Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, frenchie said:

How long do nuke plants last, what happens to ... etc.

Quit dancing around.  You fucked up.  Why can't you just admit it & move on?

This fuckin place, sometimes...

 

And if we builda bunch of new plants...?

Which political considerations pretty much prevent.

Fucked up?  Yeah me and your high climate priest James Hansen:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-must-make-a-comeback-for-climate-s-sake/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

How much will it take for you to shut the fuck up and never post here again Mis Raz'r Jib? That was fun.

One of the few things you posted I agree with.  It is however the only (legal) entity that has the power to send people with guns to bend you to it's will.

Posted Images

1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

JZK isn't particularly good at staying up to date with science

How are your math skills?  Any better than your knowledge of Denmark's government?  How many Americans comprise 38% of this country?

"One of the biggest problems that we have is 200 million Americans make less than $20,000 a year. That’s 40 percent of this country." - AOC

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phillysailor said:

In 2014, 38% of Americans earned less than $20,000 according to the government.

And according to this article, the number of job losses in Seattle isn't as bad as your doom-sayers would have you believe. Your nattering nabobs of negativity are quoting a UW study published in 2017. This SAME TEAM revisited the data in December 2018, and have revised their opinion. So please, try to be up to date with your facts.

Sorry to embarrass you again.

Go back and read AOC's statement again.  The embarrassment, my friend, is all yours.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jzk said:

Go back and read AOC's statement again.  The embarrassment, my friend, is all yours.  

Hey, its a democracy. The proposal is just that... a starting point. It is non-binding, and the point of introducing it is so that it can be amended, voted on and modified before passage.

Again, the "democratic process."

I've read her statement, and don't have to agree with each and every sentence to support the idea that we need to change.

You are requiring that you must endorse every single proposal, line by line, in order to engage in a discussion.

Your attitude and approach to legislation is unAmerican. Learn to negotiate and compromise. It is necessary in a democracy, and we will fail if people like you successfully derail that process. The Republican party has existed so long as the party of NO that they are incapable of governing in a democratic fashion. You are a classic example.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, phillysailor said:

Hey, its a democracy. The proposal is just that... a starting point. It is non-binding, and the point of introducing it is so that it can be amended, voted on and modified before passage.

Again, the "democratic process."

I've read her statement, and don't have to agree with each and every sentence to support the idea that we need to change.

You are requiring that you must endorse every single proposal, line by line, in order to engage in a discussion.

Your attitude and approach to legislation is unAmerican. Learn to negotiate and compromise. It is necessary in a democracy, and we will fail if people like you successfully derail that process. The Republican party has existed so long as the party of NO that they are incapable of governing in a democratic fashion. You are a classic example.

Firstly, part of the democratic process is that there will be opposition.  But what does that have to do with AOC's claim that 200 million people are 40% of the country?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jzk said:

Firstly, part of the democratic process is that there will be opposition.  But what does that have to do with AOC's claim that 200 million people are 40% of the country?

Ya got her!

Nailed her on a statistic! Well done. You win the interweb today, and that socialist demon Ocasio is forever vanquished.

Congratulations! How can I send you your medal? You've really earned it with all your hard effort. Let me tell you how proud I am of you, how right you are, and I hereby pledge to announce to the world the unending greatness and intelligence of the genius named jzk.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, phillysailor said:
17 minutes ago, jzk said:

Firstly, part of the democratic process is that there will be opposition.  But what does that have to do with AOC's claim that 200 million people are 40% of the country?

Ya got her!

Nailed her on a statistic! Well done. You win the interweb today, and that socialist demon Ocasio is forever vanquished.

Congratulations! How can I send you your medal? You've really earned it with all your hard effort. Let me tell you how proud I am of you, how right you are, and I hereby pledge to announce to the world the unending greatness and intelligence of the genius named jzk.

Coulda been worse.  She could've said "57 states".

Of course, both of those misstatements are so much worse than the bullshit President Trump pedals on a daily basis.

By all means, focus on the first-term Congresswoman and ignore the bonehead in the Oval Office.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Coulda been worse.  She could've said "57 states".

Of course, both of those misstatements are so much worse than the bullshit President Trump pedals on a daily basis.

By all means, focus on the first-term Congresswoman and ignore the bonehead in the Oval Office.

Maybe you could start a thread for Trump's misstatements.  This is the AOC thread.  Or is it just all Trump all the time? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jzk said:

Maybe you could start a thread for Trump's misstatements.  This is the AOC thread.  Or is it just all Trump all the time? 

You gots it: Trump all the time . . . and sometimes James Hansen.

54 minutes ago, jzk said:

Fucked up?  Yeah me and your high climate priest James Hansen:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-must-make-a-comeback-for-climate-s-sake/

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Saorsa said:

...   ...    ...

