EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3042
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
StalkerTL
212 Posts
| ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5194 Posts
On January 20 2021 18:30 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: It's speculative because we do not yet have a single nuclear fusion reactor part as part of any world's electricity grid, and we don't know when we will. Believing fusion is part of any vaguely-in-time green energy solution requires some amount of blind faith / guessing about the timeline by which it will be workable, affordable and a large part of the world's power supply. Solar power is also improving. The difference is that it is already here. Sadly the world seems allergic to nuclear fission power, but that's also here and something that I think could be used much more extensively than it currently is. It's a damn side better than coal however you slice it, and if were worried about greener power in the near future, it's probably a much better place to be doing research than fusion is. Apologies for any snappiness in my original reply. This is an immensely frustrating topic and a fair number of the posts here amount to some or other justification for not having to actually make any of the difficult lifestyle and politics changes that, IMO, have to happen in order to mitigate climate change. I don't really have a dog in this fight because I'm willing to do whatever that seems the best solution to me so I can't share your frustrated sentiment, but I can see it being frustrating - probably feels like talking to a brick wall sometimes. Residential solar powered houses seem a good option and I'll probably get them anyway, even when there's no economical incentive for me to use them. I do think the green party's hard stance on nuclear party is devastating to our energy output and the long shadow Western activism casts on developing countries is very sad to any upcoming powerhouses be negatively impacted by this. Solutions here do not equal solutions somewhere else. | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
| ||
|
Ciaus_Dronu
South Africa1848 Posts
On January 20 2021 23:10 Erasme wrote: Yes, fukushima was a disaster of epic proportion when you take into account the backward steps that followed. It gave armchair ecologists plenty of ammos to keep countries out of nuclear energy. Indeed. Pretty much every nuclear power disaster has been the result of an absolutely massive screwup that could be easily avoided, yet nevertheless they scare people away from nuclear. It's much easier to scare-monger with a few discrete incidents that capture a news cycle. The daily damage of coalsmoke barely makes the radar compared to something like 3 Mile or Fukushima, despite being far worse. | ||
|
r00ty
Germany1080 Posts
We may have the safest nuclear power plants in the world and that technology will be completely abandoned soon, in favor of COAL!? Nuclear energy has a beauty mistake though. 1kWh of nuclear power is mostly advertised as costing 0.06€. This is possible because they basically let out the disposal of the waste in that calculation. Hanford Site e.g. is a hole where billions of dollars get thrown at every year and that hole may never be closed. It will be interesting how the US green deal will turn out, i don't think you'll learn from our mistakes and am afraid money will be thrown at corporations and the US consumer will pay, same as over here. | ||
|
mierin
United States4943 Posts
On January 20 2021 23:50 r00ty wrote: Germany went completely crazy back then. A normally conservative state got a green party president. I dread the green party taking power, which may hapen. The "German green deal" is a failure, imho. It's a good thing we really got renewables started, but they were too afraid to challenge the big corporations and decentralise as much as possible. The whole industry should have been reformed. We may have the safest nuclear power plants in the world and that technology will be completely abandoned soon, in favor of COAL!? Nuclear energy has a beauty mistake though. 1kWh of nuclear power is mostly advertised as costing 0.06€. This is possible because they basically let out the disposal of the waste in that calculation. Hanford Site e.g. is a hole where billions of dollars get thrown at every year and that hole may never be closed. It will be interesting how the US green deal will turn out, i don't think you'll learn from our mistakes and am afraid money will be thrown at corporations and the US consumer will pay, same as over here. The strange, almost anti-science vehemence against nuclear power is what turns me off the green new deal the most. It's hard to take anything whose aim is to counter emissions seriously if they take away the single current best method of doing so. | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
