|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 23 2022 04:16 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2022 02:34 Neneu wrote:On December 22 2022 23:05 Artisreal wrote:On December 22 2022 19:48 Neneu wrote:On December 22 2022 18:46 Harris1st wrote:On December 22 2022 17:08 Silvanel wrote:
This is exactly what PiS needs to win elections again in Poland. They have been saying for a long time that price increases are the fault of EU. Lo and behold, here it comes.
Personally I have been long time of opinion that renewables wont fix anything and the only road forward is nuclear. So I am not a fan of this legislation. We will end in a dystopian world when only rich people are able to travel or heat their homes. I am like 99% sure that fuel for privet jets will be exempt from this tax. Care to explain your reasoning behind this? I mean if fusion core technology is as good as it seems and will actually be available in the next 5-10 years, yeah sure nuclear is the way to go. The current nuclear isn't cutting it though. IMO A lot of downsides and the only upside is, that it's reliableReneweable is basically free energy after the initial invest. The only downside beeing that it's not reliable (yet) since storing is so difficult and expensive Germany stopped taxing this initial invest for 2023 for example which to me seems a step in the right direction. There's a few upsides you forgot. It has the lowest environmental impact of all electricity generation and also almost no CO2 emissions. Therefor in any scenario in IPCC reports where we are able to stay below 1.5 degrees global heating, it relies on a large increase of nuclear power generation. It is crazy how small the environmental impact of current nuclear power is compared to any other power generatinon, with minimal polution, waste and land requirements. It is also the energy generation that kills the least amount of people. Natural gas e.g. have historically killed 38 times more people per kWh produced. If you compare it with coal it is 387 times per kWh. There are a lot of upsides with nuclear power, if you want the safest future for your kids. What's the fastest a new reactor can realistically be built? 15 years? A bit llate for 1.5 degrees, isn't it? Though if I'm honest I can't really see any other way than continued use of nuclear as a bridge technology. though I'm not knowledgeable enough to say whether a similar trap looms that Germany fell into with over reliance on russian gas. It's not like we have to stop caring about power generation, climate change and co2 emissions in 15 years. Nor are we likely to have solved the problem of having reliable power during the days with little sun and wind (which typically is the time when you need it the most, since those days are usually during winter and are very cold), by relying on renewables. Sure you could have gas for power generation during those days, but then you are just trading in a type of power generation that pollutes more, kills more people on average, and have a higher enviornmental impact. That sounds like a really shitty solution. Your objection doesn't make any sense, since you will have even greater power demands in 15 years. We will still continue to reduce co2 emissions in 15 years. Environmental impact will still matter in 15 years (which once again, nuclear have the lowest of any power generation). Do you think the IPCC report scenarios imagined the nuclear power plants to magically just be built within a few years? Infrastructure usually take a long time to build. Yet we do it. I'm not quite clear whether you understood my post in a different way to what i set it out to convey, but I'll reiterate. Nuclear currently is about as helpful as starting a fracking business. Will the price it offers will even remotely be competitive without state guaranteed revenue? If any power company is of that opinion, please build more power plants but don't ask for daddy state to guarantee prices. Do it with market forces. The state is gonna be busy with supporting industry with the zero carbon transition.
I'm not sure I want China to build a bunch of (cheap?) nuclear energy plants on my doorstep... I rather have it state controlled
|
On December 23 2022 17:52 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2022 04:16 Artisreal wrote:On December 23 2022 02:34 Neneu wrote:On December 22 2022 23:05 Artisreal wrote:On December 22 2022 19:48 Neneu wrote:On December 22 2022 18:46 Harris1st wrote:On December 22 2022 17:08 Silvanel wrote:
This is exactly what PiS needs to win elections again in Poland. They have been saying for a long time that price increases are the fault of EU. Lo and behold, here it comes.
Personally I have been long time of opinion that renewables wont fix anything and the only road forward is nuclear. So I am not a fan of this legislation. We will end in a dystopian world when only rich people are able to travel or heat their homes. I am like 99% sure that fuel for privet jets will be exempt from this tax. Care to explain your reasoning behind this? I mean if fusion core technology is as good as it seems and will actually be available in the next 5-10 years, yeah sure nuclear is the way to go. The current nuclear isn't cutting it though. IMO A lot of downsides and the only upside is, that it's reliableReneweable is basically free energy after the initial invest. The only downside beeing that it's not reliable (yet) since storing is so difficult and expensive Germany stopped taxing this initial invest for 2023 for example which to me seems a step in the right direction. wait what, how do you read into my post, that I want unregulated nuclear? On December 23 2022 17:25 Mikau313 wrote:On December 23 2022 04:16 Artisreal wrote:On December 23 2022 02:34 Neneu wrote:On December 22 2022 23:05 Artisreal wrote:On December 22 2022 19:48 Neneu wrote:
[quote]
There's a few upsides you forgot. It has the lowest environmental impact of all electricity generation and also almost no CO2 emissions. Therefor in any scenario in IPCC reports where we are able to stay below 1.5 degrees global heating, it relies on a large increase of nuclear power generation. It is crazy how small the environmental impact of current nuclear power is compared to any other power generatinon, with minimal polution, waste and land requirements.
