Green New Deal

[Deleted User 62]

Dc and Illy:

[Deleted User 75]

Dc and Illy:

the vast majority of his content is a condescending putdown that adds nothing to the conversation.

[PhDhawk]

Good lord, grow up.

the vast majority of his content is a condescending putdown that adds nothing to the conversation.

[DCHawk1]

I hear the Fukushima nuclear reactor has had some emissions.

I heard that you're an idiot.

Oh, burn!

If nuclear is a zero emissions power source then go drink a glass of river water downstream from Fukushima.

I can't be held responsible for the fact that can't read and are fucking ill-informed. That's on you.

[DCHawk1]

I hear the Fukushima nuclear reactor has had some emissions.

the vast majority of his content is a condescending putdown that adds nothing to the conversation.

Good lord, grow up.

lulz.

[jhawks99]

What to do with the nucular waist?

You keep pushing forward toward fusion, which is no longer a pipe dream.

That would be ideal.

[twocoach]

I heard that you're an idiot.

Oh, burn!

If nuclear is a zero emissions power source then go drink a glass of river water downstream from Fukushima.

I can't be held responsible for the fact that can't read and are fucking ill-informed. That's on you.

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.

[Deleted User 75]

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....

[Deleted User 75]

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!).

[Deleted User 89]

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?

[Deleted User 75]

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?

Not always....but when one is DC and one is twocoach, I usually assume DC is right.

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.

[zsn]

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!

[DCHawk1]

Oh, burn!

If nuclear is a zero emissions power source then go drink a glass of river water downstream from Fukushima.

I can't be held responsible for the fact that can't read and are fucking ill-informed. That's on you.

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.

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.

All of which is to say that your Fukushima response is both hysterical and ignorant.

[twocoach]

I can't be held responsible for the fact that can't read and are fucking ill-informed. That's on you.

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.

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.

All of which is to say that your Fukushima response is both hysterical and ignorant.

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.

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.

[DCHawk1]

http://www.world-nuclear.org/informatio ... ctors.aspx

https://www.popularmechanics.com/scienc ... ack-again/

[kubandalum]

why is no cars unrealistic?

maybe you should travel more, experience the world...

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.”

Mass transit? Try googling “condition of subways New York.” And how is that California bullet train coming along?

[twocoach]

http://www.world-nuclear.org/informatio ... ctors.aspx

https://www.popularmechanics.com/scienc ... ack-again/

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".

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.

[kubandalum]

"Coal provides almost 18% of Americas energy"

LMAO

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.

[Deleted User 62]

"Coal provides almost 18% of Americas energy"

LMAO

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.

18% is a pretty small amount for Cheeto Mussolini to hang his hat on.

[Deleted User 62]

"Coal provides almost 18% of Americas energy"

LMAO

coal did recharge a lot of “clean” electric cars.

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"