of Miami. A recent study by scientists at the University of Miami found tritium levels up to 215 times higher than normal in the water of the Biscayne Bay. Tritium is a...

www.democracynow.org

"There is no leaking into the water table" ??? Are you sure ? I could show plenty more examples.

Yo @moocow, post edited buddy. Is what I'm saying still dumb ?

 

[Fork Cartel]

(snip)

https://www.mining-technology.com/features/feature-world-worst-coal-mining-disasters-china/

Mining accident - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

the point isn’t that nuclear is perfect and flawless it’s that coal is many times more dangerous despite our much higher experience with it, which you even acknowledge. It is undeniable fact that coal kills far more every few years than nuclear has in its entire history; literally any study on the subject bears me out on this.

And yes, coal miners are still a profession that exists. Dear God, are you unironically braindead? Is your 'life experience' just about being able to look up articles online? Because guess what, you don't need to be over 40 to do that.

 

[Anonymous For This]

Why isn't it fair to compare deaths & injuries between nuclear power's lifespan and coal's lifespan? They're both power sources and they've both killed people. Tally up the numbers and you find out which one's more dangerous. We can also certainly see which of the two has emitted more radioactive particles and products into the environment (it's coal, btw, from burning it).

Mining is indeed done by machine these days, but those machines require operators. Those operators are still at great risk. Black lung is still a thing.

Spent fuel is stored first in cooling ponds on-site (at nuclear power plants) to cool for awhile (think "years") then stored in very thick, very strong sealed steel casks designed to last thousands of years and moved to more permanent storage. There is no "leaking into the water table" -- nuclear fuel is not a liquid.

People who argue for more coal are also the same people who have never lived in coal country. That shit isn't as automated as you may think when you're digging shafts and strip-mining it involves cutting entire mountains down.

I'm not for autistic countries like the Norks or Russia running power off nuclear, but 100% behind western 1st world nations utilizing it.

 

[moocow]

That shit isn't as automated as you may think when you're digging shafts and strip-mining it involves cutting entire mountains down.

Exactly. I did some modeling & simulation work for a company that makes modern-day mining equipment a few years back. The gear automates a lot of work, but requires a boat load of human interaction to function and you're still right in the middle of it all. Not to mention installation and teardown. And "safe" is not a word I'd use to describe any part of that process, automated or not.