The Dems FS

dflea said:

allpurpleallgold said:

backthepack said:

Getting rid of nuclear energy is fs, hth.

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.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032118303307?via=ihub

dflea said:

allpurpleallgold said:

dflea said:

allpurpleallgold said:

backthepack said:

Getting rid of nuclear energy is fs, hth.

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.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032118303307?via=ihub

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.

Because politicians are stupid scumbags and pander to retarded pre-conceived notions of the people.

dflea said:

allpurpleallgold said:

dflea said:

allpurpleallgold said:

backthepack said:

Getting rid of nuclear energy is fs, hth.

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.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032118303307?via=ihub

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.