Incidentally, reprocessing spent fuel is an engineering solution.

 

An engineering solution that hasn't been done on a scale bigger than a lab bench, and there are problems...... basically we are not sure how to do it.

I'm an engineer myself, if we could make nuclear power solve the energy problems, I'd be all for it. But it doesn't. Assuming the rosy predictions of stuff we don't really know how to do yet, in your link to Scientific American, does in fact give us 230+ years of nuclear power....... awesome, but then what? We've got a shitload of this extremely poisonous waste that will be around for tens of thousands of years. The containment facility will literally have to be built to withstand continental drift, that's the time scale.

If that sounds like a good deal to you, you are a worse business man than Trump.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Danceswithoctopus said:

You gots it: Trump all the time . . . and sometimes James Hansen.

 

Welcome @Danceswithoctopus!  You will fit in just fine here - i.e. just another left wing loon with a POV indistinguishable from dozens of others in this cesspool.

  • Downvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

An engineering solution that hasn't been done on a scale bigger than a lab bench, and there are problems...... basically we are not sure how to do it.

I'm an engineer myself, if we could make nuclear power solve the energy problems, I'd be all for it. But it doesn't. Assuming the rosy predictions of stuff we don't really know how to do yet, in your link to Scientific American, does in fact give us 230+ years of nuclear power....... awesome, but then what? We've got a shitload of this extremely poisonous waste that will be around for tens of thousands of years. The containment facility will literally have to be built to withstand continental drift, that's the time scale.

If that sounds like a good deal to you, you are a worse business man than Trump.

-DSK

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/10/01/why-doesnt-u-s-recycle-nuclear-fuel/#7b65b6db390f

From the cite

A major obstacle to nuclear fuel recycling in the United States has been the perception that it’s not cost-effective and that it could lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Those were the reasons President Jimmy Carter gave in 1977 when he prohibited it, preferring instead to bury spent nuclear fuel deep underground. Thirty-seven years later we’re no closer to doing that than we were in 1977.

France, Great Britain and Japan, among other nations, rejected Carter’s solution. Those countries realized that spent nuclear fuel is a valuable asset, not simply waste requiring disposal.

As a result, France today generates 80 percent of its electricity needs with nuclear power, much of it generated through recycling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The energy problem is very real and very fucking hard.  For the math which helps to bracket the problem,  like Tom Murphy of  https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/   He's a CalTech educated Astrophysicist and  UC San Diego Prof who LOVES renewables, put his house on solar, drives a Prius, the whole shebang.  He'd set out to actually try and come up with a solution using every known technology. 

This is a really nice summary: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/02/my-great-hope-for-the-future/

  • The growth paradigm must end. A finite world with finite resources will not continue to support growth. Fossil fuels enabled a growth explosion, but those days are closing out. Even futuristic energy sources cook us in mere centuries on a continued growth trajectory. Folks who think the solution is to expand into space can step off the train now, since my primary interest is in addressing this century’s problems. Adios, space-migos.
  • Conventional oil production will soon begin terminal decline. Our most important energy currency will no longer keep up with demand. This will quite possibly be accompanied by instability and loss of confidence in long-term growth, bringing damaging economic consequences.
  • Alternatives do not stack up to the practical perks of fossil fuels. We will not simply migrate to the new sources without discomfort (in part, higher or even unaffordable costs).
  • Transportation is hard. Most alternatives allow direct production of heat and/or electricity, but few result in liquid fuels to perpetuate our mobile economy. Electric vehicles offer expensive work-arounds for some parts of the transportation sector, but not without sacrificed capabilities.
  • The Energy Trap exacts a toll on a late realization that we really should take energy resource shortages seriously. Given the tendency of societies to react to crises, rather than anticipate them, we will likely find ourselves wishing we had started decades before the crisis—preparing for a transition of unprecedented scale.
  • Complexity cannot be ignored. Before we actually get off our duffs to address a decline in liquid fuels, economies may already be reeling from energy shortfall, and may not be in a position to carry out an expensive, large-scale build-out of a new energy infrastructure. This is exacerbated by the likely situation that we will not collectively agree on the route forward, and market omniscience will be similarly confused by volatility and the inability of a high-unemployment society to afford the more expensive alternatives.
  • Many people point to the global population boom as the fundamental problem that must be addressed. I have not covered this directly in Do the Math, except in the context of evaluating exactly what sustainability means. I see the population explosion as a predictable reflection of surplus energy, which revolutionized agriculture and promoted more mouths in the world. On the flip side, energy scarcity translates to ugly population pressures via reduced food production and possibly hoarding.

