|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On December 20 2019 10:49 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2019 10:45 Introvert wrote:
Didn't we have a serious Thorium fan in the thread once? We need him back.
And I started late, but Biden doesn't sound totally incoherent right now. Wonder how many naps he had and how long it will last. Me? I'm hardcore pro thorium, but don't remember talking about it much. From a materials chemistry perspective, thorium is a slam dunk. It is 100% a education problem. Even well educated scientists are typically ignorant of nuclear benefits because all they learn about it is radiation training for their labs, lol. Thorium rules.
Maybe it was lol, someone used to mention it regularly. I haven't looked into thorium in particular but I'm pro-nuclear power in general. And as an established technology, people seriously concerned about climate change should be open to it.
|
On December 20 2019 10:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
The US can't isolate China, how oblivious is Buttigieg? I thought he was supposed to be the smart one?
and Joe Biden is going to use the Navy to stop China... These people are morons.
We could isolate china. It would suck, but we can. Better than supporting the Holocaust 2.0
|
On December 20 2019 11:05 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2019 10:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
The US can't isolate China, how oblivious is Buttigieg? I thought he was supposed to be the smart one?
and Joe Biden is going to use the Navy to stop China... These people are morons. We could isolate china. It would suck, but we can. Better than supporting the Holocaust 2.0
No we can't. We could try to isolate ourselves from China, but that's not the same thing.
As to supporting the "Holocaust 2.0" no one even argues that what is happening in China is worse than what Israel is doing to Palestinians with our support so, too late for that (no matter what one thinks is happening in China).
|
Buttigieg just tore a hole in Warren's head. holy crap.
|
On December 20 2019 10:59 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2019 10:49 Mohdoo wrote:On December 20 2019 10:45 Introvert wrote:
Didn't we have a serious Thorium fan in the thread once? We need him back.
And I started late, but Biden doesn't sound totally incoherent right now. Wonder how many naps he had and how long it will last. Me? I'm hardcore pro thorium, but don't remember talking about it much. From a materials chemistry perspective, thorium is a slam dunk. It is 100% a education problem. Even well educated scientists are typically ignorant of nuclear benefits because all they learn about it is radiation training for their labs, lol. Thorium rules. Maybe it was lol, someone used to mention it regularly. I haven't looked into Thorium in particular but I'm pro-nuclear power in general. And as an established technology, people seriously concerned about climate change should be open to it.
Think that was Wegandi
|
On December 20 2019 10:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol enough for what?
Since the answer to that question is quite clearly contained in the second half of the sentence, I'll take this as a concession that you were wrong and have no better retort and move on.
On December 20 2019 11:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
As to supporting the "Holocaust 2.0" no one even argues that what is happening in China is worse than what Israel is doing to Palestinians with our support so, too late for that (no matter what one thinks is happening in China).
I'm fairly sure plenty of people would argue exactly that.
|
On December 20 2019 11:34 Aquanim wrote:Since the answer to that question is quite clearly contained in the second half of the sentence, I'll take this as a concession that you were wrong and have no better retort and move on. Show nested quote +On December 20 2019 11:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
As to supporting the "Holocaust 2.0" no one even argues that what is happening in China is worse than what Israel is doing to Palestinians with our support so, too late for that (no matter what one thinks is happening in China). I'm fairly sure plenty of people would argue exactly that.
No concession, "Enough of the public was convinced that impeachment was politically viable" doesn't mean anything or relate to my argument.
I've not seen it, and they'd be wrong.
|
On December 20 2019 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2019 11:34 Aquanim wrote:On December 20 2019 10:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol enough for what? Since the answer to that question is quite clearly contained in the second half of the sentence, I'll take this as a concession that you were wrong and have no better retort and move on. On December 20 2019 11:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
As to supporting the "Holocaust 2.0" no one even argues that what is happening in China is worse than what Israel is doing to Palestinians with our support so, too late for that (no matter what one thinks is happening in China). I'm fairly sure plenty of people would argue exactly that. No concession, "Enough of the public was convinced that impeachment was politically viable" doesn't mean anything or relate to my argument.
Oh, I didn't expect you to admit it was a concession. If you were going to do that you'd have done it in the first place rather than reply to half a sentence and ignore the other half.
