Who do you wish to win the Democratic primaries? This poll is closed. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
Joe Biden, the Klansman | 8 | 0.91% | |
Bernie Sanders, the Hand Flailer | 578 | 65.76% | |
Elizabeth Warren, the Plan Maker | 185 | 21.05% | |
Kamala Harris, the Cop Lord | 4 | 0.46% | |
Cory Booker, the Super Hero Wannabe | 0 | 0% | |
Julian Castro, the Twin | 3 | 0.34% | |
Kirsten Gillibrand, the Franken Killer | 3 | 0.34% | |
Pete Buttigieg, the Troop Sociopath | 9 | 1.02% | |
Robert Francis O'Rourke, the Fake Latino | 2 | 0.23% | |
Jay Inslee, the Climate Alarmist | 4 | 0.46% | |
Marianne Williamson, the Crystal Queen | 19 | 2.16% | |
Andrew Yang, the $1000 Fool | 19 | 2.16% | |
Tulsi Gabbard, the Muslim Hater | 8 | 0.91% | |
Amy Klobuchar, the Comb Enthusiast | 1 | 0.11% | |
Just like in real life, nobody voted for Hickenlooper | 2 | 0.23% | |
Jeffrey Epstein, the MCC Most Hated | 9 | 1.02% | |
KKKillary KKKlinton | 16 | 1.82% | |
Some other idiot not in this list | 9 | 1.02% | |
Total: | 879 votes |
|
Trabisnikof posted:This also applies to renewables, storage, demand response and efficiency. I'd love to see a link debunking years of education surrounding this topic. The fact o f the matter is, even your disagreement proved my point. Renewables cannot make up for the carbon based generation that needs to be phased out. We also completely lack the storage capacity to effectively apply renewables. Any plan that lacks nuclear capacity in mass scale is useless. All that will happen is natural gas will make up that difference, and we continue kicking the can down the road. You can't go carbon neutral or negative without nuclear.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2019 18:27 |
|
|
# ? Jun 2, 2024 23:51 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:This also applies to renewables, storage, demand response and efficiency. If we can only replace 70% of the grid with renewables, how do we make the other 30% except by nuclear power?
|
# ? Aug 22, 2019 18:38 |
|
d e c r e a s e a g g r e g a t e d e m a n d
|
# ? Aug 22, 2019 18:39 |
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:the Nimby people didn't help either. The NIMBY issue is exactly why the "muh nukes" people aren't serious about addressing climate change. It's a bunch of intellectual jacking off about how much smarter they are than Betty and Karen. Do you have a plan to solve NIMBYism in 12 years? No? Then get the gently caress out of the way while the rest of us build the plants that can be built in that time. Heck Yes! Loam! posted:If we aren't building nukes, we aren't fighting global warming. period. You can't maintain without new baseload generation that isn't carbon based, and renewables do not meet that demand. This is a major failing in Bernie's plan, and means that there are literally zero candidates taking climate change seriously. The IPCC disagrees with you, but they're probably just a panel of Karens right. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-2/ The International Panel on Probably Some Dumb Housewives and Definitely Not Climate Scientists posted:Nuclear power increases its share in most 1.5°C pathways with no or limited overshoot by 2050, but in some pathways both the absolute capacity and share of power from nuclear generators decrease (Table 2.15). There are large differences in nuclear power between models and across pathways (Kim et al., 2014; Rogelj et al., 2018). One of the reasons for this variation is that the future deployment of nuclear can be constrained by societal preferences assumed in narratives underlying the pathways (O’Neill et al., 2017; van Vuuren et al., 2017b). Some 1.5°C pathways with no or limited overshoot no longer see a role for nuclear fission by the end of the century, while others project about 95 EJ yr−1 of nuclear power in 2100 (Figure 2.15).