He's kinda mixed on Nuclear but thinks its going to be a pretty important resource.  As are these folks - The Union of Concerned Scientists.  Interestingly enough, both think Nuclear is an important resource that's been generally poorly handled.  Here's the link to their full report https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2018/11/Nuclear-Power-Dilemma-full-report.pdf

I particularly recommend reading Murphy's summaries on energy storage.  That is the problem with renewables.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jzk said:

Maybe you could start a thread for Trump's misstatements.  This is the AOC thread.  Or is it just all Trump all the time? 

Just pointing out the absurdity of focusing on the stupid things one person says, while completely ignoring the continual lying of someone whose role is far more consequential.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, frenchie said:

Anyone solve the nuclear waste problem, yet? 

I remember in high school, we had a dude come from Point Lepreau, gave a presentation about CANDU & suchlike.  One of those pre-recruiting type of things, to encourage us highschoolers to go into nuclear physics. 

During the question & answer period at the end, I asked about the waste issue (I'd been to Cold Lake the previous summer, and had time to read up, and think about Nuclear power some...); he didn't have much of an answer.  Basically just predicted we'd have that issue solved in the next couple of decades.  I think he might have mentionned breeder reactors or something like that. 

Mainly, I remember how I wanted to ask a follow-up question, but he didn't call on me after that, and it was real obvious to everyone there that I'd made him... uncomfortable. 

Anyways.  That was over 35 years ago.  They've had their couple of decades.  They solve it yet? 

They considered Michigan perfect geographically.  Michiganders said NIMBY.  Whose back yard wants it?  Hazardous waste sites are disproportionately in poor black communities.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2019 at 7:32 PM, The Joker said:

Love the fact that a Canadian is suffering from TDS.  

Historically it is very rare for a sitting  president to not win a second term.  

Only twice in the last 75 years Carter and Bush Senior Bush only lost because Perot was a third party.  

Watching the Chaos in the DNC and barring something dramatic from Mueller or a serious downturn in the economy. I expect Trump to win a second term and yes heads will explode.  

H. W. Bush said read these lips, no new taxes.  And then having some sense about him, he raised taxes.  The right crucified him for that.

After Clinton ran a moderate government which included reducing the deficit, W blew it up.  Clinton, the President who made compromises and worked across the isle.  I'm getting nostalgic for Clinton.

The little don is blowing the economy again.  AOC wants to deal with the real issues that matter to working people.  Hell, I believe she'll even let the retired folks keep their social security.

The little don has to expand his base.  He is afraid to try.  If he tries, the base will go ballistic.  Witness his old friend Ms. Coulter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cmilliken said:

The energy problem is very real and very fucking hard.  For the math which helps to bracket the problem,  like Tom Murphy of  https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/   He's a CalTech educated Astrophysicist and  UC San Diego Prof who LOVES renewables, put his house on solar, drives a Prius, the whole shebang.  He'd set out to actually try and come up with a solution using every known technology. 

This is a really nice summary: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/02/my-great-hope-for-the-future/

  • The growth paradigm must end. A finite world with finite resources will not continue to support growth. Fossil fuels enabled a growth explosion, but those days are closing out. Even futuristic energy sources cook us in mere centuries on a continued growth trajectory. Folks who think the solution is to expand into space can step off the train now, since my primary interest is in addressing this century’s problems. Adios, space-migos.
  • Conventional oil production will soon begin terminal decline. Our most important energy currency will no longer keep up with demand. This will quite possibly be accompanied by instability and loss of confidence in long-term growth, bringing damaging economic consequences.
  • Alternatives do not stack up to the practical perks of fossil fuels. We will not simply migrate to the new sources without discomfort (in part, higher or even unaffordable costs).
  • Transportation is hard. Most alternatives allow direct production of heat and/or electricity, but few result in liquid fuels to perpetuate our mobile economy. Electric vehicles offer expensive work-arounds for some parts of the transportation sector, but not without sacrificed capabilities.
  • The Energy Trap exacts a toll on a late realization that we really should take energy resource shortages seriously. Given the tendency of societies to react to crises, rather than anticipate them, we will likely find ourselves wishing we had started decades before the crisis—preparing for a transition of unprecedented scale.
  • Complexity cannot be ignored. Before we actually get off our duffs to address a decline in liquid fuels, economies may already be reeling from energy shortfall, and may not be in a position to carry out an expensive, large-scale build-out of a new energy infrastructure. This is exacerbated by the likely situation that we will not collectively agree on the route forward, and market omniscience will be similarly confused by volatility and the inability of a high-unemployment society to afford the more expensive alternatives.
  • Many people point to the global population boom as the fundamental problem that must be addressed. I have not covered this directly in Do the Math, except in the context of evaluating exactly what sustainability means. I see the population explosion as a predictable reflection of surplus energy, which revolutionized agriculture and promoted more mouths in the world. On the flip side, energy scarcity translates to ugly population pressures via reduced food production and possibly hoarding.