It is also the energy generation that kills the least amount of people. Natural gas e.g. have historically killed 38 times more people per kWh produced. If you compare it with coal it is 387 times per kWh.
There are a lot of upsides with nuclear power, if you want the safest future for your kids. What's the fastest a new reactor can realistically be built? 15 years? A bit llate for 1.5 degrees, isn't it? Though if I'm honest I can't really see any other way than continued use of nuclear as a bridge technology. though I'm not knowledgeable enough to say whether a similar trap looms that Germany fell into with over reliance on russian gas. It's not like we have to stop caring about power generation, climate change and co2 emissions in 15 years. Nor are we likely to have solved the problem of having reliable power during the days with little sun and wind (which typically is the time when you need it the most, since those days are usually during winter and are very cold), by relying on renewables. Sure you could have gas for power generation during those days, but then you are just trading in a type of power generation that pollutes more, kills more people on average, and have a higher enviornmental impact. That sounds like a really shitty solution. Your objection doesn't make any sense, since you will have even greater power demands in 15 years. We will still continue to reduce co2 emissions in 15 years. Environmental impact will still matter in 15 years (which once again, nuclear have the lowest of any power generation). Do you think the IPCC report scenarios imagined the nuclear power plants to magically just be built within a few years? Infrastructure usually take a long time to build. Yet we do it. I'm not quite clear whether you understood my post in a different way to what i set it out to convey, but I'll reiterate. Nuclear currently is about as helpful as starting a fracking business. Will the price it offers will even remotely be competitive without state guaranteed revenue? If any power company is of that opinion, please build more power plants but don't ask for daddy state to guarantee prices. Do it with market forces. The state is gonna be busy with supporting industry with the zero carbon transition. Carbon emissions for nuclear energy are lower than for renewable energy over their lifetime. Whatever you believe the problems with nuclear energy are (and there aren't nearly as many as the anti-nuclear lobby would have you believe), carbon emissions aren't one of them. You're better than to regurgitate things that are objectively not true. where do I say any of that? There's a few upsides you forgot. It has the lowest environmental impact of all electricity generation and also almost no CO2 emissions. Therefor in any scenario in IPCC reports where we are able to stay below 1.5 degrees global heating, it relies on a large increase of nuclear power generation. It is crazy how small the environmental impact of current nuclear power is compared to any other power generatinon, with minimal polution, waste and land requirements. It is also the energy generation that kills the least amount of people. Natural gas e.g. have historically killed 38 times more people per kWh produced. If you compare it with coal it is 387 times per kWh. There are a lot of upsides with nuclear power, if you want the safest future for your kids. What's the fastest a new reactor can realistically be built? 15 years? A bit llate for 1.5 degrees, isn't it? Though if I'm honest I can't really see any other way than continued use of nuclear as a bridge technology. though I'm not knowledgeable enough to say whether a similar trap looms that Germany fell into with over reliance on russian gas. It's not like we have to stop caring about power generation, climate change and co2 emissions in 15 years. Nor are we likely to have solved the problem of having reliable power during the days with little sun and wind (which typically is the time when you need it the most, since those days are usually during winter and are very cold), by relying on renewables. Sure you could have gas for power generation during those days, but then you are just trading in a type of power generation that pollutes more, kills more people on average, and have a higher enviornmental impact. That sounds like a really shitty solution. Your objection doesn't make any sense, since you will have even greater power demands in 15 years. We will still continue to reduce co2 emissions in 15 years. Environmental impact will still matter in 15 years (which once again, nuclear have the lowest of any power generation). Do you think the IPCC report scenarios imagined the nuclear power plants to magically just be built within a few years? Infrastructure usually take a long time to build. Yet we do it. I'm not quite clear whether you understood my post in a different way to what i set it out to convey, but I'll reiterate. Nuclear currently is about as helpful as starting a fracking business. Will the price it offers will even remotely be competitive without state guaranteed revenue? If any power company is of that opinion, please build more power plants but don't ask for daddy state to guarantee prices. Do it with market forces. The state is gonna be busy with supporting industry with the zero carbon transition. I'm not sure I want China to build a bunch of (cheap?) nuclear energy plants on my doorstep... I rather have it state controlled
how do you come to the conclusion i want unregulated nuclear?
