To the people of Wyoming...

[IdahoHntr]

I guess I just disagree...

You seem to imply that the environmental impacts of nuclear power are essentially zero, and that it is very safe.
Four accidents in less than 50 years is not a great track record, and the damage has hardly been minor. Nuclear may be cleaner CO2 emissions wise, but there is more to consider than just that... there are byproducts of power production other than CO2 to be aware of. If nuclear power is more utilized on the landscape, there is more opportunity for catastrophic impacts to the land. That is something that should certainly be of concern. Nuclear as a 'forever solution' doesn't seem to cut it to me.

I'm not implying it, I'm SAYING it. Nuclear power has the least environmental impact. You admitted you know nothing about nuclear energy in your last post and then talk as if you know all about nuclear's "byproducts" and it's level of safety compared to other energy generation methods. What are those byproducts? How could they be harmful to the environment? What catastrophic impacts can it have on the land? What is a safe track record for energy generation? How do other forms of green energy put peoples lives in danger? How does nuclear compare? You do not know the answers to any of these questions and yet you talk like you do.

You just furthered my point even further. People who know nothing about the subject of nuclear energy talking about it like they do is what scares people. Go actually do some reading! Talk to energy engineers and scientists, or read their reports. Learn how nuclear works, because everything you just said has zero substance and no backing.

 

[Montana Slim]

I'm not implying it, I'm SAYING it. Nuclear power has the least environmental impact. You admitted you know nothing about nuclear energy in your last post and then talk as if you know all about nuclear's "byproducts" and it's level of safety compared to other energy generation methods. What are those byproducts? How could they be harmful to the environment? What catastrophic impacts can it have on the land? What is a safe track record for energy generation? How do other forms of green energy put peoples lives in danger? How does nuclear compare? You do not know the answers to any of these questions and yet you talk like you do.

You just furthered my point even further. People who know nothing about the subject of nuclear energy talking about it like they do is what scares people. Go actually do some reading! Talk to energy engineers and scientists, or read their reports. Learn how nuclear works, because everything you just said has zero substance and no backing.

You can SAY what you want, but you are being very presumptuous in what you think I know or don't know, or what I have or have not read I would imagine that you are no more an expert than I am. Admitting the limitations of your own knowledge is not a terrible thing. And like I said, nuclear is possibly cleaner on the short term, but there are other, longterm considerations that you should not just be blind to - that is foolish.

 

[JWP58]

How many decades are spent fuel rods radioactive? Where are they stored?

What is more dangerous? Radioactive material or CO2?...you know the stuff plants use for photosynthesis.

 

[Dustin the wind]

How many decades are spent fuel rods radioactive? Where are they stored?

I have done some research into this. For the most part, they are all sent to Oprah Winfey's residence, she just eats them and they are never seen again.

 

[IdahoHntr]

You can SAY what you want, but you are being very presumptuous in what you think I know or don't know, or what I have or have not read I would imagine that you are no more an expert than I am. Admitting the limitations of your own knowledge is not a terrible thing. And like I said, nuclear is possibly cleaner on the short term, but there are other, longterm considerations that you should not just be blind to - that is foolish.

What are the long term considerations then? I'm a mechanical engineer studying energy generation and so I do have some background in it. You keep saying that nuclear has these other byproducts and considerations to worry about, and I'm just wondering what they are?

All I say is if you don't actually know about it, then don't talk like you do. If you do actually know something that nuclear engineers and scientists don't then you're wasting your time on rokslide, when you could be making A LOT of money elsewhere.

I'm just gonna leave it with that. I got hunts to prepare for!

Good luck to yall!

 

[Billinsd]

How many decades are spent fuel rods radioactive? Where are they stored?

What is more dangerous? Radioactive material or CO2?...you know the stuff plants use for photosynthesis.

Rods are dangerous for 10,000 years. Rods are far more dangerous to me personally than CO2. : ) Rods are stored on site in US. Rotting in their containers. Bill

 

[Okhotnik]

https://imgur.com/a/JyqPRqe

 

[bigsky2]

You can pull over to piss, or just piss over the side of the boat. You can't pull the boat over and stand on the land, because the land owner owns the land. How is that ridiculous? I can see it is annoying, sure. Bill

You can't even pull over, just like you can't drop your anchor in the river, because the streambed is considered private.

