Green New Deal
Re: Green New Deal
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 2:39 pm
I only came to kick some ass...
Rock the fucking house and kick some ass.
Rock the fucking house and kick some ass.
Re: Green New Deal
I can't be held responsible for the fact that can't read and are fucking ill-informed. That's on you.
Imjustheretohelpyoubuycrypto
Re: Green New Deal
Imjustheretohelpyoubuycrypto
Re: Green New Deal
Well, you seemed perturbed that the Paris Agreement didn't contain more of a push towards nuclear. I simply countered that the problem of having zero clue what to do with the radioactive waste and that if it goes off the rails the death toll has a comma in it would seem like it would play a role. It seems like nuclear would be "zero emissions" only if your magic fusion is actually developed and actually solves the problem with what to do with giant stockpiles of waste, a fact that I have never seen proven.
So maybe a proven track record of death and destruction mixed with an unsolved question of what to do with the toxic waste is what kept nuclear from being more prominently involved in the Paris Agreement. But that's just my every day common sense opinion. It may be off base and ill informed, but it's my opinion as a possible explanation.
Re: Green New Deal
You actually didn't counter with that point. At all. You just made a 1 line smart ass comment, in a condescending tone.
And you are STILL, conveniently, not addressing the aspects of that deal that DC mentioned about India and China....or the fact that he informed you we are the only country since then whose emissions have been reduced....
And you are STILL, conveniently, not addressing the aspects of that deal that DC mentioned about India and China....or the fact that he informed you we are the only country since then whose emissions have been reduced....
Re: Green New Deal
I'm going to be honest, I don't think twocoach has the slightest idea what was contained in the Paris Agreement. I sure as hell don't. LOL. He's just pushing the narrative he's been told. And I'm just assuming what DC says is true (hey, he's more reliable than Fox or CNN!).
Re: Green New Deal
lol...do you just blindly assume that out of two randoms on an internet message board, one is right and one is wrong...without doing any actual legwork yourself to obtain any facts?
Re: Green New Deal
Not always....but when one is DC and one is twocoach, I usually assume DC is right.TraditionKU wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:15 pm lol...do you just blindly assume that out of two randoms on an internet message board, one is right and one is wrong...without doing any actual legwork yourself to obtain any facts?
Also, the only statistical leg work I do for this messageboard is sports related (mainly basketball related) because this is a Kansas sports message board (I think?).....I'm mainly on the poli-bored to bang on the zoo animals cages and rile them up.
Last edited by Deleted User 75 on Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Green New Deal
DC- you seem to be the rare conservative who is not looking at environmental issues and efficiency in a political way. The majority don’t. I also concede that the mainstream environmental movement has not given nuclear energy a proper consideration and has had a knee jerk reaction much the same way that climate change deniers react in a political way.
That someone who says that he would increase coal utilization gets elected to public office demonstrates the intellectual bankruptcy of the electorate. That position alone should be disqualifying for being taken seriously, let alone be elected!
That someone who says that he would increase coal utilization gets elected to public office demonstrates the intellectual bankruptcy of the electorate. That position alone should be disqualifying for being taken seriously, let alone be elected!
Re: Green New Deal
Again, I reiterate that you're either ill-informed or illiterate. In one post, I noted that microreactors are already online. Not only do they provide multiple times the energy of any other source, but the contamination risk is incredibly low, since the average-sized reactor can be shipped on a single semi. In another post, I noted that nuclear fusion (which produces NO waste) will be a realistic option within the next decade or so.twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:33 pmWell, you seemed perturbed that the Paris Agreement didn't contain more of a push towards nuclear. I simply countered that the problem of having zero clue what to do with the radioactive waste and that if it goes off the rails the death toll has a comma in it would seem like it would play a role. It seems like nuclear would be "zero emissions" only if your magic fusion is actually developed and actually solves the problem with what to do with giant stockpiles of waste, a fact that I have never seen proven.
So maybe a proven track record of death and destruction mixed with an unsolved question of what to do with the toxic waste is what kept nuclear from being more prominently involved in the Paris Agreement. But that's just my every day common sense opinion. It may be off base and ill informed, but it's my opinion as a possible explanation.
