It’s a sustainable source of clean burning fuel that’s safe to generate ( unless you massively fuck up like Trinobyl but still).
AOC is a clown.
If she had nuclear in it you’d be arguing that it’s too expensive or dangerous. You guys don’t argue in good faith. You’re against it and you’re going to find a reason to be against it so help you god.
100% renewable is viable now. We have a government run electric company that’s successful and knows how to build it.
Stop screaming just to scream.
That's not true. I'm screaming because any plan that hopes to slow or end global warming without crushing the poor has to include nuclear power. Anything else is unrealistic given today's technology, and will ultimately be unsuccessful - and frankly we don't have time for all that fucking around. Why can't the green new deal be realistic and include nuclear power?
The goal is transition off nuclear. That’s not “we’re banning nuclear” and it’s not “we’re doing it without nuclear”.
The Green New Deal isn’t even a bill. If you want nuclear to be a bigger part of it write your congressperson and donate to candidates in 2020 that want the same thing.
Also, there is research that suggests we can run the country on renewable energy using current technology.
I guess I'm a guy that wants reasons why you'd transition away from the best energy source for providing an affordable way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That seems like something you'd transition toward, not away from.
This is an article about a study that shows we can be 80% renewable, with current technology, by 2050. It shows it’s feasible and affordable. That’s why you don’t transition towards nuclear.
They’ve literally created generators that are able to reuse radioactive waste, hth!
What could possibly go wrong.
Sorry your wind turbines won’t cut it!
Solar paneling sure but on a house by house basis.
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.
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.
It’s a sustainable source of clean burning fuel that’s safe to generate ( unless you massively fuck up like Trinobyl but still).
AOC is a clown.
If she had nuclear in it you’d be arguing that it’s too expensive or dangerous. You guys don’t argue in good faith. You’re against it and you’re going to find a reason to be against it so help you god.
100% renewable is viable now. We have a government run electric company that’s successful and knows how to build it.
Stop screaming just to scream.
That's not true. I'm screaming because any plan that hopes to slow or end global warming without crushing the poor has to include nuclear power. Anything else is unrealistic given today's technology, and will ultimately be unsuccessful - and frankly we don't have time for all that fucking around. Why can't the green new deal be realistic and include nuclear power?
The goal is transition off nuclear. That’s not “we’re banning nuclear” and it’s not “we’re doing it without nuclear”.
The Green New Deal isn’t even a bill. If you want nuclear to be a bigger part of it write your congressperson and donate to candidates in 2020 that want the same thing.
Also, there is research that suggests we can run the country on renewable energy using current technology.
I guess I'm a guy that wants reasons why you'd transition away from the best energy source for providing an affordable way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That seems like something you'd transition toward, not away from.
This is an article about a study that shows we can be 80% renewable, with current technology, by 2050. It shows it’s feasible and affordable. That’s why you don’t transition towards nuclear.
But we already can be 80% nuclear if we want already...
I say produce as much energy as possible as cheaply as possible from as many sources as possible. But no sources should be favored and or subsidies by the taxpayers. Let the market sort all of it out and Green energy is the best option the market will take care of it.
I say produce as much energy as possible as cheaply as possible from as many sources as possible. But no sources should be favored and or subsidies by the taxpayers. Let the market sort all of it out and Green energy is the best option the market will take care of it.
I say we protect the border as much as possible with as many sources as possible. No sources should be favored or subsidies by the taxpayers. Let the market sort all of it out and if the wall is the best option the market will take care of it.
I say produce as much energy as possible as cheaply as possible from as many sources as possible. But no sources should be favored and or subsidies by the taxpayers. Let the market sort all of it out and Green energy is the best option the market will take care of it.
I say we protect the border as much as possible with as many sources as possible. No sources should be favored or subsidies by the taxpayers. Let the market sort all of it out and if the wall is the best option the market will take care of it.
You would say that because you're a dumb fuck. Border protection and immigration and protecting our national sovereignty are the responsibility of the Federal Government and not a good or service that is best left regulated to the free market. Defending our border isn't a business dumbass.
Seriously stick to cocksucking, you just make an ass out of yourself whenever you stray from your core area of knowledge.
I say produce as much energy as possible as cheaply as possible from as many sources as possible. But no sources should be favored and or subsidies by the taxpayers. Let the market sort all of it out and Green energy is the best option the market will take care of it.
I say we protect the border as much as possible with as many sources as possible. No sources should be favored or subsidies by the taxpayers. Let the market sort all of it out and if the wall is the best option the market will take care of it.
You would say that because you're a dumb fuck. Border protection and immigration and protecting our national sovereignty are the responsibility of the Federal Government and not a good or service that is best left regulated to the free market. Defending our border isn't a business dumbass.
Seriously stick to cocksucking, you just make an ass out of yourself whenever you stray from your core area of knowledge.
