Did you mean “as the GOP does against the PRO-science elements in theirs”?
I even noticed former NOAA scientists criticising the lack of Nuclear power in many plans; however, as noted, the ones currently in power are the Republicans. And AFAIK, their efforts are just slightly better than the Democratic administration of before. And in the end really inadequate.
I also many times pointed at troubles many conservatives have with timelines or the march of progress. I do think many are like the one I noticed in a discussion about a year ago where the poster was adamant that the costs of solar where just as he saw then back in the 80s or 90s when he was working on the field. That was really sad when the evidence was shown to him about the huge drop in prices.
I have seen that when technology is the issue progress does many times make even formerly experienced people that think that issues of the past are not being taken care of to fall for defeatist spin. While that defeatism goes for alternative sources of energy, one thing many conservative pro nuclear guys forget is that the nuclear people have growing issues that are not related to stupid Greenpeace stunts against nuclear power*
I do think that Von Hoene has seen the writing on the wall by looking at how things are shaping up in other places:
And coal people should also take some notes:
Still, even after I see that, I do agree with Hoene on something: Nuclear should still play a part in the future where alternative energy sources will stop being alternative.
*Yes, while I agree on several issues with that group, I’m on the record already of not supporting Greenpeace on their asinine nuclear power fears.
You may not have heard it, but it exists:
There is one very clear anti-science party in the US.
Only 1 republican candidate for president (Jeb!) would admit to believing in evolution out of 17. And even he said words to the effect of “Teach the controversy”.
I’m sick of this trend recently of people saying “both parties are as bad as each other” no matter what happens, and that we need to “come to the center”.
No – one side is much more unprincipled and ignorant than the other right now, and the overton window has moved right over into crazy town.
And the point about nuclear power just illustrates this.
I am pro-nuclear power but I understand that there are reasonable arguments against it, and I feel I could sit down with someone against nuclear power and have a fact-based discussion.
There’s no equivalence between that and someone who denies climate change (despite the fact we’re having record-breaking year after record-breaking year), or who accepts climate change but desperately scratches around for an excuse to ignore it.
15.5 is larger than 14.4, so yes, I know there was an increase. It has been a bit higher in the past year because of the good economy. But this is total consumption, not per capita. Maybe your state hasn’t grown, but mine sure as hell has.
Very little of this has to do with electric cars, which are still not very prevalent. My hybrid uses no power from the grid, and a lot is just better fuel economy, the thing the Trump Administration is against.
Opposition to nuclear power has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with engineering. If the opposition centered around the fear that a reactor would go up like an atomic bomb you’d have a point.
There is a question of whether a carbon tax or the carbon credit is the better way or reducing CO2 production. That is an economic argument, not a scientific one. If that is where the GOP was we’d be a lot better off.
BTW, do you think Scott Pruitt was a good choice for EPA head - not considering his crookedness?
Okay, so first of all, the GOP doesn’t push back against the anti-science elements in theirs. At all. They elevate them to positions of power where they can lead their anti-science crusade more effectively. So all democrats would have to do to push back harder is… fuck, I dunno, not put Carolyn Maloney at the head of a vaccine task force? The bar is pretty fucking low, is what I’m saying.
Secondly, there’s a bitter irony of you demanding we police our own side when, when given the opportunity to push back against someone saying that global warming is a socialist conspiracy, you took the opportunity to agree with that person. :mad:
These are not equivalent. “There is a problem but our solution isn’t going to fully resolve it/isn’t very practical” and “There is no problem. Sticks fingers in ears I CAN’T HEAR YOU LALALALALA” are not equivalent - not least because if we do stumble upon a solution that works, the former position is a lot easier to change. And also, we only have your word on it that the democratic solutions are impractical or won’t work, and let’s be honest - “your word” on the issue of climate change isn’t something I’m just going to take. Evidence, please?
We already have a solution that has a chance of working. So change your position.
Regards,
Shodan
And is your party - you know, the one that controls every branch of government right now - implementing that solution? :rolleyes:
No, the NIMBYs and the greens are blocking us, and the Democrats would rather do something else.
Regards,
Shodan
The Presidency, The House, The Senate and the Supreme Court.
How much more political power do you need to get what you supposedly want?
What an interesting perspective. Thanks for the nice chat. Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to?
Of course, after seeing the evidence, that “something else” is very significant and the evidence is that it is not farfetched to foresee even more progress on that front unlike what the ignorant sources from the right and astroturfing sphere are telling you.
