Make Liberalism Great Again

twostrokenut · Nov 27, 2016

Fogdog said:
Do you have any science education in your background? Not kindergarten stuff, I mean college level physics or chemistry. Maybe some engineering courses? I can't believe the level of stupid you evince here.

Ya, hydrogen is not today commercially feasible. Also thorium salt reactors are not comercially feasible today. Oh, by the way, that technology is 50 years old. Do you think if it were easy it would have come to market sooner? Or at least be closer to market? Nuclear is not the cheap source you say it is. Costs and cost over runs of building nuclear power plants makes this energy source untenable.

You just spout shit off the top of your head as if we should take you at your word. Who the fuck are you and why should we listen? I know you are enamored with investing in silver. That is all I need to know about you . Either a fraud or a fool. So why should we accept your insults when we question the veracity of your statements about an old, mature and expensive way to produce electricity. But don't listen to me, listen to the union of concerned scientists:

The first generation of nuclear power plants proved so costly to build that half of them were abandoned during construction. Those that were completed saw huge cost overruns, which were passed on to utility customers in the form of rate increases. By 1985, Forbes had labeled U.S. nuclear power "the largest managerial disaster in business history.”

The industry has failed to prove that things will be different this time around: soaring, uncertain costs continue to plague nuclear power in the 21st century. Between 2002 and 2008, for example, cost estimates for new nuclear plant construction rose from between $2 billion and $4 billion per unit to $9 billion per unit, according to a 2009 UCS report, while experience with new construction in Europe has seen costs continue to soar.

When nuclear energy was an emerging technology, public support made some sense. But more than 50 years (and two public bailouts) after the opening of the first U.S. commercial nuclear plant, nuclear power is a mature industry that should be expected to stand on its own.

Instead, the industry has responded to escalating costs with escalating demands for government support. A 2009 UCS report estimated that taxpayers could be on the hook for anywhere from $360 billion to $1.6 trillion if then-current proposals for nuclear expansion were realized.

If we want to reduce the climate impact of electric power generation in the United States, there are less costly and risky ways to do it than expanding nuclear power. A 2011 UCS analysis of new nuclear projects in Florida and Georgia shows that the power provided by the new plants would be more expensive per kilowatt than several alternatives, including energy efficiency measures, renewable energy sources such as biomass and wind, and new natural gas plants.

Public financing for energy alternatives should be focused on fostering innovation and achieving the largest possible reduction in heat-trapping emissions per dollar invested—not on promoting the growth of an industry that has repeatedly shown itself to be a highly risky investment.

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/cost-nuclear-power#.WDvA1_krIdU

You are an idiot who knows not what he speaks. Go away.

The "new tech" will catch up in subsidies when its as old as Fossil Fuels or Nuclear. Let me know when you find energy that is not subsidized, less than 8 cents per kwH and has an acceptable mortality rate.

Fogdog · Nov 27, 2016

twostrokenut said:
The "new tech" will catch up in subsidies when its as old as Fossil Fuels or Nuclear. Let me know when you find energy that is not subsidized, less than 8 cents per kwH and has an acceptable mortality rate.

I have no idea what the number you quote means. Let me know when you are ready to discuss total cost of delivery. Modern nuclear power plants cost upwards of 9 billlion dollars to build. This without factoring cost over runs and delays coming on line. Nuclear power cannot be built using private funds because private lenders understand the risk and cost involved render the project too risky for their money. So you would have the public back the build. Fuck that.

ttystikk · Nov 27, 2016

Fogdog said:
I have no idea what the number you quote means. Let me know when you are ready to discuss total cost of delivery. Modern nuclear power plants cost upwards of 9 billlion dollars to build. This without factoring cost over runs and delays coming on line. Nuclear power cannot be built using private funds because private lenders understand the risk and cost involved render the project too risky for their money. So you would have the public back the build. Fuck that.

He's advocating for big corporations to make billions. The saddest part is that he's trading all or futures for profits he'll never even see!

twostrokenut · Nov 27, 2016

ttystikk said:
It already has long ago. Biogas is already generating power. Fuel cells are being manufactured in ever larger numbers, with attendant drops in their cost as they do.

Like millions of other American consumers, I already have natural gas service to my home, so infrastructure costs are low.