He's kinda mixed on Nuclear but thinks its going to be a pretty important resource.  As are these folks - The Union of Concerned Scientists.  Interestingly enough, both think Nuclear is an important resource that's been generally poorly handled.  Here's the link to their full report https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2018/11/Nuclear-Power-Dilemma-full-report.pdf

I particularly recommend reading Murphy's summaries on energy storage.  That is the problem with renewables.

Growth paradigm. - Absolutely but folks don't even think of that when I call consumerism our problem that creates almost all others.  OBTW, there are a couple of billion people in China and India who want air conditioning.

Conventional production - , yes but there is still a lot of oil out there and we do have non-conventional means of extraction.  The other problem is that petrochemicals are useful for a lot more than fueling vehicles.

Remaining points

Alternatives are possible.  Hydrogen is a good possibility and there is a lot of work going into that now.  Works in transportation too.  Penn State has a development and testing facility and developed what is called the Altoona Test.  12 years and 500K miles lifecycle for buses.  Several prototypes have completed that now as proof of concept and there will be more pilot programs coming out.  They are also moving hydrogen fuel cells into some of the short run trucking like container ports.  All of these had to prove economic viability before widespread adoption but, it's beginning now.  But that is the point of the complexity bullet.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

Alternatives are possible.  Hydrogen is a good possibility and there is a lot of work going into that now.  Works in transportation too.  Penn State has a development and testing facility and developed what is called the Altoona Test.  12 years and 500K miles lifecycle for buses.  Several prototypes have completed that now as proof of concept and there will be more pilot programs coming out.  They are also moving hydrogen fuel cells into some of the short run trucking like container ports.  All of these had to prove economic viability before widespread adoption but, it's beginning now.  But that is the point of the complexity bullet.

I thought the right was against The New Green Deal? Now you are supporting "exploring alternative energy sources to replace fossil fuels."

Look out, some farther right wingers more under the sway of the Koch Brothers are coming to git you!

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

I thought the right was against The New Green Deal? Now you are supporting "exploring alternative energy sources to replace fossil fuels."

Look out, some farther right wingers more under the sway of the Koch Brothers are coming to git you!

Are you suggesting that the new green deal is "exploring alternative energy sources to replace fossil fuels?"  If so, we already have it.  We are already exploring.  No need for any further deals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Growth paradigm. - Absolutely but folks don't even think of that when I call consumerism our problem that creates almost all others.  OBTW, there are a couple of billion people in China and India who want air conditioning.

Conventional production - , yes but there is still a lot of oil out there and we do have non-conventional means of extraction.  The other problem is that petrochemicals are useful for a lot more than fueling vehicles.

Remaining points

Alternatives are possible.  Hydrogen is a good possibility and there is a lot of work going into that now.  Works in transportation too.  Penn State has a development and testing facility and developed what is called the Altoona Test.  12 years and 500K miles lifecycle for buses.  Several prototypes have completed that now as proof of concept and there will be more pilot programs coming out.  They are also moving hydrogen fuel cells into some of the short run trucking like container ports.  All of these had to prove economic viability before widespread adoption but, it's beginning now.  But that is the point of the complexity bullet.

 

The growth paradigm is at the root of so many issues - we need a new strategy that can garner public buy-in.

I'm a big fan of alternative everything.  I believe we're going to need every option available and that most energy conversion processes will find some niches they do well and others they don't.  Hydrogen does take care of some problems but it's probably going to be a niche answer also.  

Peak Oil was the Linda Lovelace of early disaster porn.  We're never going to run out of oil - we were going to run out of CHEEP oil - which we did pretty much on schedule.  But on lives the myth.  Burning oil for heat is literally the worst possible use of a hydrocarbon. 

I sympathize with The New Green Deal but it was like some weird "Zoolander" vision of energy policy.  Maybe that's what it takes to mobilize change.  The 'math and facts' version has pretty much failed.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jzk said:

Are you suggesting that the new green deal is "exploring alternative energy sources to replace fossil fuels?"  If so, we already have it.  We are already exploring.  No need for any further deals.

I think you are starting to realize that you’ve supported most of TGND all along, but were caught up in the RWSM’s “socialist demon!” rhetoric.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

I think you are starting to realize that you’ve supported most of TGND all along, but were caught up in the RWSM’s “socialist demon!” rhetoric.

Absolutely.  The Green New Deal isn't Green, isn't new, and isn't much of a deal.  The problem is the farting cows and 12 years to doomsday that makes it ridiculous and worthy of mockery and laughter.

What is missing from a lot of the warming screamers is the rational thought that is necessary to choose an appropriate technology and develop it in a way that is economically and logistically feasible.