On December 23 2022 17:25 Mikau313 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2022 04:16 Artisreal wrote:On December 23 2022 02:34 Neneu wrote:On December 22 2022 23:05 Artisreal wrote:On December 22 2022 19:48 Neneu wrote:On December 22 2022 18:46 Harris1st wrote:On December 22 2022 17:08 Silvanel wrote:
This is exactly what PiS needs to win elections again in Poland. They have been saying for a long time that price increases are the fault of EU. Lo and behold, here it comes.
Personally I have been long time of opinion that renewables wont fix anything and the only road forward is nuclear. So I am not a fan of this legislation. We will end in a dystopian world when only rich people are able to travel or heat their homes. I am like 99% sure that fuel for privet jets will be exempt from this tax. Care to explain your reasoning behind this? I mean if fusion core technology is as good as it seems and will actually be available in the next 5-10 years, yeah sure nuclear is the way to go. The current nuclear isn't cutting it though. IMO A lot of downsides and the only upside is, that it's reliableReneweable is basically free energy after the initial invest. The only downside beeing that it's not reliable (yet) since storing is so difficult and expensive Germany stopped taxing this initial invest for 2023 for example which to me seems a step in the right direction. There's a few upsides you forgot. It has the lowest environmental impact of all electricity generation and also almost no CO2 emissions. Therefor in any scenario in IPCC reports where we are able to stay below 1.5 degrees global heating, it relies on a large increase of nuclear power generation. It is crazy how small the environmental impact of current nuclear power is compared to any other power generatinon, with minimal polution, waste and land requirements. It is also the energy generation that kills the least amount of people. Natural gas e.g. have historically killed 38 times more people per kWh produced. If you compare it with coal it is 387 times per kWh. There are a lot of upsides with nuclear power, if you want the safest future for your kids. What's the fastest a new reactor can realistically be built? 15 years? A bit llate for 1.5 degrees, isn't it? Though if I'm honest I can't really see any other way than continued use of nuclear as a bridge technology. though I'm not knowledgeable enough to say whether a similar trap looms that Germany fell into with over reliance on russian gas. It's not like we have to stop caring about power generation, climate change and co2 emissions in 15 years. Nor are we likely to have solved the problem of having reliable power during the days with little sun and wind (which typically is the time when you need it the most, since those days are usually during winter and are very cold), by relying on renewables. Sure you could have gas for power generation during those days, but then you are just trading in a type of power generation that pollutes more, kills more people on average, and have a higher enviornmental impact. That sounds like a really shitty solution. Your objection doesn't make any sense, since you will have even greater power demands in 15 years. We will still continue to reduce co2 emissions in 15 years. Environmental impact will still matter in 15 years (which once again, nuclear have the lowest of any power generation). Do you think the IPCC report scenarios imagined the nuclear power plants to magically just be built within a few years? Infrastructure usually take a long time to build. Yet we do it. I'm not quite clear whether you understood my post in a different way to what i set it out to convey, but I'll reiterate. Nuclear currently is about as helpful as starting a fracking business. Will the price it offers will even remotely be competitive without state guaranteed revenue? If any power company is of that opinion, please build more power plants but don't ask for daddy state to guarantee prices. Do it with market forces. The state is gonna be busy with supporting industry with the zero carbon transition. Carbon emissions for nuclear energy are lower than for renewable energy over their lifetime. Whatever you believe the problems with nuclear energy are (and there aren't nearly as many as the anti-nuclear lobby would have you believe), carbon emissions aren't one of them. You're better than to regurgitate things that are objectively not true.
where do i say any of what you mentioned?
|
On December 23 2022 17:57 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2022 17:52 Harris1st wrote:On December 23 2022 04:16 Artisreal wrote:On December 23 2022 02:34 Neneu wrote:On December 22 2022 23:05 Artisreal wrote:On December 22 2022 19:48 Neneu wrote:On December 22 2022 18:46 Harris1st wrote:On December 22 2022 17:08 Silvanel wrote:
This is exactly what PiS needs to win elections again in Poland. They have been saying for a long time that price increases are the fault of EU. Lo and behold, here it comes.
Personally I have been long time of opinion that renewables wont fix anything and the only road forward is nuclear. So I am not a fan of this legislation. We will end in a dystopian world when only rich people are able to travel or heat their homes. I am like 99% sure that fuel for privet jets will be exempt from this tax. Care to explain your reasoning behind this? I mean if fusion core technology is as good as it seems and will actually be available in the next 5-10 years, yeah sure nuclear is the way to go. The current nuclear isn't cutting it though. IMO A lot of downsides and the only upside is, that it's reliableReneweable is basically free energy after the initial invest. The only downside beeing that it's not reliable (yet) since storing is so difficult and expensive Germany stopped taxing this initial invest for 2023 for example which to me seems a step in the right direction. wait what, how do you read into my post, that I want unregulated nuclear? On December 23 2022 17:25 Mikau313 wrote:On December 23 2022 04:16 Artisreal wrote:On December 23 2022 02:34 Neneu wrote:On December 22 2022 23:05 Artisreal wrote:
[quote]
What's the fastest a new reactor can realistically be built?
