halfmanhalfbronco Posted December 3, 2020 Share Posted December 3, 2020 11 minutes ago, sactowndog said: I’m well educated thank you. The green plan is a goal not a detailed roadmap. It’s what good Presidents do. Set an aspirational goal, provide resources and let the smart people figure it out. Much of Healthcare is a necessary for life product. It doesn’t take much work or common sense to see that economically providing thousands of negotiating points for health providers to negotiate against is the by far less efficient system. By your model access to water would also be un-regulated. Again left is a relative term. Biden’s top tax rate is less than Reagan’s and equal to Clinton’s but people without perspective claim is some new far left proposal. good lord. A good aspirational goal is not what scientifically, logistically can not be obtained. The moon shot was an aspirational goal. Making the power grid free of carbon by '35 is not. It can't be done. Well it could be, with investment in nuclear. You thinking policy is "good" does not mean it is not further left than how any predecessor in any other general chose to adress it. It aslo does not mean it is inherently bad. His energy policy is bad, ignorant and not scientificly sound, but that is for another discussion. And you say I am arrogant. You believe if you agree with policy the policy transcends left or right and the only word for it is correct. Fug out of here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrofade Posted December 3, 2020 Share Posted December 3, 2020 5 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said: A good aspirational goal is not what scientifically, logistically can not be obtained. The moon shot was an aspirational goal. Making the power grid free of carbon by '35 is not. It can't be done. Well it could be, with investment in nuclear. You thinking policy is "good" does not mean it is not further left than how any predecessor in any other general chose to adress it. It aslo does not mean it is inherently bad. His energy policy is bad, ignorant and not scientificly sound, but that is for another discussion. And you say I am arrogant. You believe if you agree with policy the policy transcends left or right and the only word for it is correct. Fug out of here. That isn't the Biden plan though. I think that net-zero by 2050 is certainly an aspirational goal and one that could (and should) spur on new innovations. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halfmanhalfbronco Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 58 minutes ago, retrofade said: That isn't the Biden plan though. I think that net-zero by 2050 is certainly an aspirational goal and one that could (and should) spur on new innovations. Wrong. Here is his 2035 plan. It enovles the grid. His 2050 plan envolves the entire country being carbon neutral. Two different things. https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/biden-s-2035-carbon-free-power-goal-requires-supercharged-innovation-decade-60275901 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East Coast Aztec Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 10 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said: Wrong. Here is his 2035 plan. It enovles the grid. His 2050 plan envolves the entire country being carbon neutral. Two different things. https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/biden-s-2035-carbon-free-power-goal-requires-supercharged-innovation-decade-60275901 Seems like he is rushing it. Investing and shifting toward is something I would like to see, but when I looked up the two commentators in the article (McCarthy and Moniz), I am going to pay heed to the one who dived more into the science, who stated it was very lofty of a goal, too lofty. Hopefully he will too. And don't kill one energy source until the replacement is stable, please. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BSUTOP25 Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 We as a country should be 100% committed to developing a diverse and secure energy policy with nuclear at the core. Continue to invest in and expand renewables like solar, wind, etc. but focus on waning ourselves off the significant degree of dependency we have today on fossil fuels. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maji Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 11 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said: We as a country should be 100% committed to developing a diverse and secure energy policy with nuclear at the core. Continue to invest in and expand renewables like solar, wind, etc. but focus on waning ourselves off the significant degree of dependency we have today on fossil fuels. Unfortunately most people are overly frightened by nuclear power. When safe & effective nuclear fusion stations are ready people will still be wetting their pants 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNLV2001 Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 10 minutes ago, Maji said: Unfortunately most people are overly frightened by nuclear power. When safe & effective nuclear fusion stations are ready people will still be wetting their pants Some folks are profusion and some are confusion 1 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halfmanhalfbronco Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 1 hour ago, Maji said: Unfortunately most people are overly frightened by nuclear power. When safe & effective nuclear fusion stations are ready people will still be wetting their pants Dumb. We do not need to wait for god damn cold fusion. Stupid piece of shit democrats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tspoke Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 