How did I know you'd default to your homoerotic fantasies.
How did I know that you'd not respond to the substance of what I said because you're too stupid and you can't.
Why do you think border protect is a function of a free market economy dumbass?
Have a discussion without talking about gay butt sex and you might get a response.
Quit fucking strawman ass I'd I'll stop talking about it lightweight. And who the fuck do you think you're kidding Hondo? You run and hide like a Kunt from everyone here not just me.
It’s a sustainable source of clean burning fuel that’s safe to generate ( unless you massively fuck up like Trinobyl but still).
AOC is a clown.
If she had nuclear in it you’d be arguing that it’s too expensive or dangerous. You guys don’t argue in good faith. You’re against it and you’re going to find a reason to be against it so help you god.
100% renewable is viable now. We have a government run electric company that’s successful and knows how to build it.
Stop screaming just to scream.
That's not true. I'm screaming because any plan that hopes to slow or end global warming without crushing the poor has to include nuclear power. Anything else is unrealistic given today's technology, and will ultimately be unsuccessful - and frankly we don't have time for all that fucking around. Why can't the green new deal be realistic and include nuclear power?
The goal is transition off nuclear. That’s not “we’re banning nuclear” and it’s not “we’re doing it without nuclear”.
The Green New Deal isn’t even a bill. If you want nuclear to be a bigger part of it write your congressperson and donate to candidates in 2020 that want the same thing.
Also, there is research that suggests we can run the country on renewable energy using current technology.
I guess I'm a guy that wants reasons why you'd transition away from the best energy source for providing an affordable way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That seems like something you'd transition toward, not away from.
What I find most frustrating about your argument, and others I’ve seen like it, is you seem like you can’t figure out any problems at all with nuclear.
There’s waste that has to be stored for 100,000 years.
It’s not renewable, the Nuclear Energy Agency estimates we can run the world nuclear power plants for 200 years, that’s a band aid.
Transitioning towards nuclear would mean building more power plants and your point on how affordable it is goes away really quickly when you start doing that.
The security risks and dangers during a natural disaster are much higher.
If you can’t find reasons why we should focus on renewable energy over nuclear then you aren’t looking. It might be more pragmatic but it is not a great solution. Fuck pragmatic. MAGA.
It sounds like you have researched this poorly. I know it's frustrating to hear that nuclear power has to be part of the solution, but that's the hard fact.
Getting upset with me won't change anything. It's not like I'm a nuclear power proponent because I have some profit motive or job to protect. I'm a proponent because it's necessary.
It’s a sustainable source of clean burning fuel that’s safe to generate ( unless you massively fuck up like Trinobyl but still).
AOC is a clown.
If she had nuclear in it you’d be arguing that it’s too expensive or dangerous. You guys don’t argue in good faith. You’re against it and you’re going to find a reason to be against it so help you god.
100% renewable is viable now. We have a government run electric company that’s successful and knows how to build it.
Stop screaming just to scream.
That's not true. I'm screaming because any plan that hopes to slow or end global warming without crushing the poor has to include nuclear power. Anything else is unrealistic given today's technology, and will ultimately be unsuccessful - and frankly we don't have time for all that fucking around. Why can't the green new deal be realistic and include nuclear power?
The goal is transition off nuclear. That’s not “we’re banning nuclear” and it’s not “we’re doing it without nuclear”.
The Green New Deal isn’t even a bill. If you want nuclear to be a bigger part of it write your congressperson and donate to candidates in 2020 that want the same thing.
Also, there is research that suggests we can run the country on renewable energy using current technology.
Did you actually bother to read this paper? or just the title and summary? Did you bother to read any critical literature? Or just what confirms your pre-existing beliefs?
If you bothered to read it and want to have an earnest discussion I would be happy to as this is the type of subject matter I have a real interest in. If not, which I suspect to be the case, you probably shouldn't be citing it as evidence to validate your arguments.
It’s a sustainable source of clean burning fuel that’s safe to generate ( unless you massively fuck up like Trinobyl but still).
AOC is a clown.
If she had nuclear in it you’d be arguing that it’s too expensive or dangerous. You guys don’t argue in good faith. You’re against it and you’re going to find a reason to be against it so help you god.
100% renewable is viable now. We have a government run electric company that’s successful and knows how to build it.
Stop screaming just to scream.
That's not true. I'm screaming because any plan that hopes to slow or end global warming without crushing the poor has to include nuclear power. Anything else is unrealistic given today's technology, and will ultimately be unsuccessful - and frankly we don't have time for all that fucking around. Why can't the green new deal be realistic and include nuclear power?
The goal is transition off nuclear. That’s not “we’re banning nuclear” and it’s not “we’re doing it without nuclear”.