As an example, take a look at the German electrical production numbers that I have linked several times.  Instead of touting solar or wind power you need to realize that supporting a modern society requires both then there will  be times when you have neither.  The german graphs show this when you compare summer and winter sources.  Right now they have a large capacity but natural forces mean that you are never working at capacity and you must accomodate the variabilty of those forces.  In the German graphs there is a line for stored energy.  It doesn't show much of a contribution and shows that that needs to be the next step in their evolution.  They don't need a Green New Deal they just need to keep working on the problem.

.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phillysailor said:

I think you are starting to realize that you’ve supported most of TGND all along, but were caught up in the RWSM’s “socialist demon!” rhetoric.

Except for the part about completely getting rid of fossil fuel and nuclear in 12 years.  I fully support solar and wind.  I was thinking about getting solar for my boat in Florida. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jzk said:

Except for the part about completely getting rid of fossil fuel and nuclear in 12 years.  I fully support solar and wind.  I was thinking about getting solar for my boat in Florida. 

Keep this up. You will find most lefties are scientists, literate and pride themselves on considering multiple viewpoints. 

What is laudable about Ocasio is her willingness to ignore the petrobucks currently paying for our government and reaping the rewards.

She might sound a little crazy when cut and edited by FOXy professionals, but she can help us turn this country away from rent seeking ossified oligarchs to a new round of industry and growth.

We gotta encourage change, and demonizing her is counter to most American’s goals and just rewards our old masters.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Keep this up. You will find most lefties are scientists, literate and pride themselves on considering multiple viewpoints. 

What is laudable about Ocasio is her willingness to ignore the petrobucks currently paying for our government and reaping the rewards.

She might sound a little crazy when cut and edited by FOXy professionals, but she can help us turn this country away from rent seeking ossified oligarchs to a new round of industry and growth.

We gotta encourage change, and demonizing her is counter to most American’s goals and just rewards our old masters.

Yeah I think most Americans like to stay warm in the winter and eat actual food when they are hungry.   And they also like to go places like maybe even their jobs.  Currently, our entire civilization depends on fossil fuel.  Getting rid of fossil fuel in 12 years is not a "plan" for anything but disaster and poverty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, jzk said:

Yeah I think most Americans like to stay warm in the winter and eat actual food when they are hungry.   And they also like to go places like maybe even their jobs.  Currently, our entire civilization depends on fossil fuel.  Getting rid of fossil fuel in 12 years is not a "plan" for anything but disaster and poverty.

By basing your response to her ideas solely on ridicule and derision, you miss the opportunity to be part of the discussion in finding ways in which we could become less dependent of oil, especially oil from the ME, and developing cleaner forms of energy.  Your choice.

And, I am not saying there is one renewable source of energy to replace as our addiction.  I advocate looking at multiple sources, and developing those which work for wider usage.  Maybe we could decide to take the funds we currently send to big oil (in the form of subsidies) and redirect them to promote research and development of newer/cleaner/sustainable technologies here in the US.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

By basing your response to her ideas solely on ridicule and derision, you miss the opportunity to be part of the discussion in finding ways in which we could become less dependent of oil, especially oil from the ME, and developing cleaner forms of energy.  Your choice.

And, I am not saying there is one renewable source of energy to replace as our addiction.  I advocate looking at multiple sources, and developing those which work for wider usage.  Maybe we could decide to take the funds we currently send to big oil (in the form of subsidies) and redirect them to promote research and development of newer/cleaner/sustainable technologies here in the US.

How about if there are subsidies to any business, we remove them?  If you want to start a thread on new energy sources, then do it.  But this is the AOC thread.  She says some really stupid things and this is where they get posted.  The best solution to this problem would be for her to stop saying stupid things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jzk said:

  The best solution to this problem would be for her to stop saying stupid things.

But then she wouldn't appeal to stupid people, and while there may be more stupid people on the right, they definitely don't have a monopoly 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, jzk said:

How about if there are subsidies to any business, we remove them?  If you want to start a thread on new energy sources, then do it.  But this is the AOC thread.  She says some really stupid things and this is where they get posted.  The best solution to this problem would be for her to stop saying stupid things.

So, her proposals (specifically about renewable energy) in what she is calling the Green New Deal need another thread?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

So, her proposals (specifically about renewable energy) in what she is calling the Green New Deal need another thread?

No, her stupid proposals ought to be discussed here.  Your reasonable proposals that have nothing to do with her proposals should probably get another thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jzk said:

No, her stupid proposals ought to be discussed here.  Your reasonable proposals that have nothing to do with her proposals should probably get another thread.

Ahhh, shoot. I thought you were starting to understand “the democratic process.” My bad.

The reasonable proposals do nothing unless we strip the current tax code of the corporate welfare and change direction. 

This part of your argument dovetails nicely with her desire to apply this to old tech and our fossil fuel masters who have created your world view:

2 hours ago, jzk said:

How about if there are subsidies to any business, we remove them? 