1 minute ago, halfmanhalfbronco said: Dumb. We donnot need to wait for god damn cold fusion. Stupid piece of shit democrats. Is fear of nuclear a left-right thing? I don't see nuclear plants going up in red states either. More of a stupid American thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halfmanhalfbronco Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 14 minutes ago, tspoke said: Is fear of nuclear a left-right thing? I don't see nuclear plants going up in red states either. More of a stupid American thing? You are correct. The right is no more willing. However they are not calling to completely remove fossil fuels from the grid in one and a half decades with ZERO plan. We can run an entire grid with zero fossil fuels using nuclear fission as the primary source of constant energy. We can not with wind and solar. Period. Democrats are the anti science party right now with Biden. But being anti science gives them warm fuzzies. We do not need to wait for +++++ing cold fusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halfmanhalfbronco Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 We do not need to wait for stable cold fusion like @Maji suggested even though he got likes. That is idiotic. Nuclear fission can work just fine and be far safer than any other energy resource. Our next generation reactors are meltdown proof. No reason in hell we should wait a +++++ing century for fusion before making nuclear the staple of our grid. But democrats hate science. Such an anti science party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maji Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 1 minute ago, halfmanhalfbronco said: We do not need to wait for stable cold fusion like @Maji suggested even though he got likes. That is idiotic. Nuclear fission can work just fine and be far safer than any other energy resource. Our next generation reactors are meltdown proof. No reason in hell we should wait a +++++ing century for fusion before making nuclear the staple of grid. But democrats hate science. Such an anti science party. I'm not saying we need to wait for that. Just using it as an example of how people will be scared of nuclear either way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mugtang Posted December 4, 2020 Author Share Posted December 4, 2020 3 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said: We do not need to wait for stable cold fusion like @Maji suggested even though he got likes. That is idiotic. Nuclear fission can work just fine and be far safer than any other energy resource. Our next generation reactors are meltdown proof. No reason in hell we should wait a +++++ing century for fusion before making nuclear the staple of our grid. But democrats hate science. Such an anti science party. Nuclear is the only option to combat climate change. 2 Quote thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halfmanhalfbronco Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 4 minutes ago, Maji said: I'm not saying we need to wait for that Then why say "once fusion durka durr". Fission energy is safe and can actually power a grid. Fusion is 100 or more years away unless we dump huge money in investing in it. Maybe something like Bidens idiotic two trillion. Then it may be 75 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mugtang Posted December 4, 2020 Author Share Posted December 4, 2020 1 minute ago, halfmanhalfbronco said: Then why say "once fusion durka durr". Fission energy is safe and can actually power a grid. Fusion is 100 or more years away unless we dump huge money in investing in it. Maybe something like Bidens idiotic two trillion. Then it may ne 75 Let’s mine the moon for He3 1 1 Quote thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halfmanhalfbronco Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 4 minutes ago, mugtang said: Nuclear is the only option to combat climate change. Yup. That is just science and no we do not need to wait for some cold fusion unicorn. Fission is a wonderful, miraculous energy source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maji Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 1 minute ago, halfmanhalfbronco said: Then why say "once fusion durka durr". Because it would be a transformative innovation and nuclear detractors would still not be convinced I think it's closer than 100 years away Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halfmanhalfbronco Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 11 minutes ago, Maji said: Because it would be a transformative innovation and nuclear detractors would still not be convinced I think it's closer than 100 years away It is not because there is no will to invest. 8 years ago Nature said we are 70 years away with global funding. We do not have global funding. Cold fusion is a pipe dream until liberal governments decide it is a good thing to invest in nuclear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halfmanhalfbronco Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 And an energy plan for two +++++ing trillion that does not give one cent to nuclear is bad science partisan bull shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maji Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 Just now, halfmanhalfbronco said: It is not because there is no will to invest. 8 years ago Nature said we are 70 years away with global funding. We do not have global funding. Cold fusion is a pipe dream until liberal governments decide it is a good thing to invest in nuclear. Cold fusion, perhaps https://www.newscientist.com/article/2261246-uk-takes-step-towards-worlds-first-nuclear-fusion-power-station/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...