 

[Gearqueer]

Good points about the total costs of wind energy not being accounted. Similar to the ethanol situation, where a marketed 'green' energy source led to the removal of heaps of CRP, and something like 3 gallons of water and one gallon of diesel to make one gallon of ethanol.
Nuclear is spooky, at least to me. It certainly could provide huge amounts of energy, but the byproducts, and potential impacts of an accident overwhelm the benefits to me. However, I am by no means knowledgeable about the subject.
As for subsidies... well, oil and gas are being heavily subsidized, and there are people making gobs of money there.
I would argue that trying to move toward new energy sources is looking at things long term, and is not the short-sighted view. Saying there is no factual evidence of human induced climate change is misleading. Science gives the best explanation for the way the world works with the best set of facts available. It is fallible. However, to ignore what an overwhelming body of research is indicating because it will be extremely difficult to change, is the short-sighted view in my opinion.

I think this is a great discussion, and I really value what (most) everyone is adding. It is a difficult topic, but one that certainly need to be addressed.
Thanks guys. Hope your seasons are going well!

I don’t know you Montana Slim, but you seem like a pretty good guy. This thread was getting pretty nasty and I appreciate you finishing off your post like that. I hope your season is going well too!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Billinsd]

You can't even pull over, just like you can't drop your anchor in the river, because the streambed is considered private.

So, you can't touch the streambed at all? What happens if your hull touches the streambed? Can you get a ticket? LOL

 

[realunlucky]

So, you can't touch the streambed at all? What happens if your hull touches the streambed? Can you get a ticket? LOL

Here in Utah you can't row against the natural current of the stream while it's crossing private land. Thanks SFW wish the state would give you more of my money

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[Bigwindymt]

There's so much hate in here for a guy trying to do some good for the environment. Why is it that if people don't believe EVERYTHING that you believe then we resort to name calling?

This x1000
Like it or not, we're in this together. Hunting isn't going to exist without clean air or water, access to land, functioning ecosystems, and new hunters. I am 100% certain that I do not agree 100% with anyone here on 100% of things, but I try to listen and voice any disagreement respectfully.

Chouinard is totally out of touch on some things, but hitting it out of the park with others; how many of us are doing any better?

 

[JWP58]

This x1000
Like it or not, we're in this together. Hunting isn't going to exist without clean air or water, access to land, functioning ecosystems, and new hunters. I am 100% certain that I do not agree 100% with anyone here on 100% of things, but I try to listen and voice any disagreement respectfully.

Chouinard is totally out of touch on some things, but hitting it out of the park with others; how many of us are doing any better?

I agree, but maybe you're missing the part that he believes certain people that he doesn't agree with are "evil", because their views are different. Maybe he should think about respecting those that he disagrees with??

Do I think he's evil? No. Do I think he's a liar? Absolutely.

 

[4dcfries]

I'm listening to the podcast too (20 min left). I sure haven't got any anti-hunter vibe from him.

Interesting that he lives 6 months in California and 6 months in Wyoming.

He lives...6 months and a day in Wyoming cause he doesn't want to pay the crap taxes in California

 

[Billinsd]

Do I think he's evil? No. Do I think he's a liar? Absolutely.

He seems super hypocritical. Some here says he does a lot of good for the environment. Evil, absolutely not.

 

[Billinsd]

He lives...6 months and a day in Wyoming cause he doesn't want to pay the crap taxes in California

And trashes the good people of Wyoming!! Amazing and yet predictable.

 

[Billinsd]

Chouinard is totally out of touch on some things, but hitting it out of the park with others; how many of us are doing any better?

Sounds like he's out of touch on many things and does a lot for conservation some of you say. I'd say most on this forum are doing much better as far as integrity and honesty. If ALL that's important is his conservation efforts, well that explains how some of you think, which is your right!

 

[cuerro viejo]

Wait Texas has better stream access laws then Wy, Utah and Co.

 

[Jbehredt]

Wait Texas has better stream access laws then Wy, Utah and Co.

It’s just too bad it doesn’t have any streams worth accessing. I kid, I kid.

 

[Midwest.Bushlore]

Most liberals are emotional and not logical.

That's one thing they have in common with most conservatives. Welcome to the human race where everyone is irrational...except you of course.