Given that your argument consisted of substantially missing the point of the person you were replying to, my post failing to "relate" to it is a point in the post's favour. If I "related" to your argument I would be buying into your misrepresentation.
|
On December 20 2019 11:47 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2019 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 20 2019 11:34 Aquanim wrote:On December 20 2019 10:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol enough for what? Since the answer to that question is quite clearly contained in the second half of the sentence, I'll take this as a concession that you were wrong and have no better retort and move on. On December 20 2019 11:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
As to supporting the "Holocaust 2.0" no one even argues that what is happening in China is worse than what Israel is doing to Palestinians with our support so, too late for that (no matter what one thinks is happening in China). I'm fairly sure plenty of people would argue exactly that. No concession, "Enough of the public was convinced that impeachment was politically viable" doesn't mean anything or relate to my argument. Oh, I didn't expect you to admit it was a concession. Given that your argument consisted of substantially missing the point of the person you were replying to, my post failing to "relate" to it is a point in the post's favour.
You guys are just falling short of adding the part about how your argument is only relevant if we concede reelection as a requirement to acting appropriately.
EDIT: Which if we grant Republicans the same grace means they couldn't support impeachment even if the congresspeople wanted to.
|
United States24633 Posts
On December 20 2019 10:49 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2019 10:45 Introvert wrote:
Didn't we have a serious Thorium fan in the thread once? We need him back.
And I started late, but Biden doesn't sound totally incoherent right now. Wonder how many naps he had and how long it will last. Me? I'm hardcore pro thorium, but don't remember talking about it much. From a materials chemistry perspective, thorium is a slam dunk. It is 100% a education problem. Even well educated scientists are typically ignorant of nuclear benefits because all they learn about it is radiation training for their labs, lol. Thorium rules.
I’m okay with increased use of nuclear power, but why thorium specifically?
|
On December 20 2019 12:11 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2019 10:49 Mohdoo wrote:On December 20 2019 10:45 Introvert wrote:
Didn't we have a serious Thorium fan in the thread once? We need him back.
And I started late, but Biden doesn't sound totally incoherent right now. Wonder how many naps he had and how long it will last. Me? I'm hardcore pro thorium, but don't remember talking about it much. From a materials chemistry perspective, thorium is a slam dunk. It is 100% a education problem. Even well educated scientists are typically ignorant of nuclear benefits because all they learn about it is radiation training for their labs, lol. Thorium rules. I’m okay with increased use of nuclear power, but why thorium specifically?
Forgive me for linking wikipedia, but it does a better job than me re-wording:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Possible_benefits
Thorium is three times as abundant as uranium and nearly as abundant as lead and gallium in the Earth's crust.[17] The Thorium Energy Alliance estimates "there is enough thorium in the United States alone to power the country at its current energy level for over 1,000 years."[16][17] "America has buried tons as a by-product of rare earth metals mining," notes Evans-Pritchard.[18] Almost all thorium is fertile Th-232, compared to uranium that is composed of 99.3% fertile U-238 and 0.7% more valuable fissile U-235.
It is difficult to make a practical nuclear bomb from a thorium reactor's byproducts. According to Alvin Radkowsky, designer of the world's first full-scale atomic electric power plant, "a thorium reactor's plutonium production rate would be less than 2 percent of that of a standard reactor, and the plutonium's isotopic content would make it unsuitable for a nuclear detonation."[13]:11[19] Several uranium-233 bombs have been tested, but the presence of uranium-232 tended to "poison" the uranium-233 in two ways: intense radiation from the uranium-232 made the material difficult to handle, and the uranium-232 led to possible pre-detonation. Separating the uranium-232 from the uranium-233 proved very difficult, although newer laser techniques could facilitate that process.[20][21]
There is much less nuclear waste—up to two orders of magnitude less, state Moir and Teller,[3] eliminating the need for large-scale or long-term storage;[13]:13 "Chinese scientists claim that hazardous waste will be a thousand times less than with uranium."[22] The radioactivity of the resulting waste also drops down to safe levels after just a one or a few hundred years, compared to tens of thousands of years needed for current nuclear waste to cool off.[23]
Liquid fluoride thorium reactors are designed to be meltdown proof. A plug at the bottom of the reactor melts in the event of a power failure or if temperatures exceed a set limit, draining the fuel into an underground tank for safe storage.[25]
I pasted the ones that I think are most relevant. The disadvantages are just engineering challenges. It is a fundamentally sound technology. Similar to how an incredible percent of atmospheric physicists agree human-induced climate change is both significant and bad, everyone who works in a field that understands what went wrong with past nuclear stuff and how new stuff compares see nuclear as a really good thing. It is very sad that some admittedly very bad things basically sidelined what should have gone on to be a major human advancement.