15 years?
A bit llate for 1.5 degrees, isn't it?
Though if I'm honest I can't really see any other way than continued use of nuclear as a bridge technology. though I'm not knowledgeable enough to say whether a similar trap looms that Germany fell into with over reliance on russian gas. It's not like we have to stop caring about power generation, climate change and co2 emissions in 15 years. Nor are we likely to have solved the problem of having reliable power during the days with little sun and wind (which typically is the time when you need it the most, since those days are usually during winter and are very cold), by relying on renewables. Sure you could have gas for power generation during those days, but then you are just trading in a type of power generation that pollutes more, kills more people on average, and have a higher enviornmental impact. That sounds like a really shitty solution. Your objection doesn't make any sense, since you will have even greater power demands in 15 years. We will still continue to reduce co2 emissions in 15 years. Environmental impact will still matter in 15 years (which once again, nuclear have the lowest of any power generation). Do you think the IPCC report scenarios imagined the nuclear power plants to magically just be built within a few years? Infrastructure usually take a long time to build. Yet we do it. I'm not quite clear whether you understood my post in a different way to what i set it out to convey, but I'll reiterate. Nuclear currently is about as helpful as starting a fracking business. Will the price it offers will even remotely be competitive without state guaranteed revenue? If any power company is of that opinion, please build more power plants but don't ask for daddy state to guarantee prices. Do it with market forces. The state is gonna be busy with supporting industry with the zero carbon transition. Carbon emissions for nuclear energy are lower than for renewable energy over their lifetime. Whatever you believe the problems with nuclear energy are (and there aren't nearly as many as the anti-nuclear lobby would have you believe), carbon emissions aren't one of them. You're better than to regurgitate things that are objectively not true. where do I say any of that? There's a few upsides you forgot. It has the lowest environmental impact of all electricity generation and also almost no CO2 emissions. Therefor in any scenario in IPCC reports where we are able to stay below 1.5 degrees global heating, it relies on a large increase of nuclear power generation. It is crazy how small the environmental impact of current nuclear power is compared to any other power generatinon, with minimal polution, waste and land requirements. It is also the energy generation that kills the least amount of people. Natural gas e.g. have historically killed 38 times more people per kWh produced. If you compare it with coal it is 387 times per kWh. There are a lot of upsides with nuclear power, if you want the safest future for your kids. What's the fastest a new reactor can realistically be built? 15 years? A bit llate for 1.5 degrees, isn't it? Though if I'm honest I can't really see any other way than continued use of nuclear as a bridge technology. though I'm not knowledgeable enough to say whether a similar trap looms that Germany fell into with over reliance on russian gas. It's not like we have to stop caring about power generation, climate change and co2 emissions in 15 years. Nor are we likely to have solved the problem of having reliable power during the days with little sun and wind (which typically is the time when you need it the most, since those days are usually during winter and are very cold), by relying on renewables. Sure you could have gas for power generation during those days, but then you are just trading in a type of power generation that pollutes more, kills more people on average, and have a higher enviornmental impact. That sounds like a really shitty solution. Your objection doesn't make any sense, since you will have even greater power demands in 15 years. We will still continue to reduce co2 emissions in 15 years. Environmental impact will still matter in 15 years (which once again, nuclear have the lowest of any power generation). Do you think the IPCC report scenarios imagined the nuclear power plants to magically just be built within a few years? Infrastructure usually take a long time to build. Yet we do it. I'm not quite clear whether you understood my post in a different way to what i set it out to convey, but I'll reiterate. Nuclear currently is about as helpful as starting a fracking business. Will the price it offers will even remotely be competitive without state guaranteed revenue? If any power company is of that opinion, please build more power plants but don't ask for daddy state to guarantee prices. Do it with market forces. The state is gonna be busy with supporting industry with the zero carbon transition. I'm not sure I want China to build a bunch of (cheap?) nuclear energy plants on my doorstep... I rather have it state controlled how do you come to the conclusion i want unregulated nuclear? Show nested quote +On December 23 2022 17:25 Mikau313 wrote:On December 23 2022 04:16 Artisreal wrote:On December 23 2022 02:34 Neneu wrote:On December 22 2022 23:05 Artisreal wrote:On December 22 2022 19:48 Neneu wrote:On December 22 2022 18:46 Harris1st wrote:On December 22 2022 17:08 Silvanel wrote:
This is exactly what PiS needs to win elections again in Poland. They have been saying for a long time that price increases are the fault of EU. Lo and behold, here it comes.