Oh you already have an electric generator that runs off Natural Gas in your home? Neato.

ttystikk said:
Nuclear hasn't killed many people YET. But the overhang is undeniable. Care to find out how many died at Chernobyl?

Bet already did that earlier and that figure and it's predictions were already accounted for in the mortality rates.

ttystikk said:
How do you figure natural gas mortality rates per unit of power delivered would climb? You offered no supporting evidence here, and the trend is in fact very much in the opposite direction.

That's what it is with current output. If you make widgets and there's a certain mortality rate association with the manufacture of said widgets, increasing the production would increase the mortality rate. It's just basic logic I offered no projection data, just as you did not.
[/quote]

ttystikk said:
The closer one examines your arguments, political, environmental, energy or climate change, the less water they hold.

Well now environmental, energy and climate change are really the same political argument in your world view now aren't they? So the examination of that is a really simple task.

UncleBuck · Nov 27, 2016

twostrokenut said:
I'm afraid you haven't thought these through according to the numbers. Rotting waste isn't ever going to come close to powering anything really. But ya grab it up where applicable every bit helps.

Natural gas and hydrogen, you have left out the economics of them vs nuclear. Quality of life for poorer people and what they can comfortably afford for energy are important as is mortality rate. These deaths are almost exclusively regular working class folks as well. As you transition to Natural Gas then Hydrogen, you are right in that your infrastructure transition costs would be minimal. Not to to be confused with costs of expanding that infrastructure for the new very large demand for Natural Gas though, the demand would be the cost kicker largely though.

Producing hydrogen is crazy expensive, you sound a little Bushy in your prediction that hydrogen is a great target of the immediate future, how long has it been since he said that like 16 years? And where's the hydrogen, you have two choices:
1. You believe those youtube vids where the hydrogen car ran on water and the inventor was killed or shunned from science.
2. It's not economically viable.

You should have typed

Natural Gas= expensive, dangerous.
Nuclear= safe and affordable.

Do you have any info on how much one kwH costs with gas? Include the bio farts I would love to know that number.

Meanwhile, your gas mortality rate per trillion kwH yearly would climb dramatically from where it is now at 4000 per unit.
Biogas is a staggering 24,000.

Nuclear is staying around 10cents per kwH right there with Gas but the mortality rate is 0.01 per trillion kwH.

IDK, frack that shit if you think it's going to drop below 10cents per kwH, I seriously doubt it will though.

twostrokenut said:
You're turning it into something it's not. The People choose who their state Representatives are in Congress. Electors may not be in other forms of office or have other such conflicts of interest and always vote as per their states People.

So there's that. So you see the People are the voice of who represents US in our government which is the Legislative Branch. Commander in chief, however, the Executive is reserved for the States and the mechanism to insure that a minority of states can't elect the President is crucial to prevent democracy, which would ironically lead to minority state rule in your scenario. Evidenced in this years Election.

When you pose a popular vote you are advocating for a change in Legislative Representation as well. Especially considering the Commander in Chief is beholden to Congress in many ways. Its all about balance of power. Pesky branches.

I clearly stated my distaste for the popular Presidential election process. Your number clearly is a per capita representation of EC votes, which is the same thing. I guess you are proof that you need two functioning brain cells for synapses.

goddamnit you are dumb.

ttystikk · Nov 27, 2016

twostrokenut said:
Oh you already have an electric generator that runs off Natural Gas in your home? Neato.

Bet already did that earlier and that figure and it's predictions were already accounted for in the mortality rates.

That's what it is with current output. If you make widgets and there's a certain mortality rate association with the manufacture of said widgets, increasing the production would increase the mortality rate. It's just basic logic I offered no projection data, just as you did not.

Well now environmental, energy and climate change are really the same political argument in your world view now aren't they? So the examination of that is a really simple task.

Fuel cells are economically viable, they're proven technology whose use is being phased in now. Nuclear is none of these things, but it IS a multi bullion dollar boondoggle.

It doesn't need pricing to know that incremental costs fall.

If it's so simple a task, why do you keep getting it so wildly wrong? lol

twostrokenut · Nov 27, 2016

Fogdog said:
I have no idea what the number you quote means. Let me know when you are ready to discuss total cost of delivery. Modern nuclear power plants cost upwards of 9 billlion dollars to build. This without factoring cost over runs and delays coming on line. Nuclear power cannot be built using private funds because private lenders understand the risk and cost involved render the project too risky for their money. So you would have the public back the build. Fuck that.