Imagine if we went all-in on nuclear, kept making improvements and replacing old plants. We would have prevented this whole climate change nonsense.
This just occurred to me. Libertarians ALWAYS love nuclear. Spoilered since its kind of a shitpost lol:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On December 20 2019 13:37 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2019 12:11 micronesia wrote:On December 20 2019 10:49 Mohdoo wrote:On December 20 2019 10:45 Introvert wrote:
Didn't we have a serious Thorium fan in the thread once? We need him back.
And I started late, but Biden doesn't sound totally incoherent right now. Wonder how many naps he had and how long it will last. Me? I'm hardcore pro thorium, but don't remember talking about it much. From a materials chemistry perspective, thorium is a slam dunk. It is 100% a education problem. Even well educated scientists are typically ignorant of nuclear benefits because all they learn about it is radiation training for their labs, lol. Thorium rules. I’m okay with increased use of nuclear power, but why thorium specifically? Forgive me for linking wikipedia, but it does a better job than me re-wording: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Possible_benefitsShow nested quote +
Thorium is three times as abundant as uranium and nearly as abundant as lead and gallium in the Earth's crust.[17] The Thorium Energy Alliance estimates "there is enough thorium in the United States alone to power the country at its current energy level for over 1,000 years."[16][17] "America has buried tons as a by-product of rare earth metals mining," notes Evans-Pritchard.[18] Almost all thorium is fertile Th-232, compared to uranium that is composed of 99.3% fertile U-238 and 0.7% more valuable fissile U-235.
It is difficult to make a practical nuclear bomb from a thorium reactor's byproducts. According to Alvin Radkowsky, designer of the world's first full-scale atomic electric power plant, "a thorium reactor's plutonium production rate would be less than 2 percent of that of a standard reactor, and the plutonium's isotopic content would make it unsuitable for a nuclear detonation."[13]:11[19] Several uranium-233 bombs have been tested, but the presence of uranium-232 tended to "poison" the uranium-233 in two ways: intense radiation from the uranium-232 made the material difficult to handle, and the uranium-232 led to possible pre-detonation. Separating the uranium-232 from the uranium-233 proved very difficult, although newer laser techniques could facilitate that process.[20][21]
There is much less nuclear waste—up to two orders of magnitude less, state Moir and Teller,[3] eliminating the need for large-scale or long-term storage;[13]:13 "Chinese scientists claim that hazardous waste will be a thousand times less than with uranium."[22] The radioactivity of the resulting waste also drops down to safe levels after just a one or a few hundred years, compared to tens of thousands of years needed for current nuclear waste to cool off.[23]
Liquid fluoride thorium reactors are designed to be meltdown proof. A plug at the bottom of the reactor melts in the event of a power failure or if temperatures exceed a set limit, draining the fuel into an underground tank for safe storage.[25]
I pasted the ones that I think are most relevant. The disadvantages are just engineering challenges. It is a fundamentally sound technology. Similar to how an incredible percent of atmospheric physicists agree human-induced climate change is both significant and bad, everyone who works in a field that understands what went wrong with past nuclear stuff and how new stuff compares see nuclear as a really good thing. It is very sad that some admittedly very bad things basically sidelined what should have gone on to be a major human advancement. Imagine if we went all-in on nuclear, kept making improvements and replacing old plants. We would have prevented this whole climate change nonsense. This just occurred to me. Libertarians ALWAYS love nuclear. Spoilered since its kind of a shitpost lol: + Show Spoiler +
https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a30225278/tiny-nuclear-reactor/?fbclid=IwAR0dpgFe7Lcti9OoI4p6GKlk9VdVq73c_CsCHlK7KhxmayYtiSN-F56ilLE
There are other nuclear options too. Modular nuclear reactors appear to be much safer than traditional ones and could be the Nucor steel of the nuclear industry.
