|
Phanatic posted:If that strawman catches fire the CO2 will kill us all. The context of the conversation is/was Bernie proposing a 16T energy generation plan (aka the thread topic) and nuke people making GBS threads up the climate change thread, so we took it here. Whats your plan? If its some comic book video game nerd bullshit about someone making you god-emperor so you can build all the nukes, well then we get it, you're a child with a forums account. In the real world I believe bernie is the absolute farthest we can realistically expect to stretch the power structure in the right direction. Its bernie's plan or collapse. You might be right that even *with* bernie's plan we'll collapse because nukes are necessary or because collapse is inevitable... but then why not try it anyway? Whats the alternative? Do nothing? Vote for....? Its not a strawman. There's an actual decision to be made now. The time for energy generation and climate change policy to be an abstract policy debate between competing dream visions is over. We have single digit years to act. StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Aug 28, 2019 |
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:The context of the conversation is/was Bernie proposing a 16T energy generation plan (aka the thread topic) and nuke people making GBS threads up the climate change thread, so we took it here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 17:55
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Neither you, nor I, get to decide which switches in what buildings get flipped. We only get to pull the ballot lever. Or maybe you have more aspirational plans for change, in which case go with god friend. But either way its time to knock some people out of abstract debate mode and into "motherfucker we're talking about real poo poo now". If you just want to wail and shitpost there's cspam for that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nzudto-FA5Y StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Aug 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
If someone else wises up and supports nuclear Bernie might stop being the best candidate. I know that's not what you want, but maybe it's bad to just declare that nothing can change so everyone should stop having ideas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 18:09
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:If someone else wises up and supports nuclear Bernie might stop being the best candidate. I know that's not what you want, but maybe it's bad to just declare that nothing can change so everyone should stop having ideas. There are a lot of candidates that support nuclear. Here is a matrix.  Yang in particular wants thorium. Andrew Yang Wants Thorium Nuclear Power. Here's What That Means. quote:Yang suggests in his plan that he would heavily promote thorium research in America, promising that part of "$50 billion in research and development" would go toward thorium-based molten salt reactors, and on top of that, he would engage in a public relations campaign to update the reputation of nuclear reactors. I guess, if one really believes that another candidate is going to move with the urgency and force that is needed on this matter, it would be logical to vote for him, instead of Bernie and his nationalization/command economy 16Tr for the environment. Oh...and if said pro-nuclear candidate doesn't really try hard to do what he is saying now, we die. Same goes for everyone else of course, Bernie included. Dante80 fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Aug 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 18:18
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:Neither you, nor I, get to decide which switches in what buildings get flipped. Motherfucker you're the one shitposting with Prester Jane manifestos about how WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING NOW OR WE ALL DIE.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 18:25
|
|
|
I mean truth be told we may already be done for. I'm not as blackpilled as the median cspam climate change thread poster about it, but they're not entirely without reason. Even the IPCC draws the line like this:
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 18:44
|
|
|
"now" means "this election"
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 18:44
|
|
|
much like we learned over the last few years that the "just asking questions" guy was really just racist, and the "ironic" nazi was really just a nazi, and the "socially liberal fiscally conservative centrist" was really just a reactionary, and the "maybe she wanted it" guy is really just a misogynist we're at the point now with the broader topic of energy technology (which is mostly transportation but also kindof everything) where the "you can't because..." guy is clearly showing himself to be.. i dunno what, pro-extinction? they would literally rather watch the world burn than admit they *might* be wrong and it wouldn't hurt to compromise on some progress in the mean time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 18:51
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:much like we learned over the last few years that the "just asking questions" guy was really just racist, and the "ironic" nazi was really just a nazi, and the "socially liberal fiscally conservative centrist" was really just a reactionary, and the "maybe she wanted it" guy is really just a misogynist Its FYGM + NIMBY taken to its conclusion. I would take a three mile island event once a month over the status quo of greenhouse emissions. Nuclear isn't going to kill us, carbon is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 19:07
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Its FYGM + NIMBY taken to its conclusion. Ding ding. Its why Germany's actions made no sense. All they did by shuttering their nukes was push their actual decarbonization far, far out of view, and possibly even reach. 2050 is a little late, and that is now their current goal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 19:09
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Ding ding. Anti-nuclear politicians have done, and will do, more harm to humanity than anti-vax politicians.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 19:12
|
|
|
but you see bernie is anti nuclear and he can't be wrong, or all the memes would be for nothing!
