The Dems FS
Comments
-
His anger makes up for it.creepycoug said:
You sound poor.Sledog said:
That's just a new $40K per household tax. Of course all those solar panels go bad over time and you will have to pay it again down the road.backthepack said:
Sorry your wind turbines won’t cut it!allpurpleallgold said:
What could possibly go wrong.backthepack said:They’ve literally created generators that are able to reuse radioactive waste, hth!
Solar paneling sure but on a house by house basis.
Everyone has 40k extra to do that and another 40K to buy a new electric only car you can't take on a trip right? Oh and since all your actual cars will be illegal you'll lose that money too. But hey those big electric semi's will still move our economy. Just at a decrease of 90% efficiency. And those electric cargo ships are gonna be special. Those deep water charging station every 50 miles will be cheap. But we'll have electric flying trains. Probably going to a lot of charging stop overs though.
-
I don’t hate nuclear, I’m frustrated by arguments that make it seem as if there is no downside.dflea said:
We could try to implement actions that will not work and we'll all fucking die squawking about whose fault it was. Righties and their love of fossil fuels, or lefties and their hatred of nuclear power. The funny part is it won't fucking matter, and the Earth will go on with us or without us. It's a fucking rock - it doesn't care.allpurpleallgold said:
What could possibly go wrong.backthepack said:They’ve literally created generators that are able to reuse radioactive waste, hth!
That's what could go wrong. -
Historically, nuclear power has been done poorly. That isn't a reason to believe it has to continue being done that way. Done correctly, there is very little downside to nuclear power - certainly comparable to implementing any power source on a large scale.allpurpleallgold said:
I don’t hate nuclear, I’m frustrated by arguments that make it seem as if there is no downside.dflea said:
We could try to implement actions that will not work and we'll all fucking die squawking about whose fault it was. Righties and their love of fossil fuels, or lefties and their hatred of nuclear power. The funny part is it won't fucking matter, and the Earth will go on with us or without us. It's a fucking rock - it doesn't care.allpurpleallgold said:
What could possibly go wrong.backthepack said:They’ve literally created generators that are able to reuse radioactive waste, hth!
That's what could go wrong.
The downside to failing to significantly reduce greenhouse emissions is far greater and far more likely if nuclear power isn't a major player in your plan. -
This is where I am too. When nuclear has failed, computers took up the size of a room. There's no reason we can't use current technology to make Nuclear power safe and efficient to bridge the gap to when more renewable energy is available.dflea said:
Historically, nuclear power has been done poorly. That isn't a reason to believe it has to continue being done that way. Done correctly, there is very little downside to nuclear power - certainly comparable to implementing any power source on a large scale.allpurpleallgold said:
I don’t hate nuclear, I’m frustrated by arguments that make it seem as if there is no downside.dflea said:
We could try to implement actions that will not work and we'll all fucking die squawking about whose fault it was. Righties and their love of fossil fuels, or lefties and their hatred of nuclear power. The funny part is it won't fucking matter, and the Earth will go on with us or without us. It's a fucking rock - it doesn't care.allpurpleallgold said:
What could possibly go wrong.backthepack said:They’ve literally created generators that are able to reuse radioactive waste, hth!
That's what could go wrong.
The downside to failing to significantly reduce greenhouse emissions is far greater and far more likely if nuclear power isn't a major player in your plan.
The reality is, every single every source has a downside. Almost like nature's way of saying you don't get something for nothing.
- fossil fuels will run out and pollute the air.