|
# ? Aug 22, 2019 18:41 |
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I'd love to see a link debunking years of education surrounding this topic. Sure, here's the original one showing that it is feasible at 80+%: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/52409-ES.pdf quote:Renewable energy resources, accessed with commercially available generation technologies, could adequately supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050 while balancing supply and demand at the hourly level. Here's a 2018 follow up report diving into the technical details of feasibly of running the Eastern Interconnect on 70%+ renewables: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/71465.pdf quote:Finding 1: Balancing 70%–75% renewables (68%–73% wind and solar) at five-minute levels in the Eastern Interconnection is possible while maintaining 99.99% of required reserves across the scenarios. Here's another follow up report looking at operating the Western Interconnect at 82-88% renewables with a focus on sub-hour analysis: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/64467.pdf quote:The primary conclusion of this study is that sub-hourly operation of the grid is possible with renewable generation levels between 80% and 90%. Dynamic studies will need to be done to understand any impacts on reliability during contingencies and transient events. This moredetailed analysis supports similar conclusions about the feasibility of hourly operation in the RE Futures study. Curtailment was between 5% and 11% (of total potential generation from wind, solar, and hydropower) if there was no significant friction between balancing authorities. This result is also consistent with the RE Futures study. Market friction1 between balancing authorities can lead to substantial cost and curtailment increases, while storage or similar technologies could help mitigate curtailment and reduce costs.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2019 18:42 |
|
ross perot in hell posted:d e c r e a s e a g g r e g a t e d e m a n d "Yes, lets plunge those top three lines into the dirt, and not increase the red line. what bad could happen? Oh, whats that you say? the modern world depends on electricity? Oh. well let's just get rid of that then. " If you don't increase nuclear, that natural gas line is going to get MUCH bigger.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2019 18:43 |
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:You can't go carbon neutral or negative without nuclear. Read the IPCC report, this is demonstrably false. Pathways to maintaining <1.5C temperature rise without increasing nuclear power generation exist.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2019 18:43 |
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:
Decrease demand and they can all go down. The modern world depending on electricity is bad. Less demand means less total energy needs to be produced.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2019 18:47 |
|
Both of the things you have linked me say that we need to increase nuclear capacity to meet targets. The only scenario that doesn;t is the one that sees global energy production plummeting.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2019 18:50 |
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Both of the things you have linked me say that we need to increase nuclear capacity to meet targets. All of those scenarios I linked shows the feasibility of running renewables at 70%+. I'm glad you no longer dispute that fact.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2019 18:52 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:All of those scenarios I linked shows the feasibility of running renewables at 70%+. I'm glad you no longer dispute that fact. I don't think I was saying that? I said we had to build new nuclear generation, and not doing that is not addressing the problem. the IPCC seems to agree with me, as you still need nuclear (or fossil fuels) to make up the rest. What part of my point exactly are you arguing against? There's also the question of what you do in the meantime before renewables get to 70%, cause the current plan is to burn more oil. it would be great if that plan instead was to build nuclear plants. The fact that No democratic candidate is proposing this means that aren't taking the issue seriously, and are more interested in placating NIMBYism than fighting global warming.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2019 18:58 |
|
John Delaney being a huge goober is my favorite subplot of the primary https://twitter.com/johndelaney/status/1164567026108641280?s=21
|
# ? Aug 22, 2019 19:01 |
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Both of the things you have linked me say that we need to increase nuclear capacity to meet targets. dude did you look at that graph, the first diagram (which shows nuclear holding constant) also shows total energy production increasing until 2050
|
# ? Aug 22, 2019 19:01 |
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:There's also the question of what you do in the meantime before renewables get to 70%, cause the current plan is to burn more oil. it would be great if that plan instead was to build nuclear plants. The fact that No democratic candidate is proposing this means that aren't taking the issue seriously, and are more interested in placating NIMBYism than fighting global warming. Wow that’s an incredibly dishonest framing. The GND isn’t a plan of “burn more oil” it’s a plan of build more renewables. That’s what you do to get to 70%. Also fyi burning oil is a very small part of how we generate electricity, you mean natural gas.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2019 19:04 |