Personally I have been long time of opinion that renewables wont fix anything and the only road forward is nuclear. So I am not a fan of this legislation. We will end in a dystopian world when only rich people are able to travel or heat their homes. I am like 99% sure that fuel for privet jets will be exempt from this tax. Care to explain your reasoning behind this? I mean if fusion core technology is as good as it seems and will actually be available in the next 5-10 years, yeah sure nuclear is the way to go. The current nuclear isn't cutting it though. IMO A lot of downsides and the only upside is, that it's reliableReneweable is basically free energy after the initial invest. The only downside beeing that it's not reliable (yet) since storing is so difficult and expensive Germany stopped taxing this initial invest for 2023 for example which to me seems a step in the right direction. There's a few upsides you forgot. It has the lowest environmental impact of all electricity generation and also almost no CO2 emissions. Therefor in any scenario in IPCC reports where we are able to stay below 1.5 degrees global heating, it relies on a large increase of nuclear power generation. It is crazy how small the environmental impact of current nuclear power is compared to any other power generatinon, with minimal polution, waste and land requirements. It is also the energy generation that kills the least amount of people. Natural gas e.g. have historically killed 38 times more people per kWh produced. If you compare it with coal it is 387 times per kWh. There are a lot of upsides with nuclear power, if you want the safest future for your kids. What's the fastest a new reactor can realistically be built? 15 years? A bit llate for 1.5 degrees, isn't it? Though if I'm honest I can't really see any other way than continued use of nuclear as a bridge technology. though I'm not knowledgeable enough to say whether a similar trap looms that Germany fell into with over reliance on russian gas. It's not like we have to stop caring about power generation, climate change and co2 emissions in 15 years. Nor are we likely to have solved the problem of having reliable power during the days with little sun and wind (which typically is the time when you need it the most, since those days are usually during winter and are very cold), by relying on renewables. Sure you could have gas for power generation during those days, but then you are just trading in a type of power generation that pollutes more, kills more people on average, and have a higher enviornmental impact. That sounds like a really shitty solution. Your objection doesn't make any sense, since you will have even greater power demands in 15 years. We will still continue to reduce co2 emissions in 15 years. Environmental impact will still matter in 15 years (which once again, nuclear have the lowest of any power generation). Do you think the IPCC report scenarios imagined the nuclear power plants to magically just be built within a few years? Infrastructure usually take a long time to build. Yet we do it. I'm not quite clear whether you understood my post in a different way to what i set it out to convey, but I'll reiterate. Nuclear currently is about as helpful as starting a fracking business. Will the price it offers will even remotely be competitive without state guaranteed revenue? If any power company is of that opinion, please build more power plants but don't ask for daddy state to guarantee prices. Do it with market forces. The state is gonna be busy with supporting industry with the zero carbon transition. Carbon emissions for nuclear energy are lower than for renewable energy over their lifetime. Whatever you believe the problems with nuclear energy are (and there aren't nearly as many as the anti-nuclear lobby would have you believe), carbon emissions aren't one of them. You're better than to regurgitate things that are objectively not true. where do i say any of what you mentioned?
Your exact words were:
If any power company is of that opinion, please build more power plants
EDIT: These Thorium mini reactors sound actually really interesting and like decent solutions to fix the problem that renewables have. Like a mix of both could easily and actually pretty fast end all energy problems
|
I mean, we have planning permission legislation for that.
This applies whether the state company or a private company builds a nuclear power plant.
this seems rather obvious to me.
to add a bit of explanation. what I want is for nuclear to be built if it's still competitive in a 2035+ market environment.
I don't want another public moeny sink.
|
On December 23 2022 18:49 Artisreal wrote:
I mean, we have planning permission legislation for that.
This applies whether the state company or a private company builds a nuclear power plant.
this seems rather obvious to me.
to add a bit of explanation. what I want is for nuclear to be built if it's still competitive in a 2035+ market environment.
I don't want another public moeny sink.
We both know these are not nearly as strict and regulated when you throw money at them.
Just look at Elon and his Gigafactory or Scholz/ China and Hamburger Hafen
|
On December 23 2022 06:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2022 02:14 Razyda wrote:On December 23 2022 00:24 KwarK wrote:On December 22 2022 18:23 Gorsameth wrote:On December 22 2022 18:20 Mikau313 wrote:
I genuinely don't understand when people make the argument of "politicians screw me over, so I'll vote for somebody who is very clearly going to screw me over worse than any politician would (with a side of everything-phobia and eroding civil rights)".