Easier said then done, when Halliburton led us to war in Iraq, and Elliott Abrams wants us to topple Maduro for Chevrons benefit. 

If we concentrated that kind of economic effort into sustainable energy, infrastructure, efficiency and education the ROI might be just what the country needs. And if not, we’d still be better prepared for environmental disasters, national security and we’d probably have a smarter & healthier workforce.

And if her ideas about pay were carried through, we’d save the middle class and MAGA, something Trump will never accomplish.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, jzk said:

No, her stupid proposals ought to be discussed here.  Your reasonable proposals that have nothing to do with her proposals should probably get another thread.

Thank you, Mr. Thread Purity Policeman.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, jzk said:

No, her stupid proposals ought to be discussed here.  Your reasonable proposals that have nothing to do with her proposals should probably get another thread.

To call them stupid is ingenuous.  They are different from what is done at the moment, but workable if properly implemented. Are you afraid that there will be a subset of what she has put forth being implemented in the next little while?  What is the most worrying to you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah. Calling her stupid means the GOP doesn’t have to consider or debate climate science. To debate something they argue doesn’t exist is a self contradictory state which poses an existential threat to leadership. 

It would be the crack in the wall of arrogance and hubris that would show how the GOP has been using misdirection and lies to further their agenda.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Laker said:

To call them stupid is ingenuous.  They are different from what is done at the moment, but workable if properly implemented. Are you afraid that there will be a subset of what she has put forth being implemented in the next little while?  What is the most worrying to you?

Eliminating fossil fuel and nuclear in the United States in the next 12 years is stupid.  There is simply no way around it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Ahhh, shoot. I thought you were starting to understand “the democratic process.” My bad.

 

The cool thing about "the democratic process" is that she doesn't have a chance in hell of eliminating fossil fuel in the next 50 years let alone 12.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

By basing your response to her ideas solely on ridicule and derision, you miss the opportunity to be part of the discussion in finding ways in which we could become less dependent of oil, especially oil from the ME, and developing cleaner forms of energy.  Your choice.

And, I am not saying there is one renewable source of energy to replace as our addiction.  I advocate looking at multiple sources, and developing those which work for wider usage.  Maybe we could decide to take the funds we currently send to big oil (in the form of subsidies) and redirect them to promote research and development of newer/cleaner/sustainable technologies here in the US.

I'm surprised that we don't have some resident righties arguing here that the US should return to the tried-and-true energy infrastructure of wood, whale oil, and mules. Of course, those industries don't have big lobbying efforts currently, so the rightie news-screechers don't say much about them.

But we made economic and infrastrucutre transitions in the past, and we will make them again in the future. Will we be proactive, plan intelligently, and remain economic leaders in the world? Sounds crazy and stupid that anybody would say NO! to that.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I'm surprised that we don't have some resident righties arguing here that the US should return to the tried-and-true energy infrastructure of wood, whale oil, and mules. Of course, those industries don't have big lobbying efforts currently, so the rightie news-screechers don't say much about them.

But we made economic and infrastrucutre transitions in the past, and we will make them again in the future. Will we be proactive, plan intelligently, and remain economic leaders in the world? Sounds crazy and stupid that anybody would say NO! to that.

-DSK

It is the left that is advocating returning to those fuels.  In the EU, they count burning wood as a renewable resource.  

https://www.sciencealert.com/us-europe-labels-burning-forest-biomass-wood-carbon-neutral-renewable

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

I'm surprised that we don't have some resident righties arguing here that the US should return to the tried-and-true energy infrastructure of wood, whale oil, and mules. Of course, those industries don't have big lobbying efforts currently, so the rightie news-screechers don't say much about them.

But we made economic and infrastrucutre transitions in the past, and we will make them again in the future. Will we be proactive, plan intelligently, and remain economic leaders in the world? Sounds crazy and stupid that anybody would say NO! to that.

-DSK

And a dog is surprised by it's own farts.

I guess you don't know as much about the "resident righties" as you thought.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Saorsa said:

It wouldn't surprise me.  You seem to miss a lot.  In this case though, it wasn't there.

 

Funny thing, I "miss a lot" and yet somehow I seem to know a hell of a lot more than you about almost everything.

Now what "wasn't there" this time, your intelligent plans for the future?

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Funny thing, I "miss a lot" and yet somehow I seem to know a hell of a lot more than you about almost everything.

Now what "wasn't there" this time, your intelligent plans for the future?

-DSK

So you say, so you say.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

I'm surprised that we don't have some resident righties arguing here that the US should return to the tried-and-true energy infrastructure of wood, whale oil, and mules. 

-DSK

Eliminate fossil fuels in 12 years and wood, whale oil and miles it will be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, warbird said:

Eliminate fossil fuels in 12 years and wood, whale oil and miles it will be.

