Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 235: Autopsy-Turvy

(+) Yeah! (+)

Espeon posted...

David Koch died. Can someone else supply a link or article sourcing this?

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Espeon posted...

David Koch died. Can someone else supply a link or article sourcing this?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/23/politics/david-koch-dead/index.html ?

Anyway as usual with Bernie he is going bold with his vision, and I like it. I am not off hand anti-nuclear power personally, I don't know enough about the subject to be informed, but it sounds like Bernie is simply doing his usual "no half measures" approach.

Good fucking riddance

Also I basically agree with Chris w.r.t Nuclear power here and have a similar understanding of it

But to call an entire plan a joke because of one aspect of it is kind of absurd.

pyresword posted...

Why exactly are people advocating to eliminate nuclear power? Is the generated waste the issue?

Because people massively overestimate the risks and don't realize that getting rid of nuclear power forces us to rely on fossil fuels ever more. Getting 100% of our energy from renewables isn't going to be viable for decades (if ever), but "green" people refuse to see that.
---

Look LotM gets excited about Delaney so we know he isn't like most people already.
---

Reg posted...

But to call an entire plan a joke because of one aspect of it is kind of absurd.

it's LotM. he always gives bernie a way harder time than any other candidate.
---

Nothing is "completely renewable" in any sense because entropy, heat death of the universe, blah blah blah. A non-renewable resource that is sustainable over a long enough time period is literally exactly as valuable to us as a renewable resource. I don't know if nuclear power is thought to be quite that sustainable, but my understanding is that that time scale for nuclear power is long enough that it essentially doesn't matter. (a quick Google search suggests "thousands of years" as an absolute minimum based only on availability of uranium stores which are currently being mined)
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Nuclear power isn't completely renewable, it's main value is as a transition energy. So if you truly believe that you can make an incredibly rapid transition to sustainable energy in 10-15 years...there honestly isn't any reason to waste time and money on intermediate energy tech.

It's not renewable in the sense that uranium is not a limitless resource, but the greenhouse gas emissions are close to 0.

And in the short term, there's emissions associated with stuff like manufacturing (making concrete etc) you need to build and ship a lot less raw construction material to make a nuclear plant than you do to make a solar or wind plant with the same energy output.
---

Xeybozn posted...

pyresword posted...

Why exactly are people advocating to eliminate nuclear power? Is the generated waste the issue?

Because people massively overestimate the risks and don't realize that getting rid of nuclear power forces us to rely on fossil fuels ever more. Getting 100% of our energy from renewables isn't going to be viable for decades (if ever), but "green" people refuse to see that.

I am going to say one of the many things I love about Bernie Sanders. He doesn't start out with the compromise.

I am sure he will be more than glad to make concessions about this plan as long as the Republicans do the same about their ideas. Maybe change how we treat people at the border, for example.

When you start with the compromise you don't get anything you want, usually. Bernie understands that.
---

Opposing nuclear energy is like one of my biggest pet peeves, it panders to an ignorant crowd based on "nuclear" fearmongering
---

Why is nuclear power a "compromise" in the first place?
---

GuessMyUserName posted...

Opposing nuclear is like one of my biggest pet peeves, it panders to an ignorant crowd based on "nuclear" fearmongering

dude how much time do you think we have left to reduce carbon? its ignorant to think nuclear can save us at this point. 20 years ago, sure.

---

If we're going the nuclear energy route, we should be going thorium over uranium. As far as I understand it, there's less waste, and it's far more abundant. I believe Cern has also stated that 1 ton of Thorium can produce as much energy as 200 tons of uranium, and as much as 3.5 million tons of coal.
---

pyresword posted...

Why is nuclear power a "compromise" in the first place?

It's something that can be easily walked back to appease people like LotM without really impacting things

You can't propose doing the impossible with renewables as "as high, we can come up with an answer" while at the same time completely dismissing breakthroughs of research development in nuclear energy ie. small-scale reactors
---

Nrrr posted...

I live near Fukushima, and I have to buy all of the water I use for ANYTHING from plastic bottles because my water is not only irradiated but even filtered tastes like the worst thing I have ever tasted in my life. And I have licked crushed up MDMA!

That's because it is one of the few places where things went horribly wrong.

I lived near a man made lake where they stored the waste from the local plant and it was safe to sail and swim there. And the local tap water was also safe.