All of which is to say that your Fukushima response is both hysterical and ignorant.
Imjustheretohelpyoubuycrypto
Re: Green New Deal
Just did a brief scan on some articles aboit microreactors. Seem to be a LONG way from any type of widescale usage. They discussed as an option for remote areas such as the arctic and military bases. And they we are 20+ years from it being remotely cost efficient.DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:55 pmAgain, I reiterate that you're either ill-informed or illiterate. In one post, I noted that microreactors are already online. Not only do they provide multiple times the energy of any other source, but the contamination risk is incredibly low, since the average-sized reactor can be shipped on a single semi. In another post, I noted that nuclear fusion (which produces NO waste) will be a realistic option within the next decade or so.twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:33 pmWell, you seemed perturbed that the Paris Agreement didn't contain more of a push towards nuclear. I simply countered that the problem of having zero clue what to do with the radioactive waste and that if it goes off the rails the death toll has a comma in it would seem like it would play a role. It seems like nuclear would be "zero emissions" only if your magic fusion is actually developed and actually solves the problem with what to do with giant stockpiles of waste, a fact that I have never seen proven.
So maybe a proven track record of death and destruction mixed with an unsolved question of what to do with the toxic waste is what kept nuclear from being more prominently involved in the Paris Agreement. But that's just my every day common sense opinion. It may be off base and ill informed, but it's my opinion as a possible explanation.
All of which is to say that your Fukushima response is both hysterical and ignorant.
It sounds like an interesting concept. If you have more info on it or a good write up that you think best highlights the potential, I'd like to read it.
I am in the theater at the HS waiting for my oldest to perform so any nuclear fusion research may have to wait.
-
- Posts: 424
- Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 3:22 am
Re: Green New Deal
Oh, they didn’t say “no cars.” They said “replacing non-essential individual means of transport.” That means the government decides whose “individual means” is “essential.” I’ll admit I’ve only been to 7 foreign countries on 3 continents, but the only country I’ve even heard about like that is North Korea. And for a look at how government here decides what’s “essential,” look at concealed carry weapons permits before “may issue” became “shall issue.” Local sheriffs handed out permits to cronies, politicians, and donors, and refused permits to women who were being stalked by their ex-boyfriends. Of course the people who wrote the “Green New Deal” would probably decide only “woke” people would have “essential” need for “individual means of transport.”TraditionKU wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:35 am why is no cars unrealistic?
maybe you should travel more, experience the world...
Mass transit? Try googling “condition of subways New York.” And how is that California bullet train coming along?
“When you think of the good old days, think one word: dentistry.” — P.J. O’Rourke
Re: Green New Deal
So what kind of scale do you see these micro reactors being used? When I see "targeted applications include remote sites, backup power, maritime shipping, military installations, and space missions" it doesn't scream out to me "an option to cut into our reliance on coal power plants".DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:17 pm http://www.world-nuclear.org/informatio ... ctors.aspx
https://www.popularmechanics.com/scienc ... ack-again/
I'll have to chat with my brother in law about these. He's a structural engineer for Kiewit and was working on power plants for them for a while. Interesting stuff.
-
- Posts: 424
- Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 3:22 am
Re: Green New Deal
What’s funny about that? In 2016 it provided about 30% of electricity in the US. They didn’t say coal was powering airplanes, though coal did recharge a lot of “clean” electric cars.
“When you think of the good old days, think one word: dentistry.” — P.J. O’Rourke
Re: Green New Deal
18% is a pretty small amount for Cheeto Mussolini to hang his hat on.kubandalum wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 9:23 pmWhat’s funny about that? In 2016 it provided about 30% of electricity in the US. They didn’t say coal was powering airplanes, though coal did recharge a lot of “clean” electric cars.
Re: Green New Deal
Hmmmm...the state with the highest percentage of electric/hybrid cars is, but you knew this, California.
" coal-fired generation in both 2015 and 2016, according to the California Energy Commission, made up just 0.2 percent of the state's electric load.Jun 26, 2018"