On January 20 2021 23:50 r00ty wrote: Germany went completely crazy back then. A normally conservative state got a green party president. I dread the green party taking power, which may hapen. The "German green deal" is a failure, imho. It's a good thing we really got renewables started, but they were too afraid to challenge the big corporations and decentralise as much as possible. The whole industry should have been reformed. We may have the safest nuclear power plants in the world and that technology will be completely abandoned soon, in favor of COAL!? Nuclear energy has a beauty mistake though. 1kWh of nuclear power is mostly advertised as costing 0.06€. This is possible because they basically let out the disposal of the waste in that calculation. Hanford Site e.g. is a hole where billions of dollars get thrown at every year and that hole may never be closed. It will be interesting how the US green deal will turn out, i don't think you'll learn from our mistakes and am afraid money will be thrown at corporations and the US consumer will pay, same as over here. The most recent powerplants generate less waste now, and if you compare it to the coal industry, it's not even close. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18387 Posts
On January 20 2021 09:47 JimmiC wrote: I've been reading more and more positive thing about, that advancement is happening and that 20 years is realistic. But as mentioned even if that's true it won't be a magic bullet and won't be able to be implemented everywhere in a short time frame. https://www.powermag.com/fusion-energy-is-coming-and-maybe-sooner-than-you-think/ I offer you: https://www.nytimes.com/1991/11/11/us/breakthrough-in-nuclear-fusion-offers-hope-for-power-of-future.html Very similar optimism... from 1991. And if I were to really dig into my google fu, I could probably find something similarly optimistic from the 1970s. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
1. We were all right about how terrible Trump would be 2. Trump was a fascist, as we predicted 3. Trump took Republicans deeper down the anti-intellectual rabbit hole, as we predicted | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
Going to watch with interest as Biden tries to rebuild a gutted government bureaucracy / infrastructure. Just about everything except the military seems to have fallen into disrepair as a result of Trump's presidency. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9062 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32754 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8148 Posts
On January 21 2021 00:21 mierin wrote: The strange, almost anti-science vehemence against nuclear power is what turns me off the green new deal the most. It's hard to take anything whose aim is to counter emissions seriously if they take away the single current best method of doing so. I'm quite skeptical towards nuclear energy, yet I am not anti science. I just think the nuclear waste is a problem that lasts tens of thousands of years, and we are not very good at keeping our shit together for more than a few decades, let alone a few centuries or milleniums. I do think that it's better than burning coal, and much worse than remewable energies. And I fully support research towards a fusion reactor. But I don't think you can put everyone who has problems with nuclear energy in the same bag. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2929 Posts
On January 21 2021 00:57 Biff The Understudy wrote: I'm quite skeptical towards nuclear energy, yet I am not anti science. I just think the nuclear waste is a problem that lasts tens of thousands of years, and we are not very good at keeping our shit together for more than a few decades, let alone a few centuries or milleniums. I do think that it's better than burning coal, and much worse than remewable energies. And I fully support research towards a fusion reactor. But I don't think you can put everyone who has problems with nuclear energy in the same bag. A resilient energy grid is going to require a multitude of different energy sources. Completely excluding nuclear means you will have to add in coal/gas plants to fill in the gaps where your renewables are not generating enough power. Fusion would be lovely, but I doubt it'll happen in our lifetimes. I'm not a fan of nuclear energy either, but the alternative in this particular case is worse for the planet. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9062 Posts
Livestream here if you want to watch online Inauguration of Biden and Harris | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27228 Posts
Not that having reservations is wrong, clearly history shows what can go wrong, but data and facts seem to leave the building when it comes to this particular topic. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8148 Posts
On January 21 2021 01:17 EnDeR_ wrote: A resilient energy grid is going to require a multitude of different energy sources. Completely excluding nuclear means you will have to add in coal/gas plants to fill in the gaps where your renewables are not generating enough power. Fusion would be lovely, but I doubt it'll happen in our lifetimes. I'm not a fan of nuclear energy either, but the alternative in this particular case is worse for the planet. Yeah, we are at the same page. I just get annoyed when any opposition to the nuclear is branded as irrational or anti-science like it's being anti vax or something. Nuclear energy is horribly problematic, but the fossile fuels are much worse and we can't rely solely on green energies. There is still no question that the bigger part of our energy is renewable, the better. And we can do much better than we do. | ||
| ||