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 19:26
|
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:but you see bernie is anti nuclear and he can't be wrong, or all the memes would be for nothing! Is Bernie anti nuclear or just appeasing the base out of the assumption that they are? I really don't understand it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 19:30
|
|
|
Oh, I don't know. He might have bad opinions, or he might just be playing political calculus. the latter is pretty anathema to his supporters though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 19:33
|
|
|
I think it is bad (and ancient at that) opinions. Sanders was anti-nuclear when the anti-nuclear movement came out in the 60's (see WSP). Partly because then it was inextricably linked with nuclear weapons and the cold war. As almost everything else about him, he is remarkably consistent. On this one though (as well as the subject of GMOs) he is unremarkably wrong. Dante80 fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Aug 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 19:37
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:I think it is bad (and ancient at that) opinions. Sanders was anti-nuclear when the anti-nuclear movement came out in the 60's (see WSP). Partly because then it was inextricably linked with nuclear weapons and the cold war. Completely agree. Without GMOs or Nuclear we might as well prepare for the horror show that will be the 21st century. We won't be able to feed or power half of what we need to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 19:52
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:I think it is bad (and ancient at that) opinions. Sanders was anti-nuclear when the anti-nuclear movement came out in the 60's (see WSP). Partly because then it was inextricably linked with nuclear weapons and the cold war. I also don't think Sanders would be beyond listening to reason as far as supporting it. Caveat: I don't know if anyone has tried.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 20:04
|
|
|
Yeah, its always been my reservation, but I know a perfect canidate won't ever exist. I would have hoped someone would have reasoned with him about gmo's at least since 2016. It might be part and parcel with being a populist, and sadly there aren't any proclaimed socialist wonks in the running to compare and contrast him with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 20:17
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Is Bernie anti nuclear or just appeasing the base out of the assumption that they are? I really don't understand it. Bernie is apparently personally anti-nuclear but his proposal also makes sense in a competitive Democratic primary:  Also apparently a 100% renewable energy grid polls really well with the broader public:  To try to be optimistic, if Sanders can initiate a large-scale Federal energy generation construction via a Power Marketing Administration then it's relatively easy to include nuclear capacity construction at a later time. Presumably this could happen once the public starts coming to grips with how dire the situation really is. The public's approval of nuclear power is fairly dynamic, there was large majority support just 10 years ago: 
Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Aug 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:To try to be optimistic, if Sanders can initiate a large-scale Federal energy generation construction via a Power Marketing Administration then it's relatively easy to include nuclear capacity construction at a later time. Presumably this could happen once the public starts coming to grips with how dire the situation really is. The public's approval of nuclear power is fairly dynamic, there was large majority support just 10 years ago: I think a lot of the movement since 2000 was probably the internet. An initial upswing as information about nuclear power was more accessible, and then a massive downswing following fukushima and the rising prevalence of misinformation on facebook/youtube and the like. Having done a number of mod packages at nuke plants, I just don't think they're feasible these days without regulatory reform. Getting things through QA is *arduous* and incredibly expensive. To have a conversation about new nuclear capacity, things would have to start with NRC deploying new rules for the new generation of plants that incorporate technological advances and design features rather than 50 years of post-hoc modifications to ancient designs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 21:01
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:I mean truth be told we may already be done for. I'm not as blackpilled as the median cspam climate change thread poster about it, but they're not entirely without reason. This is 1) not happening without spending trillions of dollars 2) not happening without a massive buildout of both renewables and nuke at the same time. I have exactly zero confidence that Bernie's plan will achieve more CO2 reductions than some half assed Numbers Fuckstein plan involving clean power tax credits, and I have little hope for him getting his head out of his rear end on nuclear because we've already seen him support Vermont Yankee shutting down before going "la la la I can't hear you" when people pointed out that VT CO2 emissions we're getting worse. e: this is also disregarding that Trump will get a second term because the Dems will run Biden and try to campaign with him going senile and insulting every core demographic in sight. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Aug 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 21:49