And then you get people who take an issue when people call the people with that awful logic idiots?
If you vote against your best interest, for somebody who has made it abundantly clear that he is against your best interests, then you're either an idiot or simply malicious. I'm not saying their choice makes logical sense, I'm saying just dismissing them out of hand because they are idiots without atleast some reflection on what drives them to make their dumb choice is probably a mistake. Sure, it’s worth considering why he was able to capture the idiot vote so easily and why the intelligent message was unable to be properly communicated in ways that idiots can understand. In a democracy idiots get as much say as everyone else, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t learn lessons from Brexit or Trump. To me the lesson is that neoliberalism needs to do more to promote wealth equality and social cohesion to prevent being flanked by a fascist at the head of an army of morons. We can recognize the danger posed by economically and socially disenfranchised idiots without giving undue importance to their identified complaints. After all, these are the complaints of idiots. When they proclaim that they’re mostly upset about CRT the solution isn’t to reintroduce segregation, it’s to turn off Fox News. Do you even realise how elitist your post is? In summary: people who happened to have disagree with you are unable to understand intelligent message idiots, morons following a fascist, racists and Fox news watchers. Thats some first class labeling. "After all, these are the complaints of idiots" - you mean when people complain that they cant afford food, or heating? Now read carefully what you just said (I actually wonder if you even realise what you said here): "We can recognize the danger posed by economically and socially disenfranchised idiots without giving undue importance to their identified complaints" Brexit and Trump were answer to this very attitude. And you know what? The more of this "economically and socially disenfranchised idiots" there will be, the more extreme this answer will become. Also "economically and socially disenfranchised idiots" why use so many words to say "poor people"? I don’t see any way of describing these people without coming across as elitist. I am better than them. Elitist isn’t really the attack you seem to think it is, if you’re not better than them then I feel sorry for you.
Wow. So you are better than them? Care to elaborate why do you think so?
As for me I dont think I am better than them. Different yes, better no. As a matter of fact I am certain that every single one of those people is actually better than me , or you for that matter, at at least one thing.
|
Most likely because he isn't getting riled up by crt, the groomer scare and/or other absolute bullshit claims, isn't into Qanon and his political persona isn't defined by "owning the libs" or whatever is the equivalent outside of the US.
Or in short: He's sane.
|
The correct description is probably people who are down trodden need something to blame for their misfortune and the QAnon stuff gives them something to believe in and a sense of identity, although we know it is false.
People who are too smart to believe in QAnon are manipulating those who are more gullible to their own benefit.
I don’t see the grassroots believers as guilty. It is those talking heads and politicians that fan the flames that deserve all of the blame.
|
On December 23 2022 18:52 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2022 18:49 Artisreal wrote:
I mean, we have planning permission legislation for that.
This applies whether the state company or a private company builds a nuclear power plant.
this seems rather obvious to me.
to add a bit of explanation. what I want is for nuclear to be built if it's still competitive in a 2035+ market environment.
I don't want another public moeny sink. We both know these are not nearly as strict and regulated when you throw money at them. Just look at Elon and his Gigafactory or Scholz/ China and Hamburger Hafen
What is your takeaway here regarding government price guarantees for power produced by nuclear power plants?
Because that's what I was talking about.
The question goes out to Mikau as well.
|
On December 23 2022 19:24 Velr wrote:
Most likely because he isn't getting riled up by crt, the groomer scare and/or other absolute bullshit claims, isn't into Qanon and his political persona isn't defined by "owning the libs" or whatever is the equivalent outside of the US.
Or in short: He's sane.
Believing that all Trump/Brexit voters falling in at least one of those categories is not something I would describe as "sane".
Believing in being better than everyone voting differently is pretty much opposite of "sane".
Here is Guardian asking some people why they voted Trump:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/why-did-people-vote-for-donald-trump-us-voters-explain
They do not seem to fall into categories you described.
You know what would be insane though? Insane would be for people who currently financially struggle, to vote on people planning to do this:
"EU approves CO2 tax on heating and transport, softened by new social climate fund"
|
Yeah, the examples in this article are barely, if at all, any better than just openly stating you believe in Qanon & Co.
|
|
|
United States43403 Posts
On December 24 2022 00:19 Razyda wrote:
You know what would be insane though? Insane would be for people who currently financially struggle, to vote on people planning to do this:
"EU approves CO2 tax on heating and transport, softened by new social climate fund"
Only if the world their kids grew up in wasn’t going to be on fire. Once you include the reason for the CO2 levy it becomes perfectly rational.
You could describe surgery as insane, you go to a specific place and allow yourself to be drugged so that a stranger can cut you. Context matters.