So yeah if there is a meltdown the results are horrible but the chances are tiny and get smaller and smaller as they make the plants safer.
---

metroid composite posted...

It's not renewable in the sense that uranium is not a limitless resource, but the greenhouse gas emissions are close to 0.

And in the short term, there's emissions associated with stuff like manufacturing (making concrete etc) you need to build and ship a lot less raw construction material to make a nuclear plant than you do to make a solar or wind plant with the same energy output.

My limited understanding is that even the fuel isn't a problem because there's sources other than uranium now, but no matter what you run into logistical issues with the waste that make it obnoxious and more impractical over long periods of time. And...the short term really shouldn't be a consideration here.

But I do agree that nuclear should be an important part of standard plans, which want net-zero, not even completely sustainable, by 2050.
---

pyresword posted...

Why exactly are people advocating to eliminate nuclear power? Is the generated waste the issue?

Honestly, the big things are the scariness of it to the layman coupled with a poor understanding of science. Essentially, people only support science when it fits their preconceived notions of how the world works.

The main issue for people that actually understand nuclear power is that waste disposal is an issue. It is currently nearly impossible to separate lanthanides from actinides and this is causing all sorts of problems, particularly when storing it is difficult and dangerous if people arent careful.

The good news is renewable energy is getting close to the point where it could likely replace nuclear power entirely in 10-15 years. The bad news is the planet is much worse off because of nuclear fear mongering for the past 40 years forcing us to rely on energy sources that are significantly dirtier and worse for the planet.
---

GuessMyUserName posted...

Opposing nuclear energy is like one of my biggest pet peeves, it panders to an ignorant crowd based on "nuclear" fearmongering

100% agree. I dont know how many friends I have that laugh at republicans for their ignorance on global warming (which they should) while at the same time talking about non GMO foods or how nuclear power is destroying the planet (which undermines their initial point because they dont care about science and are just as guilty as ignoring scientists and listening to the ramblings of people they agree with politically instead).

Like I said, people just listen to what they want to about science and ignore stuff that doesnt fit with what they want to believe, particularly in America.
---

The fears about GMOs are not about the idea of genetically modified organisms, which many of the foods we eat absolutely are, but about a skepticism of the organizations that are in charge of deciding what is OK for us to eat.

---

That is also crazy but also not true. Most people dont even understand what GMOs are other than their favorite health guru told them they were bad.

Like most of our foods are GMOs is a point too sophisticated that a lot of people that oppose them dont understand that and you have to explain it to them. You understand that which is good, but a lot of people have no clue and you have to start explaining with things like bananas and the like.
---

If you're actually serious about climate change, nuclear energy 100% needs to be in the conversation and planning, not dumped under populist FUD and thrown under the "impossible" bus that you're straight-up trying to steer away from the pitfalls of renewable energies in the same breath.

Nrrr posted...

The fears about GMOs are not about the idea of genetically modified organisms, which many of the foods we eat absolutely are, but about a skepticism of the organizations that are in charge of deciding what is OK for us to eat.

Holy fuck no this a garbage dismissal of a large portion of the anti-GMO movement that very much exists because they don't know what a fucking GMO. My mom is all up in these books by frauds and Dr. Oz.
---

its not crazy to think the government lies to the people, it does like....all the time. its crazy to suggest otherwise.

and people are not as stupid as you think, they are just lied to constantly by the government and corporations and assume that the world is not anywhere near as cynical as it is.

---

GuessMyUserName posted...

If you're actually serious about climate change, nuclear energy 100% needs to be in the conversation and planning, not dumped under populist FUD and thrown under the "impossible" bus that you're straight-up trying to steer away from the pitfalls of renewable energies in the same breath.

Holy fuck no this a garbage dismissal of a large portion of the anti-GMO movement that very much exists because they don't know what a fucking GMO. My mom is all up in these books by frauds and Dr. Oz.

I mean your mom is probably dumb but if you think nuclear energy can save us, that is just as much of a belief in fraudulent information. if you believe the government agencies about the safety of food, or agricultural practices, etc, instead of assuming they are paid to say whatever corporations want, its literally just as stupid.

---

GuessMyUserName posted...

My mom is all up in these books by frauds and Dr. Oz.

So you're saying a huge piece of Anti-GMO is literally just fraud pushed by people to make money off morons and uninformed people?