|
global energy demand should probably go down since absurd amounts of energy are wasted on stupid bullshit like mining bitcoins or turning oil into plastic that is used once then sits in a landfill for a million years or moving 20 people with 20 cars instead of one bus
|
# ? Aug 22, 2019 19:09 |
|
VitalSigns posted:dude did you look at that graph, the first diagram (which shows nuclear holding constant) also shows total energy production increasing until 2050 You mean the one that shows the LED (Low energy Demand) pathway? The pathway that requires a decrease in generation, which is not what anyone is predicting will happen? Trabisnikof posted:Wow thats an incredibly dishonest framing. The GND isnt a plan of burn more oil its a plan of build more renewables. Thats what you do to get to 70%. You have two option of how to make power while renewables get to that threshold of 70%+. you can keep burning fossil fuels, or you can use nuclear. the clearfucking choice is nuclear. the only reason not to choose nuclear is to appease anti-nuclear idiots. You also knew what i meant when i said oil, and are being pedantic. Shear Modulus posted:global energy demand should probably go down since absurd amounts of energy are wasted on stupid bullshit like mining bitcoins or turning oil into plastic that is used once then sits in a landfill for a million years or moving 20 people with 20 cars instead of one bus Absolutely, but nobody is predicting that it will. We do need to decrease demand by at least something like 35% by 2050, but that's putting the cart before the horse I think. We have to transition away from oil at the same time as increasing efficiencies. poo poo like bitcoin mining should be illegal, or highly highly taxed to the point where it is not economical. Heck Yes! Loam! fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Aug 22, 2019 |
# ? Aug 22, 2019 19:09 |
|
Shear Modulus posted:global energy demand should probably go down since absurd amounts of energy are wasted on stupid bullshit like mining bitcoins or turning oil into plastic that is used once then sits in a landfill for a million years or moving 20 people with 20 cars instead of one bus We really need trains and urban redesign to support them. This would be an absolutely massive infrastructure project, which would more than provide enough jobs to support federal jobs guarantees under the Green New Deal.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2019 19:10 |
|
VitalSigns posted:Read the IPCC report, this is demonstrably false. Pathways to maintaining <1.5C temperature rise without increasing nuclear power generation exist. What is the opportunity cost, tho. How much harder is it without nuclear? Personally I’d prefer to not have nuclear if we don’t have to since then we are less likely to dump nuclear waste in poor communities.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2019 19:12 |
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:You mean the one that shows the LED (Low energy Demand) pathway? The pathway that requires a decrease in generation, which is not what anyone is predicting will happen? You’re making no sense. It’s like if I said “to get to 70% nuclear you have to keep burning coal or use renewables. Why won’t you use renewables.” Your plan of build a bunch of nukes so we can shut them down with renewables later implies a serious misunderstanding of the issue. We online as much carbon free capacity as we can as fast as we can, thus far the answer is clearly renewables.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2019 19:14 |
|
Lightning Knight posted:What is the opportunity cost, tho. How much harder is it without nuclear? The cost is reducing generation to the point where people don't have electricity. the LED pathway is completely non-viable at current US living standards. Trabisnikof posted:You’re making no sense. It’s like if I said “to get to 70% nuclear you have to keep burning coal or use renewables. Why won’t you use renewables.” This is stupid and ignores the IPCC. You can't have 100% renewables on any plan, even the LED pathway. That means you must build nukes no matter what. since we have to do that, we should offset as much of our current fossil generation with nuclear at the same time as spinning up renewables as fast as possible. We can do both. Heck Yes! Loam! fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Aug 22, 2019 |
# ? Aug 22, 2019 19:15 |
|
Use nuclear as a transition and dump it on the penguins.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2019 19:16 |
|
It doesn't look like everyone's aiming at the same goalposts here. The Sanders plan calls for the economy to be completely decarbonized by 2050. That means that 70%, 80%, or 85% renewable isn't enough - he's aiming for 100% renewables, without gas or coal or even biofuel, something well beyond any of the studies posted here so far (most of which keep around a significant portion of carbon-using fuels to ramp up output during peak load times and when the sun goes down). And a ban on nuclear on top of that.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2019 19:20 |
