POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[Red Spy]

i swear these words together in a sentence are the worst

Big oil sounds much better

[Ad Bot]

[IkeTheGeneric]

Did they take sandstorms into account? I would wait on Thunderf00t to either say if this is legit or bullstuff

Yeah, that's gonna be one of the big problems. Maintenance and repair costs would be high enough that anyone covering the cost of the panels would be at a monumental loss until it starts to become a net benefit in the long run. Solar energy & technology is quickly becoming sturdier and more efficient however, so it's only becoming more and more viable.

If we could do this & push for nuclear energy reform for most 1st world countries, we could push for complete energy independence and then some.

[ReddBoi]

Big oil sounds much better

wow yeah thanks

[beachbum111111]

There has to be a legit argument against nuclear. Solar I can understand because it just simply isn't cost efficient. Is it the same with nuclear or is it also because of the scare of a meltdown? How much safer are reactors now compared to the Fukashima and Chernobyl ones?

[IkeTheGeneric]

There has to be a legit argument against nuclear. Solar I can understand because it just simply isn't cost efficient. Is it the same with nuclear or is it also because of the scare of a meltdown? How much safer are reactors now compared to the Fukashima and Chernobyl ones?

Take this with a grain of salt, because I'm not too sure I know entirely what I'm talking about, but modern reactors are reliable and safe enough that a meltdown usually isn't even a possibility. Fukushima & Chernobyl were interesting in that the disaster occurred due to a mix of worst-case-scenario and glaring oversights.

A lot of the problems from nuclear waste being improperly disposed of is in part due to liberal lobbying keeping nuclear companies from safely disposing from waste. Some sect of the hard left have demonized nuclear power - take a look at the 2017 Green Party candidate's horror stories on twitter about nuclear power for a good example of the irrational arguments you find on nuclear power.

[beachbum111111]

Take this with a grain of salt, because I'm not too sure I know entirely what I'm talking about, but modern reactors are reliable and safe enough that a meltdown usually isn't even a possibility. Fukushima & Chernobyl were interesting in that the disaster occurred due to a mix of worst-case-scenario and glaring oversights.

A lot of the problems from nuclear waste being improperly disposed of is in part due to liberal lobbying keeping nuclear companies from safely disposing from waste. Some sect of the hard left have demonized nuclear power - take a look at the 2017 Green Party candidate's horror stories on twitter about nuclear power for a good example of the irrational arguments you find on nuclear power.

I thought that was just Jill Stein not understanding the difference between nuclear missiles and nuclear reactors (or thinking that reactors make the missiles or some dumb stuff). Didn't think the far left in general was against nuclear power. Thought they would be all over that stuff

[IkeTheGeneric]

Didn't think the far left in general was against nuclear power. Thought they would be all over that stuff

It's pretty much a mixture of conservative "Not in my back yard!" soccer moms who thinks anything that isn't tried and true is going to murderize their kids, and hard-left hippies who have somehow convinced themselves nuclear power is evil. At the very least, that's the sorta people I saw freak out here in IN when a new nuclear power plant was built.

[SetGaming]

I thought that was just Jill Stein not understanding the difference between nuclear missiles and nuclear reactors (or thinking that reactors make the missiles or some dumb stuff). Didn't think the far left in general was against nuclear power. Thought they would be all over that stuff

even though I find myself more left-leaning one of my biggest complaints of the left is how most don't seem very open to technological advances - nuclear being an example here - but instead they wait on things for a ridiculous amount of time without actually making any change

it's like how i've already seen a ton of liberals against cybernetic enhancements (not the best comparison) - yes we get it, it's frightening but it's going to be inevitable someday

[Tayasaurus]

I would at least expect the title "progressive" to be more pushed than it usually is. I guess a lot of self proclaimed liberals are more about being progressive socially than technologically. Though I can't say for certain.

[IkeTheGeneric]

I would at least expect the title "progressive" to be more pushed than it usually is. I guess a lot of self proclaimed liberals are more about being progressive socially than technologically. Though I can't say for certain.

Honestly the brunt of these "Progressive" folks only care about social progressiveness because social policies are the "Easy" political stuff. There's a lot more nuance and sides to take on technological and economical progression that drives them away.

[Juncoph]

There has to be a legit argument against nuclear. Solar I can understand because it just simply isn't cost efficient. Is it the same with nuclear or is it also because of the scare of a meltdown? How much safer are reactors now compared to the Fukashima and Chernobyl ones?

Chernobyl was the result of Soviet engineers disregarding every single safety precaution in the book.

Fukashima was the result of terrible design planning - there's not much you can do to stop a tsunami from destroying your reactor... besides moving it inland.

Both reactors didn't have nuclear explosions - the runaway heating caused the coolant loops to burst, and those loops are under some incredible pressure. Lots of the coolant water gets immediately thermolysed, and the resulting oxygen and hydrogen immediately burn. The result is a giant fuel-air bomb that sprays bits of reactor fuel everywhere.

Modern reactor designs use molten salt at higher temperatures and lower pressures. Such meltdown events can't occur with molten salt reactors, not to mention the nuclear material itself isn't configured the same way. Unfortunately, I can't recall the details in it, but I recall it being unable to start a runaway heating event.

[Foxscotch]

There has to be a legit argument against nuclear. Solar I can understand because it just simply isn't cost efficient. Is it the same with nuclear or is it also because of the scare of a meltdown? How much safer are reactors now compared to the Fukashima and Chernobyl ones?

one problem is it's not renewable. maybe it's cleaner than gas and coal and whatever else, but it'll eventually run out just like they will

[Ipquarx]

Anyone that's hard against nuclear is either misinformed or payed off; It's orders of magnitude safer than coal even after you take into account the exceedingly rare meltdown events.

Though, I do predict that whenever fusion energy becomes viable (Which might be sooner than you think!) that it'll be greatly preferred over fission (AKA nuclear) energy.

[HellHound]

we should build the wall entirely out of nuclear waste

[Juncoph]

Anyone that's hard against nuclear is either misinformed or payed off; It's orders of magnitude safer than coal even after you take into account the exceedingly rare meltdown events.

Though, I do predict that whenever fusion energy becomes viable (Which might be sooner than you think!) that it'll be greatly preferred over fission (AKA nuclear) energy.

there's also this to consider. fusion will be a minor energy production revolution in its own right once it gets practical

one problem is it's not renewable. maybe it's cleaner than gas and coal and whatever else, but it'll eventually run out just like they will

this is the only real argument against nuclear, but only really for fission. fusion uses the deuterium-tritium reaction (or, well, the most practical prototype fusion setups do) and hydrogen is pretty damn common, so