Rivers are getting to hot to efficiently cool the reactors so they are having to dial about back a lot of the nuke generation.

This struggle will get worse and worse as the climate hits extremes.

OilPrice.com

Europe’s Nuclear Plants Can’t Beat the Heat | OilPrice.com

France is cutting nuclear output at up to five plants as a brutal heat wave strains rivers, grids and energy security across Europe.

If only Trudeau stepped up and sent them the natural gas they asked us for.

Too bad France doesn't have an ocean to build reactors beside.

Still pushing the global warming narratives through scare tactics. It's getting so obvious now.

There's no free energy. It's physics. All these people think they are saving the world by driving their 5k pound ev to Starbucks for a coffee. That still takes the same energy as a 5k pound gasoline truck. Or using AC, ever notice most people rolling around with their windows up all the time, AC running when it's 70 degrees outside, that's using energy so they aren't the slightest bit uncomfortable. Why aren't these activists riding around their bicycles everywhere which is the most efficient method of transportation, or at least strategically planning their trips so they're using their ev the least possible amount? Or turning off their AC? I'll tell you why, because they are shitty activists, they think they can do their one thing of buying an EV and they're making some kind of difference but they won't actually make any real changes or sacrifices for their supposed cause. However they will still try to shame you and tax you even though they make no personal changes themselves and are likely leaving a bigger carbon footprint. I don't care if they want to be green, I think it's great, but most of them are complete frauds that virtue signal about it but actually do nothing in their own life to change it. Just like all the climate change celebrities flying around in private jets, owning 5 homes and each probably have multiple AC units that are running all the time whether they're there or not. It's the hypocrisy that gets me. If these nuclear plants takes entire rivers to cool that means they're heating up these rivers which in turn heats up the climate and I'm sure has untold ecological impact on that river.

Just like these massive data centers and the ridiculous amount of power it takes to spy in us. I guess spying on us is now way more important than climate change? But we'll still have to hear about climate change from the establishment like it's this "existential threat". Not even getting into whether it's real or not but the people pushing it on us obviously don't care about the actual issue, but just using it as a tool for control and also to make money. Of course the sheep don't see that and they do their sheep things. Useful soldier tools. Just like with politics.

1 hour ago, mnstang said:

There's no free energy. It's physics. All these people think they are saving the world by driving their 5k pound ev to Starbucks for a coffee. That still takes the same energy as a 5k pound gasoline truck. Or using AC, ever notice most people rolling around with their windows up all the time, AC running when it's 70 degrees outside, that's using energy so they aren't the slightest bit uncomfortable. Why aren't these activists riding around their bicycles everywhere which is the most efficient method of transportation, or at least strategically planning their trips so they're using their ev the least possible amount? Or turning off their AC? I'll tell you why, because they are shitty activists, they think they can do their one thing of buying an EV and they're making some kind of difference but they won't actually make any real changes or sacrifices for their supposed cause. However they will still try to shame you and tax you even though they make no personal changes themselves and are likely leaving a bigger carbon footprint. I don't care if they want to be green, I think it's great, but most of them are complete frauds that virtue signal about it but actually do nothing in their own life to change it. Just like all the climate change celebrities flying around in private jets, owning 5 homes and each probably have multiple AC units that are running all the time whether they're there or not. It's the hypocrisy that gets me. If these nuclear plants takes entire rivers to cool that means they're heating up these rivers which in turn heats up the climate and I'm sure has untold ecological impact on that river.

Just like these massive data centers and the ridiculous amount of power it takes to spy in us. I guess spying on us is now way more important than climate change? But we'll still have to hear about climate change from the establishment like it's this "existential threat". Not even getting into whether it's real or not but the people pushing it on us obviously don't care about the actual issue, but just using it as a tool for control and also to make money. Of course the sheep don't see that and they do their sheep things. Useful soldier tools. Just like with politics.

You should hear the rabble up here, trying to defend meta building a, as you so aptly put it, spy centre in Alberta.

Same fucksticks who crow over and over about about a police state, surveillance and the big tech government alliance, grovelling at the feet of all they once despised because it suits the Alberta free narrative.

Comical if it wasn't so pathetic.

Double edge sword: do we continue the AI domination in the US, or do we stall it.

They need to find a more efficient way, period.

1 hour ago, akvanden said:

Double edge sword: do we continue the AI domination in the US, or do we stall it.

They need to find a more efficient way, period.

They will build their own power plants and be off grid. Some are Already starting to so that, that can get grid connections.

59 minutes ago, BOHICA said:

They will build their own power plants and be off grid. Some are Already starting to so that, that can get grid connections.

Yup, Oracle is building a big data center to run on bloom energy’s hydrogen off grid set up. There’s a few companies trying to get modular nuclear going too. I think they foreseen the push back coming.

