|
Kaal posted:LaRouchites don't have a coherent political philosophy, and their ideas vary wildly depending on the current issues du jour and the location of each group, but are nonetheless largely composed of Republicans. Well, the ones I've dealt with always call themselves "independent," although they acknowledge that they vote straight ticket Republican in every election.
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 18:24 |
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Well, the ones I've dealt with always call themselves "independent," although they acknowledge that they vote straight ticket Republican in every election. That tracks 1000% with the LaRouchites I've interacted with. They're broadly anti-establishment, but particularly any establishment that isn't sticking it to the Jews / gays / blacks / "counterrevolutionaries". They tend to thrive in liberal areas where openly being a Republican is going to be met with disgust, but there's more tolerance for conservative ideas couched as "alternative thinking" and political independence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 19:54
|
|
|
 Is this supposed to be an avocado?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 20:19
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Well, the ones I've dealt with always call themselves "independent," although they acknowledge that they vote straight ticket Republican in every election. This is mostly true of non-Larouche Republicans, too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 20:42
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:
Chop the head off and it's a decent representation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 20:50
|
|
|
LaRouchism is basically American Perónism, but a million times less successful
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 06:25
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:This is revisionism in the plainest sense. LaRouche started as a *leftist* movement, and LaRouche himself was a Marxist. They straight up support trump https://larouchepac.com/20170725/appeal-americans-defend-trump-presidency
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 10:02
|
|
|
Don't think anything sums up Germany's failed energy policies than this picture. A lone wind turbine in front of the biggest open pit mine in europe, digging up horrible brown lignite to burn for power.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 08:32
|
|
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:Chop the head off and it's a decent representation. But the head is the best part.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 03:15
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Don't think anything sums up Germany's failed energy policies than this picture.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 16:40
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:It's pretty impressive how huge a clusterfuck Germany can be while still remaining de facto head of the EU. Did the Greens hold so much power that they forced the really bad decision to turn off the nukes?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 19:04
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Did the Greens hold so much power that they forced the really bad decision to turn off the nukes? Yes, which then forced them to rely on coal. It was the biggest self own in the energy sector in the last decade.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 19:07
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Did the Greens hold so much power that they forced the really bad decision to turn off the nukes? Fukushima happened, and every German Green Party's brain melted. Its even funnier when you remember they are so stuck on this and Natural Gas they couldn't properly call out Russia out of fear of being cut off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 20:35
|
|
|
Also whatever the German for NIMBY is. Something profound no doubt
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Yes, which then forced them to rely on coal. It was the biggest self own in the energy sector in the last decade. How much of this is just fuckery on the part of fossil fuel billionaires? 98%?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 00:45
|
|
|
Marxalot posted:How much of this is just fuckery on the part of fossil fuel billionaires? 98%? Not much really on this one as far as I know. The greens are just monstrously stupid and decided that coal was safer than nuclear.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 00:50
|
|
|
If anti‐nuclear activism isn’t funded by coal money today, it’s because it doesn’t have to be. They sowed the seeds in the seventies and eighties and they’re reaping the rewards now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 00:56
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:If anti‐nuclear activism isn’t funded by coal money today, it’s because it doesn’t have to be. Can't argue with that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 01:03
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:If anti‐nuclear activism isn’t funded by coal money today, it’s because it doesn’t have to be. I know nothing about Germany and their Greens, but given that Natural Gas billionaires (The kochs, the wilkes', etc) are some of the most politically activist billionaire shitheads in the US I just kind of assume that a lot of the anti-nuclear stuff comes from either them or people very similar to them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 01:21
|
|
|
Germany is also the target of pretty singularly aggressive Russian foreign-facing propaganda efforts, and given their energy ties that could be a major goal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 01:40
|
|
|
Wasn’t there something in the past where we couldn’t clean up or store nuclear waste properly? I remember hearing how that was a problem near the Washington State Nuclear Power Plant but I think most of that has been solved.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 01:49
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Don't think anything sums up Germany's failed energy policies than this picture. It's almost as if the trees between the fields and the hole are trying to spell the word "hilfe"
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Wasn’t there something in the past where we couldn’t clean up or store nuclear waste properly? It's a purely political problem, not one of engineering or physics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 02:20
|
|
|
Marxalot posted:It's a purely political problem, not one of engineering or physics. It's a NIMBY problem
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 03:08
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Wasn’t there something in the past where we couldn’t clean up or store nuclear waste properly? No, we can do both of those things. We choose not to
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 03:21
|
|
|
It's not that difficult, just need a mountainous area with no ground water or drainage systeme to store it at incase of leaks, and we already have a facility for this that isn't in use due to state nimbyism
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 04:31
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Wasn’t there something in the past where we couldn’t clean up or store nuclear waste properly? Maybe you are thinking of the Asse II scandal? A nuclear end storage site started leaking and had to be cleaned out. It was one of the largest scandals of the 21th century in Germany. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 07:39
|
|
|
