Make Liberalism Great Again

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
Nuclear is only viable if the accountant discounts the risk or cost of a major accident and assumes there is a 50,000 year storage site, which there isn't.
You're talking about uranium nuclear. And the accountant is aware there will soon be a reactor to power with the waste you speak of.
 

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
I figured if you've done it, you'd understand.
I've never understood cruising. I ride to destinations. I've witnessed cruising...same bikes up and down the same strip over and over, just don't get it. I will, however, get insanely high, hang out on the strip and watch the phenomenon....

So what class of bike is currently your favorite to cruise on, a cruiser?
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
I've never understood cruising. I ride to destinations. I've witnessed cruising...same bikes up and down the same strip over and over, just don't get it. I will, however, get insanely high, hang out on the strip and watch the phenomenon....

So what class of bike is currently your favorite to cruise on, a cruiser?
you never hung out with others and cruise the strip and profile ??offering chicks rides. women love bikes.....well they did when I was single
 

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
you never hung out with others and cruise the strip and profile ??offering chicks rides. women love bikes.....well they did when I was single
No. I sport rode with really hot girls though that had their own bikes and could drag a knee with the best of them. No chicken strips here Bo.
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure what you mean??

Since you mentioned steak though, the global meat industry contributes more pollutants than every car, truck, freighter, train, and airplane on the planet.
I guess that depends on where you slice it;

Keep in mind that for every gallon of gasoline that makes it to the filling station, between 5 and 25 more are burned in the extraction, refining and distribution process.

Also remember that before humans herded livestock, there was quite a bit of it roaming around wild. Thus the incremental change in pollution is smaller than some would suggest.
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
You're talking about uranium nuclear. And the accountant is aware there will soon be a reactor to power with the waste you speak of.
Breeder reactors create even more of a mess with bonus bits like plutonium, a ready to use fissile material. Definitely not a cost cutting option.

And there is no other tech currently available besides uranium fission for nuclear power.

But, you know, keep guessing.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
You're talking about uranium nuclear. And the accountant is aware there will soon be a reactor to power with the waste you speak of.
Uh, no. Accountants always discount risk or cost of accidents. Not on purpose but because nobody can tell what the risk is until it happens. Then it is too late. They do due diligence and can show plenty of scenarios and calculations but the odd strange events that are not anticipated are ones blow the cost equations when they occur. Fukushima was completely unaccounted for. It alone is making nuclear not viable in Japan. We had Three Mile Island -- a near miss but it came pretty close to becoming a regional disaster and rendering an entire metropolis unlivable. No accountant would include that in his analysis. Not for public consumption at least.

I'm aware of some newer tech but it's still in the lab and limited implemetation stages for good reason. Not ready for prime time. When a really safe tech comes available then the discussion can open. But not the stuff available now. I'm good with investing in research, just not agreeing that nuclear is ready to be reconsidered as a main player in our energy future.
 
Top