Now that is really a silly statement that ignores more than a decade of the sorry history of Republican efforts to not do a thing and now to reverse progress. That is really a beam in the Republican eye compared to the more like a mote in Demotratic one.
And more ignorance about my position. I’m on the record of supporting nuclear power as a part of the solution, but with the knowledge that the solution does involve going over the NIMBY toes of many that in the end will oppose nuclear deployments when they will notice that the solution will involve the many times demonized government. I can also notice that you completely missed that recent resolutions to support new nuclear developments passed recently with democratic support too.
Like if the majority of white evangelicals are not in favor of both anti-abortion and firme the NRA and like if they did not help elect the ignorant in chief.
The analogy I like to use regarding climate change and nuclear power is a sinking ship.
There’s a hole in the hull, the waves are already lapping the decks and everyone is running around like headless chicken trying to device a way to save themselves other than the bleeping life boats, because reasons.
Worse than that, the lunatics are chopping up the lifeboats as fast as they possibly can.
Of all the stupid things humanity has done through history, this tops the list.
Of course, as I noted many times before, the solution will have to involve a lot of education and government based deployment of next generation nuclear power, like when it was done in France with then new nuclear plants. Unfortunately, funding and making those things a reality is seen as socialism by many of those lunatics.
One thing I’ve noticed about all these green power source ideas is they look at production, not usage.
For example here in Kansas City they have this “Power and Light” district. We have this huge indoor stadium. All require MASSIVE amounts of energy for lights and air conditioning. For green energy plans those buildings and projects would have to be shut down during times when solar power is low (like at night). People would have to be required to turn off their HDTV’s because they use so much power. Major factories would have to shut down. Amusement parks would have to shut down.
Actually they did some of these back in WW2.
Now our power company has tossed around the idea of charging more for electricity during peak times or charging more for “energy hogs” but nothing much has come of it.
So my point is, it would take a major change in our usage of power for these plans to work.
Unfortunately, these statements are largely incorrect. It is true that anti-nukes need to be better educated on the science, but it is not the case that the left will support nuclear power if the government takes it over, nor is it true that the right is the main source of opposition to nuclear power.
Unless you would like to produce a cite of the left in support of nuclear power providing it is socialized. Since we are discussing the GND, mention where the distinction is made, or where AOC has come out in support of next-generation nuclear energy, or something like that.
If power is more costly at some times than at other times, isn’t it good to charge more when it’s costly? And does “electricity would be priced higher at night” translate into “people would be required to turn off their HDTV’s”? Did I miss the news? Is that what the new greenies are proposing? Requiring that appliances be turned off?
Built into the cost of cigarettes today is a reserve for future lung-disease lawsuits against the cigarette manufacturer. That’s what a carbon tax is for — to have the price of carbon fuels reflect their true costs. Germany has high taxes on power to incentivize efficiency and carbon avoidance. Is this why their electricity is expensive? If so, that high price is a feature, not a bug!
Speaking of carbon tax, what do we mean by “revenue neutral carbon tax”? Does that mean that the revenue cannot be used to reduce the deficit, or to repair infrastructure, but must be used on further tax cuts for the wealthy? In my proposal, revenue from the carbon tax would accrue to the SocSec Trust Fund and there would be corresponding reductions in payroll taxes. Does my proposal qualify as a “revenue neutral carbon tax”?
No - not at all this is a weird distortion (even of the not very clear or very thought through GND proposal).
The imagined resolution on the part of the 100 percent renewable is not such things have to shut in nighttime for the sake of God, it’s that the storage technologies and other sources non intermittant will bridge over production falls.
The idea that such would should be shut in these ideas is simply complete nonsense
What kind of backwards ignorant power company does not charge for peak usage times in this modern age???!!!
This is simply the rational demand based economic pricing…
It is more the point that it seems more likely you have not a very good understanding of the power pricing economics and policy even as it is now applied.
Although it is quite useles to correct this, for the factual record, the carbon tax concept is in fact a concept developed first by market economists for achieving a pricing in of the costs of the carbon emissions that are not captured by direct pricing - the well studied Externalities issue. It was not, for the factual clarification, an idea of the greeny Left, who in fact have distrusted the market mechanism.
What direction or substitution of the revenues it might generate is a separate question from its structure.
If the naysayers of 1912 had been listened to when they told people that government trying to remake societies and economies through central planning would end in disaster, tens of millions of deaths could have been prevented and the lives of billions of people would have been better.