I assume that Shodan is talking about nuclear power and he’s sorta right. If it truly is apocalyptic global warming that we’re talking about. If you really, truly believe that we’re talking about society melting down due to global warming, then the problems with nuclear power pale in comparison. Waste disposal is not a fun problem, but it’s a relatively solved problem and the risk of meltdown is very real, but also very small and incredibly minor in comparison to apocalyptic scenarios regarding food security and the climate frying the Global South alive. If you are someone that really, truly believes in a global warming apocalypse, then getting on the nuclear power bandwagon is the way to go.
Of course, what Shodan doesn’t mention is that it’s not really NIMBYs and Greens blocking nuclear power (although they ARE the ones that are causing existing plants to shut down - while Czarcasm is right in saying that the Federal government is completely Republican, the same can’t be said for state governments who are the ones exerting pressure.) It’s the same thing that blocks everything else in the energy sector - cheap and abundant natural gas (not renewables which sometimes get lumped with it. It’s all natural gas. Renewables are still mostly a pipe dream outside of hydro. We’re up to 440 GW of natural gas compared to about 100 of wind and solar combined.) A nuclear plant is an enormous investment that ultimately costs more to produce electricity than natural gas. Natural gas plants are relatively cheap and easy and they can be idled if conditions change. Nuclear is a long term, high risk investment and it doesn’t appear in most cases that utility companies think that it’s worth the risk.
Bottom line though is that if you really truly believe in the global warming apocalypse, subsidizing nuclear is really the way to go. It’s proven, it’s scaleable, it’s effective. The fact that no one is doing it tells me that no one really has a firm grasp on their climate change beliefs.
“No one is doing it”? Really?
You can make that claim but the facts don’t substantiate it. From [POST=18798570]this thread[/POST]:
In the last ten sessions (104th through 113th, 1995 through 2015) the United States Congress has been fully dominated by the Republican party 60% of the time, continuous from 1995 through 2007 (104th through 109th), and enjoyed a significant majority in the House from 2011 (112th) through the present where they again have significant majorities in both houses. A cursory look through govtrack.us on House and Senate bills and House resolutions shows a pretty thorough mix of Republicans and Democrats proposing laws or resolutions on nuclear power. So, assuming that Republicans are largely aligned with “conservative” views, it would seem that your question should be “What has the [DEL]liberal[/DEL]conservative establishment done to push nuclear power?”
[POST=18795997]Meanwhile[/POST]:
*Mother Jones magazine–you know, that self-avowed bastion of far-left liberalism–has run a number of articles in the past few years in cautious support for nuclear fission power such as “Will Thorium Nuclear Energy Save Us All?”, “The Pro-Nukes Environmental Movement”, and the unambiguously titled “Why We Need Nuclear Power”. *
The predominately conservative Republican party has had plenty of opportunity to promote an expansion of nuclear energy (and one would hope research into more advanced methods of nuclear fission that require less processing and waste disposal) and has pretty much done fuck-all about it
They want it all, they want it all, they want it all, and they want it now! Unfortunately, like a virgin boy on prom night, they have absolutely no idea to do with it once they have it. It’s been a year and a half of feckless groping and fumbling with the bra clasp, and all they have to show for it is an abortive attempt to dismantle the Affordable Care Act and a tax cut that with long term impacts seemly designed to turn the United States into one of those “shithole countries” while providing a transient benefit to the very wealthy.
Stranger
That’s actually my point. The science is behind it, but the movement is not.
Again - this is why we aren’t going to do anything about AGW. The same climate scientists who tell us that AGW is real say things like -
and Democrats want to talk about something else - in this case, coal.
Regards,
Shodan
Since when does the Republican Party give a flying fuck about what Democrats want and/or what climate scientists say? “If we only had the power to do something!”
“You’ve got the power, so do something”
“Uhhhhh…”
Shodan,
The problem isn’t that Democrats are blocking nuclear power. It’s that Republicans fail to even acknowledge that there is a problem which nuclear power can address. Democrats have their problems too of course. They have been hijacked by their extremes, although not to the degree that Republicans are, but you’re right that they aren’t truly ‘progressive’ in the sense of advocating for a purely science based society and are tied to various interest groups, including environmental groups which dislike nuclear power for reasons? Republicans though are so tied into industrial money that they aren’t even admitting that there is an issue. The Democrats’ problem is bad, but the Republicans’ problem is so much worse. The Democrats can have a discussion about it. The Republicans fail to even believe there is something to discuss. They are far different issues.