Poor people absolutely should vote for something that increases their hardship today so that their kids don’t die in the climate wars.
|
On December 24 2022 00:53 JimmiC wrote:
I do not think people would argue that there was questionable but sane reasons to vote for Trump in 2016, I mean how much worse could he be? Many still brlieved his myth of him being a good busjnessman and so on. Turns out lots, lots worse.
People who would vote for him now basically cant have sane reasons.
My point isnt that people should vote for Trump, or Brexit. My point is that people are so desperate that they are willing to vote for anyone who promise them change from status quo, because status quo doesnt work for them. If I remember correctly it wasnt only Trump who rised in 2016. I believe Bernie also rise unexpectedly then (I may be wrong here)
On December 24 2022 00:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2022 00:19 Razyda wrote:
You know what would be insane though? Insane would be for people who currently financially struggle, to vote on people planning to do this:
"EU approves CO2 tax on heating and transport, softened by new social climate fund" Only if the world their kids grew up in wasn’t going to be on fire. Once you include the reason for the CO2 levy it becomes perfectly rational. You could describe surgery as insane, you go to a specific place and allow yourself to be drugged so that a stranger can cut you. Context matters. Poor people absolutely should vote for something that increases their hardship today so that their kids don’t die in the climate wars.
I fully agree that context matters.
So lets go into context.
"introduce a carbon price on buildings and road transport fuels" - this are not luxuries. Most people dont drive for fun (I believe) they drive to commute, mostly to work. Most people dont turn up heating at home because they fancy little sauna, they do that because they cold. Those are necessities. So in this context you can see that they just going to make you pay for things you have to use anyway.
Also it doesnt have direct impact on carbon emissions, does it? It will indirectly reduce them, by forcing poorer people to cut on necessities, but this impact will be miniscule compared to the price.
You know what would have direct impact on carbon emissions?
Setting/lowering limits of carbon emissions which factories, manufacturers and so on may not cross.
|
On December 23 2022 19:30 gobbledydook wrote:
The correct description is probably people who are down trodden need something to blame for their misfortune and the QAnon stuff gives them something to believe in and a sense of identity, although we know it is false.
People who are too smart to believe in QAnon are manipulating those who are more gullible to their own benefit.
I don’t see the grassroots believers as guilty. It is those talking heads and politicians that fan the flames that deserve all of the blame.
Theyre guilty of choosing to believe something so wild and crazy bc the other camp is a bunch of "blood sucking pedo".
Its not only in the US though, you can tell from the last few pages that Germans are particularly susceptible to anti nuclear propaganda to the point of disparaging our only safe and sure energy source. 20 years of fake news will do that to a human brain
|
On December 24 2022 01:35 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2022 00:53 JimmiC wrote:
I do not think people would argue that there was questionable but sane reasons to vote for Trump in 2016, I mean how much worse could he be? Many still brlieved his myth of him being a good busjnessman and so on. Turns out lots, lots worse.
People who would vote for him now basically cant have sane reasons. My point isnt that people should vote for Trump, or Brexit. My point is that people are so desperate that they are willing to vote for anyone who promise them change from status quo, because status quo doesnt work for them. If I remember correctly it wasnt only Trump who rised in 2016. I believe Bernie also rise unexpectedly then (I may be wrong here) Show nested quote +On December 24 2022 00:56 KwarK wrote:On December 24 2022 00:19 Razyda wrote:
You know what would be insane though? Insane would be for people who currently financially struggle, to vote on people planning to do this:
"EU approves CO2 tax on heating and transport, softened by new social climate fund" Only if the world their kids grew up in wasn’t going to be on fire. Once you include the reason for the CO2 levy it becomes perfectly rational. You could describe surgery as insane, you go to a specific place and allow yourself to be drugged so that a stranger can cut you. Context matters. Poor people absolutely should vote for something that increases their hardship today so that their kids don’t die in the climate wars. I fully agree that context matters. So lets go into context. "introduce a carbon price on buildings and road transport fuels" - this are not luxuries. Most people dont drive for fun (I believe) they drive to commute, mostly to work. Most people dont turn up heating at home because they fancy little sauna, they do that because they cold. Those are necessities. So in this context you can see that they just going to make you pay for things you have to use anyway. Also it doesnt have direct impact on carbon emissions, does it? It will indirectly reduce them, by forcing poorer people to cut on necessities, but this impact will be miniscule compared to the price. You know what would have direct impact on carbon emissions? Setting/lowering limits of carbon emissions which factories, manufacturers and so on may not cross.
Carbon trade for factories is also being done. Generally speaking, it is being attempted to reduce the societal impact of carbon prices that hit the poorer strata more. For example by distributing the money from those carbon prices equally onto the population. That way, those who produce less CO2 can actually profit from such measures.