|
|
|
Pretty impressed by how easily stabbin hobo wrecked this thread
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:I mean truth be told we may already be done for. I'm not as blackpilled as the median cspam climate change thread poster about it, but they're not entirely without reason. I understand this completely.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 22:58
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:I understand this completely. this is the most explicit and plausible anyone has ever been: https://berniesanders.com/issues/the-green-new-deal/ for the click adverse, the baby tl;dr version quote:- 100 percent renewable energy for electricity and transportation by no later than 2030 and complete decarbonization by 2050 at latest by expanding the existing federal Power Marketing Administrations to build new solar, wind, and geothermal energy sources. StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Aug 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 23:41
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:this is the most explicit and plausible anyone has ever been: https://berniesanders.com/issues/the-green-new-deal/ Plausible doesn't mean what I think you think it means...
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 23:53
|
|
|
EdEddnEddy posted:Plausible doesn't mean what I think you think it means... I said "most" plausible. Handicap that for however cynical you want to be, but its a relative measure. So by all means, anyone, all the loving smug rear end unrecognized geniuses of the thread, FEEL FREE to link to your more plausible plan/alternative/candidate/story whatever. Put. The. gently caress. Up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 23:57
|
|
|
quote:build new solar, wind, and geothermal energy sources. I know not to expect scientific perfection but this is killing me anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 23:58
|
|
|
Given: 1. The current cost and cost trajectories of wind & solar 2. The spectacular failure over the last 15 years of anyone to build nuclear reactors even remotely on time or on budget--due almost entirely to unforced fuckups and not ~*~regulation~*~ 3. The extreme time pressures we are under to decarbonize What is the logical basis for being so gung-ho about nuclear these days? Are these people who just formed their opinions around 2008 and haven't kept up, or is there something more to it? Unless you have some realistic plan to build thousands of reactors in 5-10 years (noting that most Gen IV designs are taking 10+ years to construct even one at a time), and an existing design with which to do it, isn't it more sensible to just throw trillions of dollars at solar/wind + storage? Honestly, the time to be all in on nuclear was 20, 30 years ago. That ship has sailed. Time's up. The technology development that needed to happen didn't happen in time. The industrial expertise to build reactors isn't there. The promises of the Gen IV designs never materialized. What loving plausible trajectory is there to go from where we are now, to carbon free energy in 10, even 15 years, based mostly (or even significantly) on nuclear expansion? Versus just making GBS threads out photovoltaics like our lives depend on it? In any case, it should be absolutely, 100% clear that the most critical priority is to commit to decarbonization.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 00:26
|
|
|
The first two things aren't very good givens at all. We need as much of both as we can get to reduce how totally hosed we are. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Aug 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 00:31
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I know not to expect scientific perfection but this is killing me anyway. In this context of an electric grid, I think the usage is fine. A wind turbine is a source of energy that you build, and it in turn receives energy from a source that's already present (wind)
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 00:34
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:In this context of an electric grid, I think the usage is fine. A wind turbine is a source of energy that you build, and it in turn receives energy from a source that's already present (wind) I just keep hearing Bernie declare "WE WILL BUILD ANOTHER SUN" and I love it
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 00:42
|
|
|
Morbus posted:In any case, it should be absolutely, 100% clear that the most critical priority is to commit to decarbonization. Either of these things is going to upset pearl clutchers, and building dams massively fucks the local ecosystem. If we can't commit to either of those... what are we committing to?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 00:47