My takeaway from the Chernobyl HBO series was that they really fucked up their engineering.
|
My takeaway from the Chernobyl series is that everyone who fearmongers against nuclear will now just point to the Chernobyl series.
It's hard enough convincing the average voter that climate change is an issue. Convincing them that we need to address it by building Homer Simpson's workplace in their suburb is impossible, especially when most of the green team are also wildly opposed for ideological reasons.
Nuclear would have got us out of this if we went there 20 years ago. Now, it is just too politically difficult, and also too slow to come online when the climate is collapsing and renewables are breathing down its neck.
|
Renewables aren't breathing down its neck until someone solves the energy storage issue that is the root fault at all of them, in which case they all become horribly inefficient and obsolete vs much better energy solutions such as lava and orbital solar energy.
|
The thing about thorium is i always keep hearing how awesome it is (and i was a huge fan for a while) but nothing ever comes from it. I dont think there is a single commercial thorium based reactor in the world (i would love to be wrong on this, if i am feel free to post a link). Since about ten years i keep hearing news how China/India is getting into thorium - has something really substantial came out of it?
Right now i put more hopes in ITER than in thorium.
|
On December 20 2019 16:08 Silvanel wrote:
The thing about thorium is i always keep hearing how awesome it is (and i was a huge fan for a while) but nothing ever comes from it. I dont think there is a single commercial thorium based reactor in the world (i would love to be wrong on this, if i am feel free to post a link). Since about ten years i keep hearing news how China/India is getting into thorium - has something really substantial came out of it?
Right now i put more hopes in ITER than in thorium.
Unsure about pure thorium reactors, but I know that Thor Energy exports very large amounts of high grade Thorium pellets. Those are used today in commercial reactors as fuel together with uranium, both as an additive and a supplement.
|
On December 20 2019 16:08 Silvanel wrote:
The thing about thorium is i always keep hearing how awesome it is (and i was a huge fan for a while) but nothing ever comes from it. I dont think there is a single commercial thorium based reactor in the world (i would love to be wrong on this, if i am feel free to post a link). Since about ten years i keep hearing news how China/India is getting into thorium - has something really substantial came out of it?
Right now i put more hopes in ITER than in thorium.
Well you can't make bombs off it, so governments don't usually fund it. And the whole nuclear power industry is lobbying against because they have invested too heavily in regular nuclear power, and that would mean changing too many things.
The main advantage of Thorium and molten salt reactors is that there is no risk of meltdown and explosion. And producing a fraction of the waste, at a much lower half-life.
It would definitely be great if major governments would finally push development further...
|
On December 20 2019 11:34 Aquanim wrote:Since the answer to that question is quite clearly contained in the second half of the sentence, I'll take this as a concession that you were wrong and have no better retort and move on. Show nested quote +On December 20 2019 11:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
As to supporting the "Holocaust 2.0" no one even argues that what is happening in China is worse than what Israel is doing to Palestinians with our support so, too late for that (no matter what one thinks is happening in China). I'm fairly sure plenty of people would argue exactly that.
Mostly because what's happening in China has echoes of the Holocaust and the media is giving it more focus, than because of any actual rational basis.
The Palestinians are dying slowly, but dying they are, and nobody gives a shit. Hell, several of the right wing posters here were pro-Genocide of the Palestinians. And the American government eagerly and undeniably supports this. On the flip side, when the topic's come up, a lot of the left wing posters hand-wring and say 'how complicated' it is, rather than just say genocide is wrong and shouldn't be allowed.
The only real difference is the Chinese are doing it to their own citizens while the Israelis are doing it to their once-aggressive neighbours.
|
Is it possible to be against israels treatment of the palestinian while being horrified by how china treats its minorities ?
|
Are they dying, though? The Palestinian population has been increasing for decades and continues to do so. And genocide? What the hell are you talking about? Are you confusing ethnic cleansing with genocide by any chance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/aZ0o0Qc.png)