Furthermore, the thing you mentioned specifically (I assume it is this article?: https://www.euractiv.com/section/emissions-trading-scheme/news/eu-agrees-co2-tax-on-heating-and-transport-fuels-softened-by-new-social-climate-fund/) mentions multiple things which you conveniently skipped over to portray your selective talking points:
*The program is only planned to take effect in 2027, potentially even 2028 due to the energy crisis. It has zero effect on the current energy crisis.
*At the same time, there is a 87 billion € fund involved to explicitly reduce the impact of this program on households.
|
In the end any tax will be paid by individuals. The distinction between corporations and consumers is not very useful to see who bears the tax burden
|
|
|
On December 23 2022 14:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2022 12:59 Nebuchad wrote:On December 23 2022 06:35 KwarK wrote:On December 23 2022 02:14 Razyda wrote:On December 23 2022 00:24 KwarK wrote:On December 22 2022 18:23 Gorsameth wrote:On December 22 2022 18:20 Mikau313 wrote:
I genuinely don't understand when people make the argument of "politicians screw me over, so I'll vote for somebody who is very clearly going to screw me over worse than any politician would (with a side of everything-phobia and eroding civil rights)".
And then you get people who take an issue when people call the people with that awful logic idiots?
If you vote against your best interest, for somebody who has made it abundantly clear that he is against your best interests, then you're either an idiot or simply malicious. I'm not saying their choice makes logical sense, I'm saying just dismissing them out of hand because they are idiots without atleast some reflection on what drives them to make their dumb choice is probably a mistake. Sure, it’s worth considering why he was able to capture the idiot vote so easily and why the intelligent message was unable to be properly communicated in ways that idiots can understand. In a democracy idiots get as much say as everyone else, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t learn lessons from Brexit or Trump. To me the lesson is that neoliberalism needs to do more to promote wealth equality and social cohesion to prevent being flanked by a fascist at the head of an army of morons. We can recognize the danger posed by economically and socially disenfranchised idiots without giving undue importance to their identified complaints. After all, these are the complaints of idiots. When they proclaim that they’re mostly upset about CRT the solution isn’t to reintroduce segregation, it’s to turn off Fox News. Do you even realise how elitist your post is? In summary: people who happened to have disagree with you are unable to understand intelligent message idiots, morons following a fascist, racists and Fox news watchers. Thats some first class labeling. "After all, these are the complaints of idiots" - you mean when people complain that they cant afford food, or heating? Now read carefully what you just said (I actually wonder if you even realise what you said here): "We can recognize the danger posed by economically and socially disenfranchised idiots without giving undue importance to their identified complaints" Brexit and Trump were answer to this very attitude. And you know what? The more of this "economically and socially disenfranchised idiots" there will be, the more extreme this answer will become. Also "economically and socially disenfranchised idiots" why use so many words to say "poor people"? I don’t see any way of describing these people without coming across as elitist. I am better than them. Elitist isn’t really the attack you seem to think it is, if you’re not better than them then I feel sorry for you. You're smarter than them. Deciding that it makes you a better human being is a separate point. It’s not about being smarter, though I am that. We’re talking about deplorables here, the racists, sexists, etc. The people who have no sense of agency in their lives and blame others for their own failings. There are plenty of people less smart than me who are better people than me. Just not them. This is irrelevant to the main thrust of my previous argument though. I just objected to the attempted gotcha of “you sound like an elitist”. It didn’t address the substance of anything I’d said but even if I did sound like an elitist, who cares.
I'm on your side in the main argument of course, I just don't think it's particularly hard to describe these people without coming across as elitist. You were doing just that before that specific post 
|
On December 24 2022 01:35 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2022 00:53 JimmiC wrote:
I do not think people would argue that there was questionable but sane reasons to vote for Trump in 2016, I mean how much worse could he be? Many still brlieved his myth of him being a good busjnessman and so on. Turns out lots, lots worse.
People who would vote for him now basically cant have sane reasons. My point isnt that people should vote for Trump, or Brexit. My point is that people are so desperate that they are willing to vote for anyone who promise them change from status quo, because status quo doesnt work for them. If I remember correctly it wasnt only Trump who rised in 2016. I believe Bernie also rise unexpectedly then (I may be wrong here)
That status quo is neoliberalism, which in terms of electoral politics is a system that puts liberals on the left and the far right on the right. While they compete in the culture wars, the difference when it comes to economical policy is much smaller, with politics slightly to the left of standard neoliberalism for the left party and politics slightly to the right of standard neoliberalism for the right party. Every time you push the system to the right, its hierarchies solidify. The desperation that you talk about has been taken into account, and is exploited by the system. As a result this vote isn't shaking up the status quo, it is actually reinforcing it.
You will never "shake up a system" by voting for one of the two parties that the system accepts as legitimate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
