Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
The Dems FS
Comments
-
What could possibly go wrong.backthepack said:They’ve literally created generators that are able to reuse radioactive waste, hth!
-
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. -
https://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/smart-energy-solutions/increase-renewables/renewable-energy-80-percent-us-electricity.html#.XGK1fqRlAlQdflea said:
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.allpurpleallgold said:
The goal is transition off nuclear. That’s not “we’re banning nuclear” and it’s not “we’re doing it without nuclear”.dflea said:
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?allpurpleallgold said:
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.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.
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.
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
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. -
Renewable energy doesn't scale for 7 billion people
Carbon does -
I didn’t think you were an anti-technology guyallpurpleallgold said:
What could possibly go wrong.backthepack said:They’ve literally created generators that are able to reuse radioactive waste, hth!
-
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.
-
-
But we already can be 80% nuclear if we want already...allpurpleallgold said:
https://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/smart-energy-solutions/increase-renewables/renewable-energy-80-percent-us-electricity.html#.XGK1fqRlAlQdflea said:
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.allpurpleallgold said:
The goal is transition off nuclear. That’s not “we’re banning nuclear” and it’s not “we’re doing it without nuclear”.dflea said:
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?allpurpleallgold said:
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.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.
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.
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
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. -
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.SFGbob said: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.
BTW, looks like you agree with @CirrhosisDawg