By all means eliminate all energy subsidies and let the best one win via monetary costs per kwH and human cost per kwH with the data we have ATM. Sounds great, I'm all for it.

But that's not what you're doing now is it? Your'e saying fuck that in favor of this with public funds. Excluding coal and oil, the sources we are discussing here are about equal in terms of world wide usage.
Natural Gas provides about 20% of the world's electricity, Nuclear about 17%. Pretty close yet mortality rates for Gas worldwide is 4000 deaths per trillion kwH and Nuclear in the US is 0.01 and only 90 world wide including Chernobyl.

twostrokenut · Nov 27, 2016

ttystikk said:
Fuel cells are economically viable, they're proven technology whose use is being phased in now. Nuclear is none of these things, but it IS a multi bullion dollar boondoggle.

It doesn't need pricing to know that incremental costs fall.

If it's so simple a task, why do you keep getting it so wildly wrong? lol

I'm down. If your fuel cells will power my home with existing gas line on a fuel cell for under 10 cents then I'm all about it. You think it could accomplish this? Any links will be read if you cared to give them.

UncleBuck · Nov 27, 2016

twostrokenut said:
By all means eliminate all energy subsidies and let the best one win via monetary costs per kwH and human cost per kwH with the data we have ATM. Sounds great, I'm all for it.

But that's not what you're doing now is it? Your'e saying fuck that in favor of this with public funds. Excluding coal and oil, the sources we are discussing here are about equal in terms of world wide usage.
Natural Gas provides about 20% of the world's electricity, Nuclear about 17%. Pretty close yet mortality rates for Gas worldwide is 4000 deaths per trillion kwH and Nuclear in the US is 0.01 and only 90 world wide including Chernobyl.

i thought you said there were zero deaths from nuclear though.

is you ill legitimizing yourself now?

UncleBuck · Nov 27, 2016

twostrokenut said:
I'm down. If your fuel cells will power my home with existing gas line on a fuel cell for under 10 cents then I'm all about it. You think it could accomplish this? Any links will be read if you cared to give them.

*trailer

it's more of a dwelling than a home.

Fogdog · Nov 27, 2016

twostrokenut said:
By all means eliminate all energy subsidies and let the best one win via monetary costs per kwH and human cost per kwH with the data we have ATM. Sounds great, I'm all for it.

But that's not what you're doing now is it? Your'e saying fuck that in favor of this with public funds. Excluding coal and oil, the sources we are discussing here are about equal in terms of world wide usage.
Natural Gas provides about 20% of the world's electricity, Nuclear about 17%. Pretty close yet mortality rates for Gas worldwide is 4000 deaths per trillion kwH and Nuclear in the US is 0.01 and only 90 world wide including Chernobyl.

The nuclear industry consistently underscopes price and risk. They've done the same for decades. You are engaging in pseudo science by first positing we need nuclear then finding data to back it up. I call bullshit.

That said, let's see a real plan in place to reduce fossil fuel emissions. One that is peer reviewed with public-private funding and debated in the open. One the our government is willing to enact. If nuclear were a part of the solution and it was given a good and independent review then I'd be willing to take a look at it.

But not on your say so. You quote numbers you don't understand. Also cherry pick data. Disgusting.

twostrokenut · Nov 27, 2016

Fogdog said:
The nuclear industry consistently underscopes price and risk. They've done the same for decades. You are engaging in pseudo science by first positing we need nuclear then finding data to back it up. I call bullshit.

That said, let's see a real plan in place to reduce fossil fuel emissions. One that is peer reviewed with public-private funding and debated in the open. One the our government is willing to enact. If nuclear were a part of the solution and it was given a good and independent review then I'd be willing to take a look at it.

But not on your say so. You quote numbers you don't understand. Also cherry pick data. Disgusting.

The data is clear. 10 cents per kwH and 0.01 mortality rate per trillion kwH in the US. I would love to see your data on alternatives to the same effect of monetary costs and costs to human lives. You know existing data not your future speculations.

That said lets see the "one the our" people will enact with private funding, should be much more interesting.

ttystikk · Nov 27, 2016

twostrokenut said:
The dumbest.

Derp.

twostrokenut said:
The data is clear. 10 cents per kwH and 0.01 mortality rate per trillion kwH in the US. I would love to see your data on alternatives to the same effect of monetary costs and costs to human lives. You know existing data not your future speculations.