I totally agree with this.

Great, I am open for a debate about Nuclear Energy, sounds like a healthy one.

Rest of the plan sounds good though!
---

GuessMyUserName posted...

If you're actually serious about climate change, nuclear energy 100% needs to be in the conversation and planning, not dumped under populist FUD and thrown under the "impossible" bus that you're straight-up trying to steer away from the pitfalls of renewable energies in the same breath.

Nrrr posted...

The fears about GMOs are not about the idea of genetically modified organisms, which many of the foods we eat absolutely are, but about a skepticism of the organizations that are in charge of deciding what is OK for us to eat.

Holy fuck no this a garbage dismissal of a large portion of the anti-GMO movement that very much exists because they don't know what a fucking GMO. My mom is all up in these books by frauds and Dr. Oz.

Your mom and like 95% of the anti-GMO movement. I dont know how many people Ive talked to where someone like Dr. Oz is the first person they cite.
---

Nrrr posted...

GuessMyUserName posted...

If you're actually serious about climate change, nuclear energy 100% needs to be in the conversation and planning, not dumped under populist FUD and thrown under the "impossible" bus that you're straight-up trying to steer away from the pitfalls of renewable energies in the same breath.

Holy fuck no this a garbage dismissal of a large portion of the anti-GMO movement that very much exists because they don't know what a fucking GMO. My mom is all up in these books by frauds and Dr. Oz.

I mean your mom is probably dumb but if you think nuclear energy can save us, that is just as much of a belief in fraudulent information. if you believe the government agencies about the safety of food, or agricultural practices, etc, instead of assuming they are paid to say whatever corporations want, its literally just as stupid.

this is dumb, I didn't say any of that

these issues are more complicated than nuclear savior government good
---

Bernie wants 100% renewable in ten years. Whether or not that's feasible is one thing, but in the context of his plan not having nuclear makes sense, seeing as they take like eight years to build. Even without nuclear it's a better plan than anybody else has

oh there's a new page and it's been said
---

GuessMyUserName posted...

these issues are more complicated than nuclear savior government good

"I didn't say any of that"

---

GuessMyUserName posted...

If you're actually serious about climate change, nuclear energy 100% needs to be in the conversation and planning, not dumped under populist FUD and thrown under the "impossible" bus that you're straight-up trying to steer away from the pitfalls of renewable energies in the same breath.

Not impossible, but if the renewable plan is a valid option why not take it? Not to mention that aiming high and failing is completely fine as long as the minimum targets I mentioned are still met. I think Bernie attempting to get to 100% renewable, failing, but still cutting emissions in half is the most likely outcome and that's STILL a great, if not better, result. But maybe even that is unreasonable.
---

Also if I can put my tinfoil hat on, I do have to wonder if part of the political opposition to nuclear as a solution to climate change is because it's a worldwide effort and that would mean giving nuclear technology to basically every country for free.
---

nuclear is pretty safe if you're not fucking stupid, and although that's asking a lot from human kind, we're talking big boy stupidity here. Like, you've probably seen Chernobyl and the clusterfuck of bullshit that had to happen to cause the reactor to have an oopsie. A lot of times they were asking "How can an RBMK reactor explode?", so despite the massive pile of mistakes they had to make for it to go so wrong, people might be tempted to think proclamations of safety about new reactors are similarly optimistic. Modern tech is forty years newer and has more fundamental safety implementations, like in a molten salt reactor where if power is cut, the reactants are automatically separated to prevent continued fission, where in the depicted Chernobyl reactor dealing with cut power was their main concern. That'd also help with Fukushima's issue, in addition to not building one where earthquakes + tsunamis are semi-common occurrences. There are definitely more surefire ways not to avoid fuckups, and the more we rely on aging decades-old reactors the more likely we are to see Bad Things. Nuclear waste is more a political issue than an engineering one. No states want the waste, and IIRC red tape makes it extremely difficult to move it around. There are ways to get rid of it. Breeder reactors for example

I'm sure LotM can explain in more detail why nuclear isn't dumb and his frustration with the generally blind, dogmatic opposition. A given oil tanker or oceanic pipeline accident is probably worse for the environment, although I guess they can be cleaned more easily
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Lmao Bernie's Green New Deal plan aims to end nuclear power usage and rejects carbon capture as a "false solution"

What a fucking joke:

Phase out the use of non-sustainable sources. This plan will stop the building of new nuclear power plants and find a real solution to our existing nuclear waste problem. It will also enact a moratorium on nuclear power plant license renewals in the United States to protect surrounding communities. We know that the toxic waste byproducts of nuclear plants are not worth the risks of the technologys benefit, especially in light of lessons learned from the Fukushima meltdown and the Chernobyl disaster. To get to our goal of 100 percent sustainable energy, we will not rely on any false solutions like nuclear, geoengineering, carbon capture and sequestration, or trash incinerators.