The Green New Deal isn’t even a bill. If you want nuclear to be a bigger part of it write your congressperson and donate to candidates in 2020 that want the same thing.
Also, there is research that suggests we can run the country on renewable energy using current technology.
I guess I'm a guy that wants reasons why you'd transition away from the best energy source for providing an affordable way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That seems like something you'd transition toward, not away from.
What I find most frustrating about your argument, and others I’ve seen like it, is you seem like you can’t figure out any problems at all with nuclear.
There’s waste that has to be stored for 100,000 years.
It’s not renewable, the Nuclear Energy Agency estimates we can run the world nuclear power plants for 200 years, that’s a band aid.
Transitioning towards nuclear would mean building more power plants and your point on how affordable it is goes away really quickly when you start doing that.
The security risks and dangers during a natural disaster are much higher.
If you can’t find reasons why we should focus on renewable energy over nuclear then you aren’t looking. It might be more pragmatic but it is not a great solution. Fuck pragmatic. MAGA.
It sounds like you have researched this poorly. I know it's frustrating to hear that nuclear power has to be part of the solution, but that's the hard fact.
Getting upset with me won't change anything. It's not like I'm a nuclear power proponent because I have some profit motive or job to protect. I'm a proponent because it's necessary.
And it sounds like you can’t tell the difference between lobbyist talking points and research.
Don’t worry, I’m sure there will be another Forbes article about it real soon.
It’s a sustainable source of clean burning fuel that’s safe to generate ( unless you massively fuck up like Trinobyl but still).
AOC is a clown.
If she had nuclear in it you’d be arguing that it’s too expensive or dangerous. You guys don’t argue in good faith. You’re against it and you’re going to find a reason to be against it so help you god.
100% renewable is viable now. We have a government run electric company that’s successful and knows how to build it.
Stop screaming just to scream.
That's not true. I'm screaming because any plan that hopes to slow or end global warming without crushing the poor has to include nuclear power. Anything else is unrealistic given today's technology, and will ultimately be unsuccessful - and frankly we don't have time for all that fucking around. Why can't the green new deal be realistic and include nuclear power?
The goal is transition off nuclear. That’s not “we’re banning nuclear” and it’s not “we’re doing it without nuclear”.
The Green New Deal isn’t even a bill. If you want nuclear to be a bigger part of it write your congressperson and donate to candidates in 2020 that want the same thing.
Also, there is research that suggests we can run the country on renewable energy using current technology.
I guess I'm a guy that wants reasons why you'd transition away from the best energy source for providing an affordable way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That seems like something you'd transition toward, not away from.
What I find most frustrating about your argument, and others I’ve seen like it, is you seem like you can’t figure out any problems at all with nuclear.
There’s waste that has to be stored for 100,000 years.
It’s not renewable, the Nuclear Energy Agency estimates we can run the world nuclear power plants for 200 years, that’s a band aid.
Transitioning towards nuclear would mean building more power plants and your point on how affordable it is goes away really quickly when you start doing that.
The security risks and dangers during a natural disaster are much higher.
If you can’t find reasons why we should focus on renewable energy over nuclear then you aren’t looking. It might be more pragmatic but it is not a great solution. Fuck pragmatic. MAGA.
It sounds like you have researched this poorly. I know it's frustrating to hear that nuclear power has to be part of the solution, but that's the hard fact.
Getting upset with me won't change anything. It's not like I'm a nuclear power proponent because I have some profit motive or job to protect. I'm a proponent because it's necessary.
And it sounds like you can’t tell the difference between lobbyist talking points and research.
Don’t worry, I’m sure there will be another Forbes article about it real soon.
Going to go that route, huh? You seem to be the one falling for talking points, not me.
But, whatever. I can't say I expected much else here in the Tug.
They’ve literally created generators that are able to reuse radioactive waste, hth!
What could possibly go wrong.
Sorry your wind turbines won’t cut it!
Solar paneling sure but on a house by house basis.
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.
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.
Comments
Solar paneling sure but on a house by house basis.
This is an article about a study that shows we can be 80% renewable, with current technology, by 2050. It shows it’s feasible and affordable. That’s why you don’t transition towards nuclear.
Carbon does
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.
BTW, looks like you agree with @CirrhosisDawg
Seriously stick to cocksucking, you just make an ass out of yourself whenever you stray from your core area of knowledge.
Why do you think border protect is a function of a free market economy dumbass?
Getting upset with me won't change anything. It's not like I'm a nuclear power proponent because I have some profit motive or job to protect. I'm a proponent because it's necessary.
If you bothered to read it and want to have an earnest discussion I would be happy to as this is the type of subject matter I have a real interest in. If not, which I suspect to be the case, you probably shouldn't be citing it as evidence to validate your arguments.
Don’t worry, I’m sure there will be another Forbes article about it real soon.
But, whatever. I can't say I expected much else here in the Tug.