20 hours ago, mnstang said:

There's no free energy. It's physics. All these people think they are saving the world by driving their 5k pound ev to Starbucks for a coffee. That still takes the same energy as a 5k pound gasoline truck. Or using AC, ever notice most people rolling around with their windows up all the time, AC running when it's 70 degrees outside, that's using energy so they aren't the slightest bit uncomfortable. Why aren't these activists riding around their bicycles everywhere which is the most efficient method of transportation, or at least strategically planning their trips so they're using their ev the least possible amount? Or turning off their AC? I'll tell you why, because they are shitty activists, they think they can do their one thing of buying an EV and they're making some kind of difference but they won't actually make any real changes or sacrifices for their supposed cause. However they will still try to shame you and tax you even though they make no personal changes themselves and are likely leaving a bigger carbon footprint. I don't care if they want to be green, I think it's great, but most of them are complete frauds that virtue signal about it but actually do nothing in their own life to change it. Just like all the climate change celebrities flying around in private jets, owning 5 homes and each probably have multiple AC units that are running all the time whether they're there or not. It's the hypocrisy that gets me. If these nuclear plants takes entire rivers to cool that means they're heating up these rivers which in turn heats up the climate and I'm sure has untold ecological impact on that river.

Just like these massive data centers and the ridiculous amount of power it takes to spy in us. I guess spying on us is now way more important than climate change? But we'll still have to hear about climate change from the establishment like it's this "existential threat". Not even getting into whether it's real or not but the people pushing it on us obviously don't care about the actual issue, but just using it as a tool for control and also to make money. Of course the sheep don't see that and they do their sheep things. Useful soldier tools. Just like with politics.

The people who worry about Us destroying this plant are 100% wrong, We will never destroy this planet We will destroy ourselves first. This planet was here long before us and it will still be here long after us. At some point Mother Nature & this planet will say FU and start over with something else.

3 hours ago, Jerry 976 said:

The people who worry about Us destroying this plant are 100% wrong, We will never destroy this planet We will destroy ourselves first. This planet was here long before us and it will still be here long after us. At some point Mother Nature & this planet will say FU and start over with something else.

Good example of this is Ted Turner’s flying D ranch in Montana. He bought the land as a struggling farm for $20m. Tore down all the fences and got rid of the cows so the bison could flourish. It took about 3 decades but the bison have transformed the land where as the cattle destroyed it. Drive up 191 and some of the designated routes and you’ll see how nature can rebound if left the fuck alone.

15 minutes ago, spin_dry said:

Good example of this is Ted Turner’s flying D ranch in Montana. He bought the land as a struggling farm for $20m. Tore down all the fences and got rid of the cows so the bison could flourish. It took about 3 decades but the bison have transformed the land where as the cattle destroyed it. Drive up 191 and some of the designated routes and you’ll see how nature can rebound if left the fuck alone.

There are a few examples of this I can think of. Wolves reintroduction has had some huge ecological benefits in Yellowstone and surrounding areas.

Another is removal of dams on some western rivers and returning sections back to wild/natural flows without the obstructions. Salmon and biodiversity comes back fairly quickly.

Since the Colorado river has pretty much on the verge of becoming useless their is a growing movement to get rid of glen canyon and lake powell to temporarily save mead.

3 minutes ago, BOHICA said:

There are a few examples of this I can think of. Wolves reintroduction has had some huge ecological benefits in Yellowstone and surrounding areas.

Another is removal of dams on some western rivers and returning sections back to wild/natural flows without the obstructions. Salmon and biodiversity comes back fairly quickly.

Since the Colorado river has pretty much on the verge of becoming useless their is a growing movement to get rid of glen canyon and lake powell to temporarily save mead.

What are the ecological benefits of the wolves reintroduction?

On 7/11/2026 at 9:09 AM, mnstang said:

There's no free energy. It's physics. All these people think they are saving the world by driving their 5k pound ev to Starbucks for a coffee. That still takes the same energy as a 5k pound gasoline truck. Or using AC, ever notice most people rolling around with their windows up all the time, AC running when it's 70 degrees outside, that's using energy so they aren't the slightest bit uncomfortable. Why aren't these activists riding around their bicycles everywhere which is the most efficient method of transportation, or at least strategically planning their trips so they're using their ev the least possible amount? Or turning off their AC? I'll tell you why, because they are shitty activists, they think they can do their one thing of buying an EV and they're making some kind of difference but they won't actually make any real changes or sacrifices for their supposed cause. However they will still try to shame you and tax you even though they make no personal changes themselves and are likely leaving a bigger carbon footprint. I don't care if they want to be green, I think it's great, but most of them are complete frauds that virtue signal about it but actually do nothing in their own life to change it. Just like all the climate change celebrities flying around in private jets, owning 5 homes and each probably have multiple AC units that are running all the time whether they're there or not. It's the hypocrisy that gets me. If these nuclear plants takes entire rivers to cool that means they're heating up these rivers which in turn heats up the climate and I'm sure has untold ecological impact on that river.

Just like these massive data centers and the ridiculous amount of power it takes to spy in us. I guess spying on us is now way more important than climate change? But we'll still have to hear about climate change from the establishment like it's this "existential threat". Not even getting into whether it's real or not but the people pushing it on us obviously don't care about the actual issue, but just using it as a tool for control and also to make money. Of course the sheep don't see that and they do their sheep things. Useful soldier tools. Just like with politics.

what this thread needs is a climate change expert... @AK440

38 minutes ago, mnstang said:

What are the ecological benefits of the wolves reintroduction?