My understanding with CCS has been this:

The most effective way to capture carbon emissions is by capturing them at the source. This means at whatever coal plant or other carbon emitting plant you want. But the cost to retrofit an existing plant is prohibitively expensive. It's more cost-effective to actually build a new plant with carbon capture in mind than to retrofit an existing one, which doesn't result in less emissions-- it results in less of an increase in emissions.

Bernie's been pretty consistently against nuclear though, and that's one area I disagree with him on.
---

rip Koch topic

https://imgur.com/a/vp9PUri

---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

rip Koch topic

https://imgur.com/a/vp9PUri

Huh? Do I have someone blocked that mentioned the Koch brothers?
---

we are all mourning right now.

---

you have blocked or been blocked by the Nrrr account

---

Oh wow. Cyclo has me blocked.
---

Espeon posted...

Oh wow. Cyclo has me blocked.

I think he has like half the topic blocked and I don't really know why <_<

"Inviso
Im genuinely starting to dislike him more than Smuffin/Sephy

NFUN 05/01/2019
Unlike them he's intelligent and actually has consistent views, even if some takes suck

Inviso05/01/2019
Is he though?
His mindset is just as extreme as theirs

NFUN 05/01/2019
He is

Inviso05/01/2019
Only their spoiled, self-centered mentality will never backfire on them, because there is not an event imaginable that could negatively impact them in a devastating manner
Cyclo, meanwhile, is spoiled and self-centered all the same
But would rather self-destruct"

bizarre fucked up stuff why this guy would block!!!

---

Cyclo wants the echo chamber people accuse these topics of being
---

Interesting how a disagreement on one aspect of an admittedly bold proposal, with plenty of room to negotiate from, puts LotM in step with SephG once again.

HashtagSEP posted...

Cyclo wants the echo chamber people accuse these topics of being

An echo chamber of only wanting good faith arguments, seems legit. Literally this topic series has had hundreds of posts telling people to block the Red Sox/SephG trolling crowd, why would he want to talk to someone who said hes as bad or worse than them?
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Interesting how a disagreement on one aspect of an admittedly bold proposal, with plenty of room to negotiate from, puts LotM in step with SephG once again.

HashtagSEP posted...

Cyclo wants the echo chamber people accuse these topics of being

An echo chamber of only wanting good faith arguments, seems legit. Literally this topic series has had hundreds of posts telling people to block the Red Sox/SephG trolling crowd, why would he want to talk to someone who said hes as bad or worse than them?

Hes as bad as CORRIK. Red Sox and Sephy are worse. But none of them post in good faith and are worth engaging.
---

I mean he has blocked people that didn't even do that mainly just for arguing with him so

Cyclo goes off the deep end, people argue with it, and he blocks them. It's a pretty simple cycle.
---

I rest my case, bitch .

---

Lmao

---

I mean, cmon Tony. How is Cyclos the government is evil and you should never trust anything they say, and only Saint Bernie can save us! shtick any more productive than the nonservative trolls that plague this topic series? He genuinely IS as bad as them, and only serves to denigrate left-wing ideals by painting them as just as unhinged as the shit Red Sox says. Its like how the right-wing fields so many terrorist groups, but all they need is Antifa breaking windows to claim both sides are bad.
---

I don't get how I'm supposed to treat "You can't trust literally anything ever from the government or any book or magazine or article or anything ever unless it's from somebody making very clear they aren't THE MAN also don't give me that 'Not all cops are bad' shit fuck all cops all cops are bad they should all die only Bernie can save us by getting rid of the government and cops" as "good faith arguing."
---

And keep in mind, Im not saying that to bash Bernie, like I know Ive done in the past. At this point, I genuinely want him to be the candidate. But Cyclo just takes things WAY too far, in a completely irrational and unreasonable fashion.
---

Play Undertale.
---