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:The cost is reducing generation to the point where people don't have electricity. the LED pathway is completely non-viable at current US living standards. Current US living standards are completely unsustainable so I do not see how this works as a counter argument.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2019 19:23 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:It doesn't look like everyone's aiming at the same goalposts here. The Sanders plan calls for the economy to be completely decarbonized by 2050. That means that 70%, 80%, or 85% renewable isn't enough - he's aiming for 100% renewables, without gas or coal or even biofuel, something well beyond any of the studies posted here so far (most of which keep around a significant portion of carbon-using fuels to ramp up output during peak load times and when the sun goes down). And a ban on nuclear on top of that. It is technologically feasible with current materials, and the United States has the resources to do it. All we lack is a chief executive willing to declare a state of emergency and mobilize a war economy to do it.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2019 19:23 |
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:You have two option of how to make power while renewables get to that threshold of 70%+. you can keep burning fossil fuels, or you can use nuclear. the clearfucking choice is nuclear. the only reason not to choose nuclear is to appease anti-nuclear idiots. Nuclear and hydro already provide 27% in the US. No, massive nuclear is not the clearfucking choice. In 2019+, we have alternatives. ps: I'm pro nuclear.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2019 19:25 |
|
Addamere posted:It is technologically feasible with current materials, and the United States has the resources to do it. All we lack is a chief executive willing to declare a state of emergency and mobilize a war economy to do it. This would own and yet I can’t think of a quicker way to get a hypothetical President Sanders coup’d or assassinated by the CIA.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2019 19:26 |
|
Lightning Knight posted:This would own and yet I can’t think of a quicker way to get a hypothetical President Sanders coup’d or assassinated by the CIA. The solution to this is simple: Vice President Nina Turner
|
# ? Aug 22, 2019 19:26 |
|
Addamere posted:The solution to this is simple: Vice President Nina Turner With Speaker of the house AOC.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2019 19:27 |
|
Groovelord Neato posted:takes about five years at most to build one nowadays. Olkiluoto 3 wants a word with you. Construction began 2005, was supposed to be done in 2009. Current status: might finally start generating power in summer 2020. And yes that's partially regulatory mismatches between builder and buyer contexts. But also modern capitalist construction bullshit that resulted in bad quality that needed fixing. Repeatedly. If you're serious about new nuclear power in a reasonable timeframe, the proposal has to be nationalised power plants built, maintained and operated by governmental organisations.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2019 19:29 |
|
Lightning Knight posted:Current US living standards are completely unsustainable so I do not see how this works as a counter argument. I don't disagree, but here's the issue. 1. Residential living standards are not the biggest driver of electrical use. 2. Good luck selling a decreased living standard to people. If your plan is predicated on decreasing power generation resulting in loss of living standards, you will not get that plan implemented. You can however focus on the efficiency gains and generation side of the equation while working over time to change the psychology of consumers through public works and engagement programs. The best way to meet living standards while decreasing emissions a is through nuclear power. So again, not including it in a plan to fight global warming is asinine and negligent. EDIT: This is assuming this is a nationalized plan to build, and not farmed out to private companies. Private nuclear is not worth it. Dante80 posted:Nuclear and hydro already provide 27% in the US. No, massive nuclear is not the clearfucking choice. In 2019+, we have alternatives. Those nuclear plants are all being decommissioned in the next 10-15 years, or are already beyond their designed lifespan. If you don't build new ones that capacity goes away. Also it doesn't have to be "massive" it just needs to be some. building 5-10 gen 3 or 4 nuke plants in the right places would be a major improvement over the current production. Heck Yes! Loam! fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Aug 22, 2019 |
# ? Aug 22, 2019 19:29 |
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:2. Good luck selling a decreased living standard to people. I agree this will not work but if we do agree on this then the human race is doomed lmao
|
# ? Aug 22, 2019 19:34 |
|
Lightning Knight posted:I agree this will not work but if we do agree on this then the human race is doomed lmao I'm glad you're all caught up.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2019 19:35 |
|
You don't have to sell people on reduced quality of life; that's going to happen no matter what we do. The question is not: "Will we accept reduced quality of life?" The question is: "Will we voluntarily reduce our quality of life to avoid total catastrophe, or will we cling to our quality of life for as long as we can until everything catastrophically collapses?" We're doing that second thing.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2019 19:37 |
|