Ya know, if you think of it, why wait for all that wood and whales to fossilize before using their carbon as fuel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

AOC Tweet a few moments ago:

"Meanwhile as folks wring their hands over a nonbinding #GreenNewDeal, I spent this AM touring LaGuardia airport + discussing: - Securing solar panels on every roof - Living wage jobs - Electric shuttle fleets - Building for rising sea levels coming in - Centering community isssue ..."

 

 

Yep. She's awful. The nerve!

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

AOC Tweet a few moments ago:

"Meanwhile as folks wring their hands over a nonbinding #GreenNewDeal, I spent this AM touring LaGuardia airport + discussing: - Securing solar panels on every roof - Living wage jobs - Electric shuttle fleets - Building for rising sea levels coming in - Centering community isssue ..."

 

 

Yep. She's awful. The nerve!

How to get a living wage job?  Equip yourself with a desired skill and demonstrate a solid work ethic.  Waiting around for AOC to discuss it for you is the last thing you should do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

AOC Tweet a few moments ago:

"Meanwhile as folks wring their hands over a nonbinding #GreenNewDeal, I spent this AM touring LaGuardia airport + discussing: - Securing solar panels on every roof - Living wage jobs - Electric shuttle fleets - Building for rising sea levels coming in - Centering community isssue ..."

 

 

Yep. She's awful. The nerve!

Did she tell all the workers at the AIRPORT they would be out of a job in 12 years?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

AOC Tweet a few moments ago:

"Meanwhile as folks wring their hands over a nonbinding #GreenNewDeal, I spent this AM touring LaGuardia airport + discussing: - Securing solar panels on every roof - Living wage jobs - Electric shuttle fleets - Building for rising sea levels coming in - Centering community isssue ..."

Yep. She's awful. The nerve!

But, what if nobody wants to work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

AOC Tweet a few moments ago:

"Meanwhile as folks wring their hands over a nonbinding #GreenNewDeal, I spent this AM touring LaGuardia airport + discussing: - Securing solar panels on every roof - Living wage jobs - Electric shuttle fleets - Building for rising sea levels coming in - Centering community isssue ..."

 

 

Yep. She's awful. The nerve!

 

2 hours ago, The Joker said:

Did she tell all the workers at the AIRPORT they would be out of a job in 12 years?

Winner.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Joker said:

Did she tell all the workers at the AIRPORT they would be out of a job in 12 years?

No worries.  There will be plenty of job openings for them in the tofu processing plants.

  • Downvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, J28 said:
2 hours ago, The Joker said:

Did she tell all the workers at the AIRPORT they would be out of a job in 12 years?

No worries.  There will be plenty of job openings for them in the tofu processing plants.

I suppose one of you two guys could find the part of the Resolution where it calls for the abolishment of air travel.

(H) overhauling transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in—

(i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing;

(ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transit; and 

(iii) high-speed rail;

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

I suppose one of you two guys could find the part of the Resolution where it calls for the abolishment of air travel.

(H) overhauling transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in—

(i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing;

(ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transit; and 

(iii) high-speed rail;

"Is nuclear a part of this? A Green New Deal is a massive investment in renewable energy production and would not include creating new nuclear plants. It’s unclear if we will be able to decommission every nuclear plant within 10 years, but the plan is to transition off of nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible. No one has put the full 10-year plan together yet, and if it is possible to get to fully 100% renewable in 10 years, we will do that."

That is from the statement that AOC released.

If we transition off of "all fossil fuels," how do we travel by air?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, J28 said:
2 hours ago, The Joker said:

Did she tell all the workers at the AIRPORT they would be out of a job in 12 years?

No worries.  There will be plenty of job openings for them in the tofu processing plants.

That's actually funny. Congratulations...... or did you steal that line from Glen Beck?

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jzk said:
13 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

I suppose one of you two guys could find the part of the Resolution where it calls for the abolishment of air travel.

(H) overhauling transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in—

(i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing;

(ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transit; and 

(iii) high-speed rail;

"Is nuclear a part of this? A Green New Deal is a massive investment in renewable energy production and would not include creating new nuclear plants. It’s unclear if we will be able to decommission every nuclear plant within 10 years, but the plan is to transition off of nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible. No one has put the full 10-year plan together yet, and if it is possible to get to fully 100% renewable in 10 years, we will do that."

That is from the statement that AOC released.

If we transition off of "all fossil fuels," how do we travel by air?  

Perhaps you missed the relevant portion, which includes the words "as much as is technologically feasible".

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Perhaps you missed the relevant portion, which includes the words "as much as is technologically feasible".

They didn't include those words in the release.  They just said "the plan is to transition off of nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible."