You can read about it if you like.

https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wildlife/wolf-reintroduction-changes-ecosystem/

57 minutes ago, BOHICA said:

There are a few examples of this I can think of. Wolves reintroduction has had some huge ecological benefits in Yellowstone and surrounding areas.

Another is removal of dams on some western rivers and returning sections back to wild/natural flows without the obstructions. Salmon and biodiversity comes back fairly quickly.

Since the Colorado river has pretty much on the verge of becoming useless their is a growing movement to get rid of glen canyon and lake powell to temporarily save mead.

The flying D ranch is just to the north of Yellowstone. The two share a near identical ecosystem where wildlife move back and forth between the two. The bison do something that cattle don’t. They create wallows in the land from rolling in the dirt. That creates holding areas for water which kicks off the ecosystem. Cattle literally scalp the land and destroy it.

7 minutes ago, spin_dry said:

The flying D ranch is just to the north of Yellowstone. The two share a near identical ecosystem where wildlife move back and forth between the two. The bison do something that cattle don’t. They create wallows in the land from rolling in the dirt. That creates holding areas for water which kicks off the ecosystem. Cattle literally scalp the land and destroy it.

Yep. Same with wolves. Hoofed animals have the pressure to be on the constant move so the wolves are on a constant push of these animals so they don’t have the time to stand around and strip the land. Instead of streams with eroding river banks, wolves have help restored wetlands as nature intended.

The ecological shift is pretty impressive in the northwest as they remove dams. Nature fixes its scars and damage pretty quick.

1 hour ago, mnstang said:

What are the ecological benefits of the wolves reintroduction?

This can't be a serious question.

3 hours ago, BOHICA said:

You can read about it if you like.

https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wildlife/wolf-reintroduction-changes-ecosystem/

That article was framed in a way that they have their pre-determined narrative and are looking to justify it.

Basically saying wolves kill a bunch of elk and push elk around which saves willows which increases beavers, and more beavers is leading to these benefits.

But there are much better ways to accomplish that outcome. If there was an elk overpopulation before, they could simply let people hunt them. That is a controlled management tactic used all over this country if you're not aware. It also raises significant funds for the government instead of raising no funds and costing the taxpayers money. It also let's the people, who own the resource which is the elk, to harvest that resource. Wolves are also the #1 predator of beaver so if the benefit is more beavers, there'd be that much more if people were allowed to harvest the excess elk instead of having wolves do it which will also eat the beavers that they are claiming is the driver of all this improvement.

3 hours ago, Zambroski said:

This can't be a serious question.

It is.

1 minute ago, mnstang said:

That article was framed in a way that they have their pre-determined narrative and are looking to justify it.

Basically saying wolves kill a bunch of elk and push elk around which saves willows which increases beavers, and more beavers is leading to these benefits.

But there are much better ways to accomplish that outcome. If there was an elk overpopulation before, they could simply let people hunt them. That is a controlled management tactic used all over this country if you're not aware. It also raises significant funds for the government instead of raising no funds and costing the taxpayers money. It also let's the people, who own the resource which is the elk, to harvest that resource. Wolves are also the #1 predator of beaver so if the benefit is more beavers, there'd be that much more if people were allowed to harvest the excess elk instead of having wolves do it which will also eat the beavers that they are claiming is the driver of all this improvement.

Hunting isn’t allowed in national parks. Don’t think it ever has. Wolves have immensely helped the eco system in Yellowstone and have reestablished some of the diversity that existed prior to the development of North America. Not sure how anybody can even think otherwise if they look at the facts of the matter.

3 minutes ago, BOHICA said:

Hunting isn’t allowed in national parks. Don’t think it ever has. Wolves have immensely helped the eco system in Yellowstone and have reestablished some of the diversity that existed prior to the development of North America. Not sure how anybody can even think otherwise if they look at the facts of the matter.

Ok well if they would have reintroduced hunters to your little Jellystone park instead of wolves, they would have had much greater benefit as I outlined.

7 minutes ago, mnstang said:

It is.

I'm sort of shocked. But then again, not at all. I guess research ecological food chains in Yellowstone (or anywhere in the wild) and the problems caused when an absence is created (almost always by shitty humans).

1 minute ago, mnstang said:

Ok well if they would have reintroduced hunters to your little Jellystone park instead of wolves, they would have had much greater benefit as I outlined.

DAF.

2 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

I'm sort of shocked. But then again, not at all. I guess research ecological food chains in Yellowstone (or anywhere in the wild) and the problems caused when an absence is created (almost always by shitty humans).

Stay in the city.

Just now, mnstang said:

Stay in the city.

I don't live in the city. Let me guess, you fancy yourself a badass hunter? Yeah. LOL...you're lucky somebody like me doesn't leave your ass dangling from your tree stand for the critters to eat on all winter.

Edited July 12Jul 12 by Zambroski