Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
The Dems FS
Comments
-
Where do I say, or even imply, that I want Government in charge? I do support tax payer funds spurning growth in green energy. But that is different than "in charge" fuckstick.MikeDamone said:
“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.
The private sector will sort it out. But sometimes they need a catalyst. Where would we be if the government didn't invest in the interstate system? Or many others things you'd call communism, but really have their place in history as reasons why we are the most productive country. -
Honestly, I would be surprised if nuclear doesn’t end up playing a larger role in it eventually. You have to remember this is a starting point not the finish line.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.
You negotiate by asking for everything so you can compromise down and still accomplish your goal. The biggest problem imo with the Democratic Party is moderates that want to start at sensible, not understanding that when you start there and then comprise what you get is ineffective, at best. -
I think you are right, the biggest problem is the democratic party. Has been since it began.allpurpleallgold said:
Honestly, I would be surprised if nuclear doesn’t end up playing a larger role in it eventually. You have to remember this is a starting point not the finish line.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.
You negotiate by asking for everything so you can compromise down and still accomplish your goal. The biggest problem imo with the Democratic Party is moderates that want to start at sensible, not understanding that when you start there and then comprise what you get is ineffective, at best.