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, jzk said:

They didn't include those words in the release.  They just said "the plan is to transition off of nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible."

I looked at the actual resolution.  You?

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

I suppose one of you two guys could find the part of the Resolution where it calls for the abolishment of air travel.ms in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in—

(i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing;

(ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transit; and 

(iii) high-speed rail;

It won't be found in the resolution but in her statements

“Totally overhaul transportation by massively expanding electric vehicle manufacturing, build charging stations everywhere, build out highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary, create affordable public transit available to all, with goal to replace every combustion-engine vehicle”

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jzk said:

Yes.  I also looked at the release that came from an actual US Congress Person's office. 

The release that she claimed was a right wing plot until it was revealed that her Chief of Staff had written it  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Blue Crab said:

The resolution seems realistic to me. After nonbinding, let's tell 'em what "resolution" means. That's an s, not an r.

Are you suggesting that the saving grace with regard to AOC's advocating ridiculous ideas is that they are currently nonbinding? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

It won't be found in the resolution but in her statements

“Totally overhaul transportation by massively expanding electric vehicle manufacturing, build charging stations everywhere, build out highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary, create affordable public transit available to all, with goal to replace every combustion-engine vehicle”

So, "stops becoming necessary" = "stops even occurring"? 

I would argue air travel is "necessary" because our rail system sucks.  Air travel is quicker, more convenient, and more comprehensive.

If high speed rail, like other developed nations have provided, becomes a reality in the US, might that be a reasonable alternative? 

You know, like making air travel no longer "necessary"?

Air travel will never go away.  And, I don't believe abolishing it is what has been proposed.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

So, "stops becoming necessary" = "stops even occurring"? 

I would argue air travel is "necessary" because our rail system sucks.  Air travel is quicker, more convenient, and more comprehensive.

If high speed rail, like other developed nations have provided, becomes a reality in the US, might that be a reasonable alternative? 

You know, like making air travel no longer "necessary"?

Air travel will never go away.  And, I don't believe abolishing it is what has been proposed.  

Will you be willing to fly in an airplane with electric motors in 10 years?

  • Downvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, J28 said:

Will you be willing to fly in an airplane with electric motors in 10 years?

Would you please cite where in the Resolution I linked it says air travel will only be by electric motor?

I can go ahead and quote the words "as much as is technologically feasible".  I did so in Post #3349.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, J28 said:

Will you be willing to fly in an airplane with electric motors in 10 years?

Why not? If the electric motors are feasible.... Electric cars, electric trains, electric scooters, electric mono-rails..... Battery weight seems to be the big stumbling block right now, but with decreases in weight /charge life/cost headed the way they are, plus the increasing productivity of solar panels...... Who knows?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mrleft8 said:

Why not? If the electric motors are feasible.... Electric cars, electric trains, electric scooters, electric mono-rails..... Battery weight seems to be the big stumbling block right now, but with decreases in weight /charge life/cost headed the way they are, plus the increasing productivity of solar panels...... Who knows?

You seriously believe a modern jet turbines could be replaced with electric engines? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

So, "stops becoming necessary" = "stops even occurring"? 

I would argue air travel is "necessary" because our rail system sucks.  Air travel is quicker, more convenient, and more comprehensive.

If high speed rail, like other developed nations have provided, becomes a reality in the US, might that be a reasonable alternative? 

You know, like making air travel no longer "necessary"?

Air travel will never go away.  And, I don't believe abolishing it is what has been proposed.  

And always will be.

I just checked Train ticket prices

Looks like its less than $300 NYC to LA for the cheapest fare.  But it takes between 66 and 81 hours and they don't even give you a bag of peanuts pretzels.  You need to add for 3 or 4 days of meals  and share a communal shower.  Air fare is cheaper and only takes 6 hours.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Saorsa said:
46 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

So, "stops becoming necessary" = "stops even occurring"? 

I would argue air travel is "necessary" because our rail system sucks.  Air travel is quicker, more convenient, and more comprehensive.

If high speed rail, like other developed nations have provided, becomes a reality in the US, might that be a reasonable alternative? 

You know, like making air travel no longer "necessary"?

Air travel will never go away.  And, I don't believe abolishing it is what has been proposed.  

And always will be.

I just checked Train ticket prices

Looks like its less than $300 NYC to LA for the cheapest fare.  But it takes between 66 and 81 hours and they don't even give you a bag of peanuts pretzels.  You need to add for 3 or 4 days of meals  and share a communal shower.  Air fare is cheaper and only takes 6 hours.

I would say that makes air travel "necessary" for damned near anyone who wants to travel.

If we developed a high speed rail system like other countries have done, it would become "less necessary".

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

They didn't include those words in the release.  They just said "the plan is to transition off of nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible."

Which obviously implies technically feasible.