The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

RedDenver said:
Actually the reverse is true. Nuclear takes much longer to build than wind or especially PV, so that's another reason nuclear isn't a good option.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/28/renewable-energy-much-faster-install-scalable-nuclear-power/
Click to expand...
https://www.wired.com/story/the-next-nuclear-plants-will-be-small-svelte-and-safer/

Small Module Reactors - Smaller, safer and quicker to get up and running - still think this is how the path to zero carbon emissions looks. 

 
FrantzHardySwag said:
https://www.wired.com/story/the-next-nuclear-plants-will-be-small-svelte-and-safer/

Small Module Reactors - Smaller, safer and quicker to get up and running - still think this is how the path to zero carbon emissions looks. 
Click to expand...
Note that the issue of long-term radioactive waste isn't addressed by this. We'd just have a lot of smaller highly radioactive sites, which seems like that's even worse. And a test prototype hasn't even been built yet (anticipated 2026 before the first test reactors produce power). Plus it doesn't address that wind and PV are cheap, available right now, and have thousands of commercial sites already in use and tested. I'm extremely skeptical this is even a good idea for power generation, let alone a solution for climate change.

From that article:

But the company has already secured permission to build its first 12-reactor plant at the Idaho National Laboratory, which may start supplying power to communities in Western states as soon as 2026.
Click to expand...
But small reactors will still need to prove they can be cost-competitive, says Steve Fetter, a professor of public policy at the University of Maryland. With the price of renewables like wind and solar rapidly falling and ample natural gas available, smaller, svelter reactors may never find their niche. Especially if a prime motivator is climate change, whose pace is exceeding that of regulatory approvals.
Click to expand...

 
RedDenver said:
Note that the issue of long-term radioactive waste isn't addressed by this. We'd just have a lot of smaller highly radioactive sites, which seems like that's even worse. And a test prototype hasn't even been built yet (anticipated 2026 before the first test reactors produce power). Plus it doesn't address that wind and PV are cheap, available right now, and have thousands of commercial sites already in use and tested. I'm extremely skeptical this is even a good idea for power generation, let alone a solution for climate change.

From that article:
Click to expand...
I think we both have the same goal, we just disagree on how quickly we can get to 100% renewable. I see countries like Germany close down nuclear plants, put an emphasis on renewables - but still have to lean heavy on fossil fuels. Personally IF there is a gap to plug between renewables and powering the grid, I would like to see that done with Nuclear and not coal/gas/oil. 

 
RedDenver said:
Actually the reverse is true. Nuclear takes much longer to build than wind or especially PV, so that's another reason nuclear isn't a good option.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/28/renewable-energy-much-faster-install-scalable-nuclear-power/
Click to expand...
Those long time frames are many times due to the legal and regulatory hoops they need to jump through.  

So....what we have are people who don't want nuclear plants, they fight them and have lobbyists working to add more and more regulations to them being built which extends the time it takes too build one.  Then, they say...see...Wind energy can be built faster.

 
BigRedBuster said:
Those long time frames are many times due to the legal and regulatory hoops they need to jump through.  

So....what we have are people who don't want nuclear plants, they fight them and have lobbyists working to add more and more regulations to them being built which extends the time it takes too build one.  Then, they say...see...Wind energy can be built faster.
Click to expand...
It's also because nuclear power is extremely dangerous and requires a great deal of regulatory oversight.

 
Oh my God.

This was cut late last year. But it aged incredibly well considering the rulings today. Savvy of Biden to retweet it.

And now they can use the "What is Trump hiding?" angle against him.

The ad people running against Trump this year rock, across the board - Biden, his PACs, the Lincoln Project, RVAT. They're all kicking butt. 


 
Last edited by a moderator:
TGHusker said:
I agree - we should NOT vote just because of the party. My post was to emphasize that we need to kick the trump enablers out of office. 
Click to expand...
I agree wholeheartedly. I absolutely despise political parties and refuse to ever affiliate with one. However, in order to defeat the force that is killing our nation, I'm stuck in a "vote blue no matter who" mindset.

