Jump to content
mugtang

The GOP has lost it

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

I am talking cold fusion.  Fusion otherwise does not work lol.

And @Maji JET is a net energy drain.  It is great research but it takes far more energy to run than it produces.  We need to invest in nuclear like we do with green.  Period.  Productive cost effective cold fusion is sci fi right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, East Coast Aztec said:

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.

Good lord.  He isn’t going to leave the country without energy.  You want to get somewhere set an audacious goal.  That is how, and only how, big things in government get done.   If you try a minimalist incremental plan things get done via a million incremental cuts.   
 

you two ought to actually spend 6 months working in Washington.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sactowndog said:

Good lord.  He isn’t going to leave the country without energy.  You want to get somewhere set an audacious goal.  That is how, and only how, big things in government get done.   If you try a minimalist incremental plan things get done via a million incremental cuts.   
 

you two ought to actually spend 6 months working in Washington.   

Your first paragraph is the exact reason I wouldn't want to spend months in DC.  I did spend a few weeks there, as a part of a symposium during grad school.  It is a grotesque blob of dutch rudder and quid pro quo.  Pass.  

Either way, we have seen heavy subsidy for at-the-time weak and wasteful energy systems like wind while implementing policy that crimps fossil fuel production.  We see calls for limiting natural gas distribution while doing billion dollar hydro-dam installs.  And we are seeing the rhetoric of short timetables of zero-emission when the replacement is not going to be ready, based on some of the experts.  I get what you are going with with the shoot for the moon tactic that permeates political strategy.  But to act like what I suggest isn't logical is as silly as suggesting anyone to work in DC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

And @Maji JET is a net energy drain.  It is great research but it takes far more energy to run than it produces.  We need to invest in nuclear like we do with green.  Period.  Productive cost effective cold fusion is sci fi right now.

It's an interesting experiment

My point was never that fusion is required for viability. It isn't. Current technology is already useful. The fusion example was to further how irrational the opposition is. You've got my views mixed up here

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

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.  

Where do you get this idea that everyone on "the left" is anti nuclear and everyone on "the right" is pro.  This is a problem with the two party system in that we think every problem is binary. 

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Molten Salt reactors are probably the answer as they are "meltdown proof"

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.interestingengineering.com/how-molten-salt-reactors-could-lead-to-the-next-energy-production-boom

The reactor is already in a natural state of meltdown as a normal condition,  no control rods are required,  no bombs can be made,  no expensive containment buildings.    The plant will shut itself down if the power fails without human intervention.  It burns traditional nuclear waste.   Only produces 1 ton of waste that only needs storage for 300 years. 

  • Like 1
Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Akkula said:

Where do you get this idea that everyone on "the left" is anti nuclear and everyone on "the right" is pro.  This is a problem with the two party system in that we think every problem is binary. 

Every politician on the left is anti nuclear.  Or it would have a cent of funding in Bidens radical left energy plan.

Oh and no the right is not pro nuclear.  Nuclear is a staple of the Libertarian party.  Like I told @renoskier we are just smarter.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Every politician on the left is anti nuclear.  Or it would have a cent of funding in Bidens radical left energy plan.

Oh and no thr right is not pr nuclear.  Nuclear is a staple of the Libertarian party.  Like I told @renoskier we are just smarter.

Everything I read suggests that major embrace of Nuclear will require increased government involvement in production of energy. So the libertarians should be ambivalent about Nuclear as the answer to climate change, and a lot of them are. 

I agree that we should embrace Nuclear. But that also will mean a less libertarian energy policy. 

  • Like 1

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

They are a good investment

  Only anti science democrats think they are a solution to becoming carbon neutral.  Idiots.

T Boone Pickens - anti science democrat.

 

 

Yeah...ok....

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

They are a good investment

  Only anti science democrats think they are a solution to becoming carbon neutral.  Idiots.

I dunno... I think the most libertarian energy policy would be to invest in storage technology, and allow each individual to utilize solar panels and individual generation to fill that storage. No more grid at all. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, smltwnrckr said:

I dunno... I think the most libertarian energy policy would be to invest in storage technology, and allow each individual to utilize solar panels and individual generation to fill that storage. No more grid at all. 

Storage requires the mining REM.  Small salt reactors the size of cars can power city blocks.

And yes, nuclear power is the Libertarian parties official stance on reducing climate change, just through the private sector.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

T-Boone Pickens is a big solar guy?

Never knew.

I just wish democrats would embrace science instead of radicalism.  Idiots.

Solar and wind.  Or was.  Being dead now.

 

There is science behind renewables.  And, with any evolving technology, economies of scale are making them increasingly viable.

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Every politician on the left is anti nuclear.  Or it would have a cent of funding in Bidens radical left energy plan.

Oh and no the right is not pro nuclear.  Nuclear is a staple of the Libertarian party.  Like I told @renoskier we are just smarter.

A quick google search tells me that AOC is open to Nuclear as part of the green new deal.  

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...