- nuclear has the whole waste issue and radiation
- wind looks ugly, isn't constant, kills birds and apparently is the sole reason for the extinction of insects
- solar is expensive, takes a lot of room, and only works part of the day
- dams kill fish and most of the rivers are already damned
- tidal hasn't really been developed and not sure it will and I'm sure it'll kill fish too
- battery powered shit doesn't work for long hauls and still relies on one of the above power sources
When you look at the above, I think it's clear we should invest some in nuclear with current technology. Until we get better technology over batteries and efficiency of electricity. A lot of energy is wasted just in transmission lines, but we can't store the energy well under current technology anyway. -
The question: is your John Holmes replica marital aid solar powered?2001400ex said:
This is where I am too. When nuclear has failed, computers took up the size of a room. There's no reason we can't use current technology to make Nuclear power safe and efficient to bridge the gap to when more renewable energy is available.dflea said:
Historically, nuclear power has been done poorly. That isn't a reason to believe it has to continue being done that way. Done correctly, there is very little downside to nuclear power - certainly comparable to implementing any power source on a large scale.allpurpleallgold said:
I don’t hate nuclear, I’m frustrated by arguments that make it seem as if there is no downside.dflea said:
We could try to implement actions that will not work and we'll all fucking die squawking about whose fault it was. Righties and their love of fossil fuels, or lefties and their hatred of nuclear power. The funny part is it won't fucking matter, and the Earth will go on with us or without us. It's a fucking rock - it doesn't care.allpurpleallgold said:
What could possibly go wrong.backthepack said:They’ve literally created generators that are able to reuse radioactive waste, hth!
That's what could go wrong.
The downside to failing to significantly reduce greenhouse emissions is far greater and far more likely if nuclear power isn't a major player in your plan.
The reality is, every single every source has a downside. Almost like nature's way of saying you don't get something for nothing.
- fossil fuels will run out and pollute the air.
- nuclear has the whole waste issue and radiation
- wind looks ugly, isn't constant, kills birds and apparently is the sole reason for the extinction of insects
- solar is expensive, takes a lot of room, and only works part of the day
- dams kill fish and most of the rivers are already damned
- tidal hasn't really been developed and not sure it will and I'm sure it'll kill fish too
- battery powered shit doesn't work for long hauls and still relies on one of the above power sources
When you look at the above, I think it's clear we should invest some in nuclear with current technology. Until we get better technology over batteries and efficiency of electricity. A lot of energy is wasted just in transmission lines, but we can't store the energy well under current technology anyway. -
“We should invest”?2001400ex said:
This is where I am too. When nuclear has failed, computers took up the size of a room. There's no reason we can't use current technology to make Nuclear power safe and efficient to bridge the gap to when more renewable energy is available.dflea said:
Historically, nuclear power has been done poorly. That isn't a reason to believe it has to continue being done that way. Done correctly, there is very little downside to nuclear power - certainly comparable to implementing any power source on a large scale.allpurpleallgold said:
I don’t hate nuclear, I’m frustrated by arguments that make it seem as if there is no downside.dflea said:
We could try to implement actions that will not work and we'll all fucking die squawking about whose fault it was. Righties and their love of fossil fuels, or lefties and their hatred of nuclear power. The funny part is it won't fucking matter, and the Earth will go on with us or without us. It's a fucking rock - it doesn't care.allpurpleallgold said:
What could possibly go wrong.backthepack said:They’ve literally created generators that are able to reuse radioactive waste, hth!
That's what could go wrong.
The downside to failing to significantly reduce greenhouse emissions is far greater and far more likely if nuclear power isn't a major player in your plan.
The reality is, every single every source has a downside. Almost like nature's way of saying you don't get something for nothing.
- fossil fuels will run out and pollute the air.
- nuclear has the whole waste issue and radiation
- wind looks ugly, isn't constant, kills birds and apparently is the sole reason for the extinction of insects
- solar is expensive, takes a lot of room, and only works part of the day
- dams kill fish and most of the rivers are already damned
- tidal hasn't really been developed and not sure it will and I'm sure it'll kill fish too
- battery powered shit doesn't work for long hauls and still relies on one of the above power sources
When you look at the above, I think it's clear we should invest some in nuclear with current technology. Until we get better technology over batteries and efficiency of electricity. A lot of energy is wasted just in transmission lines, but we can't store the energy well under current technology anyway.
Of course you think the government should be in charge. Simple minds do. -
More nuclear hawt talk. Here's some numbers on how expensive it is:
$90/MWh for a new nuke
$48/MWh for a new natural gas plant
$48/MWh for wind with no incentives
$50/MWh for utility solar with no icentives
More nukes aren't an option unless new tech makes then cheaper. To be fair other countries can do it cheaper but no recent evidence suggests that US has figured it out. Existing nukes have a role to play but they're already having a tough time with cheap gas and renewables chipping away at their margins. If you're a nuke fan then you should also support a price on carbon.
