Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[Thepersona]

Uhm... as someone who was in Kiev when Chernobyl blew up and is now in Seattle... How about instead of nuclear, we build more batteries over the cascades, around Tri Cities, then build infrastructure that would then push that energy to California and where ever else needed on West Coast... that’s a shit ton of solar and wind energy that gets burned off on a regular basis, instead of going anywhere or being stored. We have a clean energy solution, over the mountains from Seattle...

Ehhh... Dont vilify nuclear so much. Is the best short term alternative for reaching 100% non oil/coal/gas energy production. And now with the prospects of thorium reactors, things look better!

- - - Updated - - -

Not for the short term. Nuclear is really the way to go. They simply do not fail at this point - and Chernobyl was an outlier of Soviet incompetence more than anything else. Long term is certainly green/sustainable. But to reach that goal, nuclear is the bridge.

And you can make thorium reactors, or when we get to the moon, deuterium/tritium reactors

[Felya]

Ehhh... Dont vilify nuclear so much. Is the best short term alternative for reaching 100% non oil/coal/gas energy production. And now with the prospects of thorium reactors, things look better!

Not for the short term. Nuclear is really the way to go. They simply do not fail at this point - and Chernobyl was an outlier of Soviet incompetence more than anything else. Long term is certainly green/sustainable. But to reach that goal, nuclear is the bridge.

But... we literally have a solar and wind solution that is going to waste... Why build nuclear infrastructure, if we already have a solution that is not being used.

[eschatological]

But... we literally have a solar and wind solution that is going to waste... Why build nuclear infrastructure, if we already have a solution that is not being used.

Because wind and solar are actually more inefficient and less climate friendly than nuclear. Mostly in the materials needed to capture those types of power.

[Thepersona]

But... we literally have a solar and wind solution that is going to waste... Why build nuclear infrastructure, if we already have a solution that is not being used.

Because, AFAIK is not very efficent, and requires extensive use of batteries (and those things are hella harmful to the enviroment). Nuclear is neat, with current tech, and with the upcoming tech of thorium/fusion reactors, we may have enough energy for centuries. Until we need black hole generators, or a dyson swarm, we're set.

[Elegiac]

Because wind and solar are actually more inefficient and less climate friendly than nuclear. Mostly in the materials needed to capture those types of power.

Moreover, one of the crucial aspects of an energy revolution is diversification - being able to source power from a variety of sources makes the system significantly more resilient and less vulnerable to supply shocks.

[Elegiac]

Because, AFAIK is not very efficent, and requires extensive use of batteries (and those things are hella harmful to the enviroment). Nuclear is neat, with current tech, and with the upcoming tech of thorium/fusion reactors, we may have enough energy for centuries. Until we need black hole generators, or a dyson swarm, we're set.

Moreover, it's ignoring that current energy demands are offset by the fact transportation is mostly reliant on a hard fuel source - versus the emergent economy where transportation increasingly looks like it'll be mostly electric, with some hydrogen.

[beanman12345]

But... we literally have a solar and wind solution that is going to waste... Why build nuclear infrastructure, if we already have a solution that is not being used.

The problem with solar, at least right now, is the technology isn't pitch perfect, and a lot of panels are dying and now going to be amassing into landfills, and they contain toxic materials like lead that can leach out as they break down which creates whole new environmental hazards.

[Edge-]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/29/t...imes&smtyp=cur

Apparently all it takes to get the conservative media machine to go into overdrive is a tweet from some radio personality without any evidence backing it up.

Man, they're desperate to lay the groundwork for Trump to spend the night incapable of speaking to any actual policies.

[Elegiac]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/29/t...imes&smtyp=cur

Apparently all it takes to get the conservative media machine to go into overdrive is a tweet from some radio personality without any evidence backing it up.

Man, they're desperate to lay the groundwork for Trump to spend the night incapable of speaking to any actual policies.

Didn't they try this shit with Hillary in 2016?

[Thepersona]

Moreover, it's ignoring that current energy demands are offset by the fact transportation is mostly reliant on a hard fuel source - versus the emergent economy where transportation increasingly looks like it'll be mostly electric, with some hydrogen.

Yup. The only problematic thing is that we still need fossil fuels for air travel (as we could retrofit almost every big container ship with small nuclear reactors) and small maritime travel. If we get Hydrogen combustion engines, we're set, though

- - - Updated - - -

Didn't they try this shit with Hillary in 2016?

Thing is, 4 years do change people. And Biden is still 6-10 points ahead of Trump. Something Hillary never achieved

[Felya]

Because wind and solar are actually more inefficient and less climate friendly than nuclear. Mostly in the materials needed to capture those types of power.

Because, AFAIK is not very efficent, and requires extensive use of batteries (and those things are hella harmful to the enviroment). Nuclear is neat, with current tech, and with the upcoming tech of thorium/fusion reactors, we may have enough energy for centuries. Until we need black hole generators, or a dyson swarm, we're set.