:dubious: Rather, I think if someone had clued in the Czar that perhaps trying to keep the boot on the neck of the people and maintain complete authoritarian control would result in him and his entire house being shot in a dank basement, THAT might have saved 10’s of millions of lives. WWI though still would have happened, and it wasn’t become of the various socialist movements in Europe that it did (assuming that’s what you were referring too).
I’ve been thinking about this green new deal a bit and I think something my wife said last night has struck a cord. Basically, we were talking about it and I was saying how unrealistic it is, and her paraphrased response was ‘I don’t really care…it’s blowing up the Republicans and exploding their heads left and right. It’s worth it for that alone!’. And from that perspective, I think this is the equivalent of a Trumpian move by the left/progressives. It doesn’t matter that it’s unrealistic or even stupid. It’s making the base all fired up and, even better, it’s blowing up the other side. Plus, maybe like with Star Trek, it will actually get some folks to think…well, how COULD you do that? Maybe we could try this…or that…or something else…?
In that perspective, I say…well done! And the bonus is, always, it’s blowing up a lot of my conservative family and friends and making their heads explode too.
Ok then that leads to the realization that when one sees 65% or so of the population opposed to a new nuclear plant or nuclear dump that all those people are all liberals? Nope, a good chunk of that are conservatives. The point was that since the left’s numbers are usually around 30%, we have a lot of moderates and conservatives that would had made a difference many times in the recent past. But that is not what I saw. Mostly lukewarm support.
I’m on the record in favor of nuclear energy, it is easy to just jump to the early fact sheets or releases that were dismissed, but the more recent versions of the GND do not dismiss nuclear power.
That bold by me part is a bit that should never be forgotten, we arrived to the need of plans like the GND because of the idiocy and nonsense of the recent and current Republican “leadership”.
There are recently developed nuclear reactor designs that are more efficient than, and safer than, earlier reactors. Do they also help address the problems of nuclear waste? Perhaps delaying investment in reactors until these new designs were available will appear, in hindsight, to be smart.
We have separate “candidates’ lanes” for gays, Hispanics, blacks, ultra-liberals, etc. I hope some D candidate stands up and jumps into the empty-looking “rational thinkers’ lane”, starting with a positive outlook on nuclear power. We don’t let anti-vaxxers dominate public policy of vaccines; why let fringey fools veto nuclear power? (And, since the GOP’s entire platform is to appeal to stupidity, it would be amusing to watch them pivot to anti-nuke as soon as the D’s go pro-nuke.)
On the problem of nuclear waste, aren’t countries like France and Finland in the business of disposing of waste for money? Why isn’t the U.S. using their services? Perhaps if the money involved were big enough, Nevada would want to underbid them.
Sorry, not good enough. AOC and Bernie Sanders were explicit that they wanted to end nuclear power. This stuff about “maybe they don’t mean it” is BS. If they were lying then, I don’t believe them now. If they weren’t lying then, their GND is worthless and counter-productive.
Any plan that does not explicitly endorse nuclear power as a, or the, major source of energy is a non-starter.
Solar and wind and geothermal will not scale up to meet the energy needs of the world in the 21st century. Anyone who says or implies they will has no more relevance to the discussion than a AGW denialist.
The Democrats submit a bill they can’t defend, containing a bunch of stuff that is embarrassingly stupid, and wants everyone to support it. McConnell calls their bluff to see who is going to be dumb enough to support it.
While we don’t have a solid proposes for most of what is in the GND we do know they want high speed rail so say 82 million a mile. New York to LA 3593 miles so 3,593 means a cost of about 294,626,000,000 for ONE rail line, now add in a few going north south, and maybe two more going east west, plus feeder lines, so how many miles of high speed rails can we afford.
While I agree that nukes need to be a large part of the solution, it is better to actually work with and get some compromise, than to point to a representative as taking the lead of the party.
If they were persuaded to change their position, then that is a good thing. The stance that you are taking punishes anyone for ever changing their mind on things. The idea that any changes in stance must be lies is one of the reasons why people get dug in on positions.
Your rhetoric on this is the opposite of helpful.
People submit bills all the time that still need to go through committees, testimony, and debate before they are taken to the floor. Very few bills are unchanged from the time they are proposed to the time they are voted on.
Would you say that the vast majority of bills that are changed between proposal and voting are things that the party that proposed it cannot defend, is embarrassingly stupid, but demands everyone’s support?
Your post indicates that you either don’t know anything about how a bill normally goes about becoming a bill, or that you do, but have singled this one out to be treated differently.
I’m sorry that it has upset you that much that you are crying.