Addamere posted:You don't have to sell people on reduced quality of life; that's going to happen no matter what we do. The question is not: "Will we accept reduced quality of life?" The question is: "Will we voluntarily reduce our quality of life to avoid total catastrophe, or will we cling to our quality of life for as long as we can until everything catastrophically collapses?" Yeah, given that framing people will always choose the latter. Which is why you don't do that. You put in the work required to maintain current standards for the olds, and teach their kids how the olds ruined everything by being gluttonous pigs at the cost of everyone else. it's sort of working already, but we don't have enough time before the clock hits zero to do that alone. Hence, build the loving nuclear plants.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2019 19:40 |
|
Addamere posted:I personally love that Bernie's tactic when questioned is to respond by giving workers even more stuff. It's so obvious every time it happens that the people coming at him were expecting him to slip backward to compromise, and his adamant refusal to do that is exactly why he's the best candidate on the field. He knows the only publicity the media will give him (until he starts clowning people in IA and NH) is hit pieces no matter what he says, so he swings for the fences. He knows that there is nothing at all to gain by incrementalism and compromise with centrists. He has only the love of his supporters — and more supporters — to gain by going further and further to the left, and would gain literally nothing by backsliding. This is a lesson I wish the Democrats were capable of learning: you're going to get called a radical socialist if you are even one pixel to the left of literal Nazis, so you may as well double-down on actually being a socialist.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2019 19:49 |
|
I'm definitely biased having been living in Tokyo during the Tohoku earthquake and subsequent massive gently caress-up at Fukushima, but my take on nuclear power since then is "yes, quite nice and safe in theory, but no matter how idiot-proof you make this technology, mankind will just make bigger idiots." I straight-up don't trust nuclear power generation, especially under management of capitalists looking for any way to cut corners.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2019 20:00 |
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:I'm definitely biased having been living in Tokyo during the Tohoku earthquake and subsequent massive gently caress-up at Fukushima, but my take on nuclear power since then is "yes, quite nice and safe in theory, but no matter how idiot-proof you make this technology, mankind will just make bigger idiots." I straight-up don't trust nuclear power generation, especially under management of capitalists looking for any way to cut corners. Nuclear is far safer than fossil fuels, you just get all the deaths and injuries in one tidy package instead of spread out over time and space where it's easily ignored. The same thing is true of airplanes vs. cars: you don't hear about the thousands of daily car wrecks, but you hear about the one airplane that crashes.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2019 20:05 |
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:I'm definitely biased having been living in Tokyo during the Tohoku earthquake and subsequent massive gently caress-up at Fukushima, but my take on nuclear power since then is "yes, quite nice and safe in theory, but no matter how idiot-proof you make this technology, mankind will just make bigger idiots." I straight-up don't trust nuclear power generation, especially under management of capitalists looking for any way to cut corners. Even the socialists get it wrong. See: Chernobyl. There are inherently human problems with running a nuclear plant that exist regardless of who owns or inspects it. Whether it’s a communist government, a private utility or a trust company you’re all hosed. That corner cutting and culture of unsafe work practices eventually gets in there.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2019 20:07 |
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:The best way to meet living standards while decreasing emissions a is through nuclear power. So again, not including it in a plan to fight global warming is asinine and negligent. You aren't going to get nuclear plants built in 12 years. It takes decades. Unless you have a magic wand to abolish all the regulations and court challenges and jedi mind-meld all the NIMBYs, you're in for a fight that we don't have time for. The only practical option is to bring as much renewable energy online as quickly as we can. I-want-to-see-your-manager types are obsessed with nukes because solving real problems takes a backseat to feeling smarter than everyone else. And even though they really are smarter than the NIMBYs, it doesn't matter, because the time for your solution was decades ago. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Aug 22, 2019 |
# ? Aug 22, 2019 20:07 |
|
|
# ? Jun 2, 2024 23:51 |
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:I'm definitely biased having been living in Tokyo during the Tohoku earthquake and subsequent massive gently caress-up at Fukushima, but my take on nuclear power since then is "yes, quite nice and safe in theory, but no matter how idiot-proof you make this technology, mankind will just make bigger idiots." I straight-up don't trust nuclear power generation, especially under management of capitalists looking for any way to cut corners. And yet the amount of radiation released into the environment by all nuclear plants ever, including disasters, is a negligible percentage of the radiation that coal plants pump into the atmosphere every year e: also just lol at building a nuclear plant in 5 years. no
|
# ? Aug 22, 2019 20:10 |