Because Battery technology isn't robust enough to fill the on demand spikes that happen, plus all nuclear events like you mentioned including the most recent were all from Generation one plants. Nuclear tech has come a long way since then and if we serious about talking climate change and its the threat scientist say it is we shouldn't rule out things that could vastly reduce the carbon foot print. Solar and Wind also has its own environmental impacts, so I support an all above approach to reducing as much as possible.

We have a nuclear power plant as well, but are generating more hydro and rentable, than the nuclear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._in_Washington

Washington's electrical energy generation mix in 2020 was 5% natural gas, 80% hydroelectric, 8% renewables, and 7% nuclear. The state has 28% of the nation's hydroelectric generation, and the nation's largest capacity power station at Grand Coulee Dam. 60% of Washington households use electricity as their primary heating fuel, unlike most households in other U.S. states that typically utilize natural gas.

I don’t see how what I’m saying isn’t possible...

[Thepersona]

We have a nuclear power plant as well, but are generating more hydro and rentable, than the nuclear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._in_Washington


I don’t see how what I’m saying isn’t possible...

As edge said, It's doable, but Nuclear is the necessary bridge (and to provide with nuclear reactors for container ships and tanks) in the short term, as we have 15-20 years to litteraly change 100% of humanity energy production to be not reliant on fossil fuels.

[Elegiac]

Yup. The only problematic thing is that we still need fossil fuels for air travel (as we could retrofit almost every big container ship with small nuclear reactors) and small maritime travel. If we get Hydrogen combustion engines, we're set, though

The fortunate thing about fossil fuels is that they can be easily be replaced by biofuels (it's all hydrocarbons in the end); it's entirely possible to synthesise jet fuel from corn ethanol, it's just not as cheap as processing from crude in the current regulatory environment.

[AntiFascistVoter]

2020 Who's afraid of early voting? Answer; fascist repubs, they hate voting in general.

2020 Who's enthusiastic to vote?

Democrats are crushing Republicans in the mail vote in key early states: NC, IA, ME, PA and FL, and lots of GOP folks are worried not just about the WH but Senate seats too.

Early surge of Democratic mail voting sparks worry inside GOP
And it's not just Democrats REQUESTING ballots at higher rates. It's Democrats RETURNING ballots at higher rates as well.

- More registered Democrats have requested mail ballots
- Democrats have nearly twice the ballot return rate

[Thepersona]

The fortunate thing about fossil fuels is that they can be easily be replaced by biofuels (it's all hydrocarbons in the end); it's entirely possible to synthesise jet fuel from corn ethanol, it's just not as cheap as processing from crude in the current regulatory environment.

Oh, that's neat, but i was talking about the carbon footprint of said fuel. With hydrogen as a fuel, the only byproduct is water vapor and heat.

[cubby]

We have a nuclear power plant as well, but are generating more hydro and rentable, than the nuclear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._in_Washington


I don’t see how what I’m saying isn’t possible...

Washington does have a unique set of circumstances with their hydroelectric power generation. You'll note in your own information, that Dam produces 28% of the nation's hydroelectric power, and is the largest of it's kind in the U.S.

So to fulfill the entirety of the nation's power needs, hydroelectric on it's own won't work. The other forms of green energy have their own issues with either consistency or storage. Nuclear solves those short term problems, and as others have said, could actually be the future of all the world's power generation.

[Thepersona]

Washington does have a unique set of circumstances with their hydroelectric power generation. You'll note in your own information, that Dam produces 28% of the nation's hydroelectric power, and is the largest of it's kind in the U.S.

So to fulfill the entirety of the nation's power needs, hydroelectric on it's own won't work. The other forms of green energy have their own issues with either consistency or storage. Nuclear solves those short term problems, and as others have said, could actually be the future of all the world's power generation.

Until we get a dyson swarm/black hole energy/anti-matter reactors, the best thing is nuclear fusion reactors or nuclear fission, thorium ones.

[beanman12345]

Washington does have a unique set of circumstances with their hydroelectric power generation. You'll note in your own information, that Dam produces 28% of the nation's hydroelectric power, and is the largest of it's kind in the U.S.

So to fulfill the entirety of the nation's power needs, hydroelectric on it's own won't work. The other forms of green energy have their own issues with either consistency or storage. Nuclear solves those short term problems, and as others have said, could actually be the future of all the world's power generation.

I think wind will always be a thing, especially for under developed area's. Just read an article that there is a 1000 year old windmill that a small town in iran still uses.

[Felya]

Until we get a dyson swarm/black hole energy/anti-matter reactors, the best thing is nuclear fusion reactors or nuclear fission, thorium ones.

Kardashev Scale?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

[Thepersona]

Kardashev Scale?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

Yup. We need nuclear to jump to a type 1 civilization.

Edit: And now, we're T-minus 5