That said lets see the "one the our" people will enact with private funding, should be much more interesting.

Duh, I sure sounds smart here! Derp.

see4 · Nov 28, 2016

twostrokenut said:
You're turning it into something it's not. The People choose who their state Representatives are in Congress. Electors may not be in other forms of office or have other such conflicts of interest and always vote as per their states People.

So there's that. So you see the People are the voice of who represents US in our government which is the Legislative Branch. Commander in chief, however, the Executive is reserved for the States and the mechanism to insure that a minority of states can't elect the President is crucial to prevent democracy, which would ironically lead to minority state rule in your scenario. Evidenced in this years Election.

When you pose a popular vote you are advocating for a change in Legislative Representation as well. Especially considering the Commander in Chief is beholden to Congress in many ways. Its all about balance of power. Pesky branches.

I clearly stated my distaste for the popular Presidential election process. Your number clearly is a per capita representation of EC votes, which is the same thing. I guess you are proof that you need two functioning brain cells for synapses.

per capita; an adverb & adjective to mean for each person.

Are you saying there are only 222 residents in California?

Stay focused and try not to fill the forum with nonsense. Also remain civil, I've tried to do the same for you.

I suppose though, when you're losing an argument you need to resort to name calling and fact twisting.

UncleBuck · Nov 28, 2016

i wonder what it's like to raise another redneck's kid while living in a trailer.

see4 · Nov 28, 2016

@twostrokenut - regarding Electoral College; you're in favor of a plutocracy where a predetermined outcome is preordained by those who already control it.

thanks for letting us know where you stand, we can all continue to not take you seriously. fucking asshat.

SneekyNinja · Nov 28, 2016

ttystikk said:
Fuel cells are economically viable, they're proven technology whose use is being phased in now. Nuclear is none of these things, but it IS a multi bullion dollar boondoggle.

It doesn't need pricing to know that incremental costs fall.

If it's so simple a task, why do you keep getting it so wildly wrong? lol

The reason we use uranium fission rather than thorium salt is that exact reason you mentioned, $$$$$$$$.

If you're interested, check out the history of the development of both types of reactors.

They developed the reactors they did because they run alongside weapons grade uranium/plutonium production and because of lobbying.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

Unclebaldrick · Nov 28, 2016

twostrokenut said:
By all means eliminate all energy subsidies and let the best one win via monetary costs per kwH and human cost per kwH with the data we have ATM. Sounds great, I'm all for it.

This is exactly the sort of thing that the free market excels in failing in. Perhaps the cheapest short term fuel is not the cheapest beyond the short term. Perhaps it is not even sustainable. That wouldn't stop corporations from sucking the planet dry of petroleum in a quest for short term profits though. Free markets got us into this fucking mess and are not likely to get us out. FFS, they put lead in the fucking gas to stop engine knock despite millennia of evidence that lead was a powerful toxin. oh yeah, the free market has my back. Ha!

Free markets can be ignorant, selfish and greedy. Free markets are often brutal. Society needs a plan, not a race to the bottom.

ttystikk · Nov 28, 2016

Unclebaldrick said:
This is exactly the sort of thing that the free market excels in failing in. Perhaps the cheapest short term fuel is not the cheapest beyond the short term. Perhaps it is not even sustainable. That wouldn't stop corporations from sucking the planet dry of petroleum in a quest for short term profits though. Free markets got us into this fucking mess and are not likely to get us out. FFS, they put lead in the fucking gas to stop engine knock despite millennia of evidence that lead was a powerful toxin. oh yeah, the free market has my back. Ha!

Free markets can be ignorant, selfish and greedy. Free markets are often brutal. Society needs a plan, not a race to the bottom.

Free markets don't exist. Laws are there to constrain the real operation of a free market, aka 'law of the jungle'.

'Society needs a plan, not a race to the bottom'. EXCELLENT sentiment; this is the whole point of government and legal structure.

Unclebaldrick · Nov 28, 2016

ttystikk said:
Free markets don't exist. Laws are there to constrain the real operation of a free market, aka 'law of the jungle'.

'Society needs a plan, not a race to the bottom'. EXCELLENT sentiment; this is the whole point of government and legal structure.

Make Liberalism Great Again

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member