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:In this context of an electric grid, I think the usage is fine. A wind turbine is a source of energy that you build, and it in turn receives energy from a source that's already present (wind) I mean, the word “energy” predates knowledge of the conservation law, so it’s hard to argue that the usage is incorrect outside of a physics classroom.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 00:48
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:this is the most explicit and plausible anyone has ever been: https://berniesanders.com/issues/the-green-new-deal/ I do agree with that, I just think the global CO2 emissions plot I referenced is a fantasy. India and China will move into the middle class and besides, we have multiple feedback loops in full effect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 01:09
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:I said "most" plausible. Handicap that for however cynical you want to be, but its a relative measure. So by all means, anyone, all the loving smug rear end unrecognized geniuses of the thread, FEEL FREE to link to your more plausible plan/alternative/candidate/story whatever. this is why we were discussing nuclear, you clod Speaking of, it seems the Canadian government is showing interest in nuclear again, specifically small modular nuclear: https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/nuclear-power-small-modular-reactor-1.5188048 (Those of you who cross post in the cold war thread, please just pass over Canadian Procurement and pretend this is going to be managed competently) It's a good idea; not only generally, but specifically for Canada. Canada has a lot of isolated communities that can't be hooked up into a large power grid, and so have to burn dinosaur bones to make electricity. Assuming the modular nuclear works as advertised, it'd be a terrific way to power these places for a hell of a lot less money and CO2.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 01:30
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:this is why we were discussing nuclear, you clod Small modular reactors are an excellent example of where significant cost reductions can be gained from regulatory revision. Currently, NRC reactor operator staffing requirements are on a per-reactor basis. This makes sense for large sites with one, two, or sometimes three massive 1GWe reactors in operation. It becomes cost-prohibitive from an operations standpoint if each of 8+ small modular reactors (50 to 150GWe) on a small footprint that can be easily monitored concurrently from a single control room, because reactor operators are both low in supply and extremely necessary. Adjusting requirements to account for previously unforeseen designs can significantly improve SMR economic viability. Here's an NEI (industry leading organization) white paper asking the NRC to reconsider staffing requirements. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1206/ML120690009.pdf So far as I can tell, there's been no movement on the issue. There aren't any under construction for commercial purposes yet, and if they were the solution would likely be to issue an exemption to that specific site.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 01:54
|
|
|
Morbus posted:2. The spectacular failure over the last 15 years of anyone to build nuclear reactors even remotely on time or on budget--due almost entirely to unforced fuckups and not ~*~regulation~*~ It doesn't make sense to me how posters in this thread can vaguely blame government regulations for all of the failures of nuclear electricity in recent years, and then in the same breath call for and think that a giant government program to build a lot of nuclear power plants is the way to go. Morbus posted:Are these people who just formed their opinions around 2008 and haven't kept up, or is there something more to it? The majority opinion posters in this thread have consistently been wrong about the progress and prospects of renewable electricity generation. They've definitely changed their tune on renewable energy once it became apparent that it would really catch on. I don't know what the future of electricity generation will be but given the track record of the majority opinion posters of this thread, I suspect that the future might be the opposite of whatever they think.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 02:02
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:It doesn't make sense to me how posters in this thread can vaguely blame government regulations for all of the failures of nuclear electricity in recent years, and then in the same breath call for and think that a giant government program to build a lot of nuclear power plants is the way to go. This is the most neoliberal thing I have read on these forums.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 02:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
silence_kit posted:It doesn't make sense to me how posters in this thread can vaguely blame government regulations for all of the failures of nuclear electricity in recent years, and then in the same breath call for and think that a giant government program to build a lot of nuclear power plants is the way to go.  Yes, the process that has been in place for decades to regulate commercial nuclear power and a theoretical massive investment in energy infrastructure are fundamentally identical when you think about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 02:30
|
|