A carbon free grid isn't economically realistic with technology we have today. We need a leap in either batteries or some other type of cheap, carbon free dispatchable resource. Investing in R & D would help. Without a cheap replacement for natural gas it's a cart before horse situation though.
Batteries IMO have the most promise. Relatively new tech that is advancing quickly. Cost is decreasing. No NIMBY concerns so much better for decentralization and microgrids. Can mostly solve problem of intermittent renewables. It ticks all the boxes but tech still isn't quite there yet though utilities are starting to price it into their resource plans.
-
Nuking you, your family, and your friends would be the best option. Cheap, effective.RedRocket said:More nuclear hawt talk. Here's some numbers on how expensive it is:
$90/MWh for a new nuke
$48/MWh for a new natural gas plant
$48/MWh for wind with no incentives
$50/MWh for utility solar with no icentives
More nukes aren't an option unless new tech makes then cheaper. To be fair other countries can do it cheaper but no recent evidence suggests that US has figured it out. Existing nukes have a role to play but they're already having a tough time with cheap gas and renewables chipping away at their margins. If you're a nuke fan then you should also support a price on carbon.
A carbon free grid isn't economically realistic with technology we have today. We need a leap in either batteries or some other type of cheap, carbon free dispatchable resource. Investing in R & D would help. Without a cheap replacement for natural gas it's a cart before horse situation though.
Batteries IMO have the most promise. Relatively new tech that is advancing quickly. Cost is decreasing. No NIMBY concerns so much better for decentralization and microgrids. Can mostly solve problem of intermittent renewables. It ticks all the boxes but tech still isn't quite there yet though utilities are starting to price it into their resource plans.
*But not targeting a politcal or racial group of people. -
Hope your dad is doing better 😉Pitchfork51 said:
Nuking you, your family, and your friends would be the best option. Cheap, effective.RedRocket said:More nuclear hawt talk. Here's some numbers on how expensive it is:
$90/MWh for a new nuke
$48/MWh for a new natural gas plant
$48/MWh for wind with no incentives
$50/MWh for utility solar with no icentives
More nukes aren't an option unless new tech makes then cheaper. To be fair other countries can do it cheaper but no recent evidence suggests that US has figured it out. Existing nukes have a role to play but they're already having a tough time with cheap gas and renewables chipping away at their margins. If you're a nuke fan then you should also support a price on carbon.
A carbon free grid isn't economically realistic with technology we have today. We need a leap in either batteries or some other type of cheap, carbon free dispatchable resource. Investing in R & D would help. Without a cheap replacement for natural gas it's a cart before horse situation though.
Batteries IMO have the most promise. Relatively new tech that is advancing quickly. Cost is decreasing. No NIMBY concerns so much better for decentralization and microgrids. Can mostly solve problem of intermittent renewables. It ticks all the boxes but tech still isn't quite there yet though utilities are starting to price it into their resource plans.
*But not targeting a politcal or racial group of people. -
Which one?RedRocket said:
Hope your dad is doing better 😉Pitchfork51 said:
Nuking you, your family, and your friends would be the best option. Cheap, effective.RedRocket said:More nuclear hawt talk. Here's some numbers on how expensive it is:
$90/MWh for a new nuke
$48/MWh for a new natural gas plant
$48/MWh for wind with no incentives
$50/MWh for utility solar with no icentives
More nukes aren't an option unless new tech makes then cheaper. To be fair other countries can do it cheaper but no recent evidence suggests that US has figured it out. Existing nukes have a role to play but they're already having a tough time with cheap gas and renewables chipping away at their margins. If you're a nuke fan then you should also support a price on carbon.
A carbon free grid isn't economically realistic with technology we have today. We need a leap in either batteries or some other type of cheap, carbon free dispatchable resource. Investing in R & D would help. Without a cheap replacement for natural gas it's a cart before horse situation though.
Batteries IMO have the most promise. Relatively new tech that is advancing quickly. Cost is decreasing. No NIMBY concerns so much better for decentralization and microgrids. Can mostly solve problem of intermittent renewables. It ticks all the boxes but tech still isn't quite there yet though utilities are starting to price it into their resource plans.
*But not targeting a politcal or racial group of people.