I desperately wish we had more than two viable parties in this country, if not a system where one's merits and beliefs stood on their own and weren't attached to a letter by their name.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
mrandyk said:
I agree wholeheartedly. I absolutely despise political parties and refuse to ever affiliate with one. However, in order to defeat the force that is killing our nation, I'm stuck in a "vote blue no matter who" mindset.

I desperately wish we had more than two viable parties in this country, if not a system where one's merits and beliefs stood on their own and weren't attached to a letter by their name.
Click to expand...
We do BUT people have to be interested in them.

 
BigRedBuster said:
So....if he doesn’t agree to these Bernie bros aren’t going to vote for Biden?
 
Click to expand...
That along with mass amnesty.  Someone here challenged me to prove Biden believed in it.  I'm sure Biden officially denied up to the day he supported it. 

FrantzHardySwag said:
Because everything I've read indicated it will take time to ramp up to 100% renewable energy. Realistically 20-30 years. And like I said before I would prefer not to be burning fossil fuels for 20-30 years if we can. Enter Nuclear.
Click to expand...
I got to say I'm impressed with you.  In fact you're the first presumed-Green I've met who isn't afraid to utter the words "nuclear power."  Most of them assume nuclear produces climate change for some reason, and when corrected, immediately change the subject. The reason is obvious.

Say, what do the people of NE think of the latest Keystone Pipeline episode?

 
Notre Dame Joe said:
got to say I'm impressed with you.  In fact you're the first presumed-Green I've met who isn't afraid to utter the words "nuclear power."  Most of them assume nuclear produces climate change for some reason, and when corrected, immediately change the subject. The reason is obvious.

Say, what do the people of NE think of the latest Keystone Pipeline episode?
Click to expand...
You need to communicate more with “green” people. 
 

I honestly don’t hear people talking about the pipeline. 
 

Im sure the majority around here would support it because king Donny acts like it’s so great. 
 

Me personally, I’m against it. A foreign company/government should not be able to use eminent domain to take control of American’s property just so the can get their products to a port. 

 
mrandyk said:
I agree wholeheartedly. I absolutely despise political parties and refuse to ever affiliate with one. However, in order to defeat the force that is killing our nation, I'm stuck in a "vote blue no matter who" mindset.

I desperately wish we had more than two viable parties in this country, if not a system where one's merits and beliefs stood on their own and weren't attached to a letter by their name.
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand.  It would be nice if presidential elections were non-partisan.  Without the party label and with rank voting.  Here in Tulsa, the mayor's race is now  technically without party label, but of course you know the background and affiliation of the candidates. 

 
Notre Dame Joe said:
That along with mass amnesty.  Someone here challenged me to prove Biden believed in it.  I'm sure Biden officially denied up to the day he supported it. 

I got to say I'm impressed with you.  In fact you're the first presumed-Green I've met who isn't afraid to utter the words "nuclear power."  Most of them assume nuclear produces climate change for some reason, and when corrected, immediately change the subject. The reason is obvious.

Say, what do the people of NE think of the latest Keystone Pipeline episode?
Click to expand...


A task force recommending something doesn't mean Biden automatically adopts it. That said, hell yeah it should be less complicated to become a citizen. It shouldn't take years and thousands of dollars.

There are a lot of moderate Dems who support climate policies a lot different from the Sanders-AOC wing of the party. Plenty of ways to skin a cat.

Boo Keystone and pipelines in general. The cost-benefit never made sense to me. Paying non-American companies to create a handful of temporary jobs so they can pump their profits across our land (and in many cases, Native Americans'), worsen climate change and do a subpar job whenever a leak happens. Pass.

 
Any halfway competent POTUS could have wrapped themselves in the flag, said halfway right things, and been reelected easily.


Donald Trump is not that.

(I've always thought 33% was his floor, the diehards, the cultists. (It is sad there are that many). He's there now, which isn't good for reelection; he's going to get even more desperate).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top