I mean, all we need is a place where people check the casks for damage and store them carefully, possibly with some guards. Nuclear power doesn't really produce a large volume of waste. It produces even less if you reprocess your fuel. In fact, this may be a controversial opinion, but I'd honestly rather see a above ground constantly monitored internment facility than locking casks away in clay and concrete in some salt dome and burying it. You can react to any issues that may arise, and avoid a lot of nimbyism by just never calling it the final resting place. Besides, in a hundred years maybe we'll use that spent fuel in a TWR.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 08:00
|
|
|
It’s more the lack of proponents than opponents holding back nuclear. Even small minorities can ban stuff if everybody else remain indifferent and over time that small minority will control the narrative because their voice is the only one heard. So where are all the pro-nuclear folks at? Where are the activists and organizations fighting FOR nuclear?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 11:34
|
|
|
All of them are posting in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 12:23
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:It’s more the lack of proponents than opponents holding back nuclear. Even small minorities can ban stuff if everybody else remain indifferent and over time that small minority will control the narrative because their voice is the only one heard. At least in Germany, there had been a lot of pro-nuclear advocacy. At one point I remember that our entire school was assembled and had to listen to a long presentation on the safety and bright future of nuclear energy by charismatic engineers, scientists and PR people. Everyone got handed an expensive professionally created information folder to take home(supposedly to reach the parents). This is the only time I remember an assembly like this happening at our school( except for graduations etc.) Truth is that the pro-nuclear lobby fought a hard war but lost. And it lost so completely and thoroughly that you can't bring up the subject up again for at least a generation. Public opinion against the nuclear phaseout was at 8% after Fukushima. Pro nuclear expansion opinion was probably much lower. You would have better luck advocating for the rights of rapists and pedophiles at this point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 12:55
|
|
|
Listen, if you can't see it, it's super scary okay? That's why coal is fine. You can hold it in your hand.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 14:29
|
|
|
I think all nuclear waste disposal is hampered by everyone knowing that nuclear fuel can be reprocessed and there is a 100% chance we are going to want it all back, since the "no breeder reactor" stuff is all cold war and not something people care about much going forward. No one wants to hide or destroy a bunch of extremely useful fuel that has barely been used.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 15:05
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I think all nuclear waste disposal is hampered by everyone knowing that nuclear fuel can be reprocessed and there is a 100% chance we are going to want it all back, since the "no breeder reactor" stuff is all cold war and not something people care about much going forward. No one wants to hide or destroy a bunch of extremely useful fuel that has barely been used. Does that indicate the world has a limitless supply of uranium for nuclear reactors?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 16:08
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Did the Greens hold so much power that they forced the really bad decision to turn off the nukes? Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Yes, which then forced them to rely on coal. It was the biggest self own in the energy sector in the last decade. Can you really blame Greens for that. In 2011 when Merkel's CDU announced the phase-out, the Greens were in opposition and had only 11% of the seats. The history behind Germany's nuclear phase-out quote:When the CDU/CSU won the elections in 2009 and formed a coalition with the Free Democrats (FDP), they extended the operating time by eight years for seven nuclear plants and 14 years for the remaining ten. This became known as the “phase-out of the (nuclear) phase-out” (Ausstieg aus dem Ausstieg). However, in the wake of the nuclear catastrophe in Fukushima, Japan, the Merkel government decided in June 2011 to shut down eight nuclear plants and limit the operation of the remaining nine to 2022. Over 80 pe cent of parliamentarians voted for the bill in the Bundestag (federal parliament). Die Linke (Left Party) only objected because it wanted a faster exit and the measure’s inclusion in the constitution. Saukkis fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Oct 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 16:10
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I think all nuclear waste disposal is hampered by everyone knowing that nuclear fuel can be reprocessed and there is a 100% chance we are going to want it all back, since the "no breeder reactor" stuff is all cold war and not something people care about much going forward. No one wants to hide or destroy a bunch of extremely useful fuel that has barely been used. Land accessed subduction zone disposal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 16:43
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Does that indicate the world has a limitless supply of uranium for nuclear reactors?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 16:43
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Does that indicate the world has a limitless supply of uranium for nuclear reactors? No but we have a shitload. It's hard to get numbers on how much of x or y mineral resource we have left because most numbers on the internet have a jupiter sized asterisk labeled something like "known/developed reserves". There's also the question of how much reprocessing you want to do, reactor design, etc. I've seen numbers ranging from 5 years to over a thousand. There's also the question of the future viability of thorium reactors, and we have an -enormous- amount of that. e: also nobody ever asks how much easily available lithium is around to make endless amounts of batteries out of, forever, lmao Marxalot fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Oct 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 16:44
|
|
|
Marxalot posted:No but we have a shitload. It's hard to get numbers on how much of x or y mineral resource we have left because most numbers on the internet have a jupiter sized asterisk labeled something like "known/developed reserves". There's also the question of how much reprocessing you want to do, reactor design, etc. I've seen numbers ranging from 5 years to over a thousand. There's also the question of the future viability of thorium reactors, and we have an -enormous- amount of that. It's more expensive than mining, but fuel cost is a tiny part of the cost of running a nuclear power station.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 18:24 |
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Extraction from seawater basically makes the supply of uranium a non-issue. Catching a few parts per billion worth of uranium would be extremely hard. It's a lot more realistic to say that we'd be pulling in fissile material from space by the time it gets sparse enough in easily accessible parts of the crust to make that viable. Hell, it's more realistic to say fusion will be everyone's favorite power generation method by then (ITER is supposed to go online soonish, and they have practically no budget)
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 16:54
|
|