Energy

[gordonsolie]

On 6/15/2024 at 4:41 PM, Orange said:

Is that what I said?   Can you read even one word of fucking English?

Lulz you’re a bigot lulz

[retrofade]

On 6/15/2024 at 8:31 AM, Orange said:

I’m not against trying anything, I’m against being so dead-set on one very cumbersome strategy.   The enthusiasm for nuclear here is odd to me. It’ll MAYBE reduce co2 by 5%?  It is not a silver bullet.   And the CO2 output in constructing these insanely complex (and decades-long) projects is massive. 
 

And really, it is windy in most places.  It is sunny in most places.   We could be getting more creative with windmill and solar placement.  
 

Mostly, I’m an advocate for less consumerism and more communities planned around sustainable transportation.  

Hey dumb dumb. I’m talking about using nuclear power as part of research to get us from fission to fusion. That said, fission power gets us to a better place than we’re at right now. Why are you such a fucking dumbass? 

[RSF]

On 6/15/2024 at 4:14 PM, retrofade said:

Hey dumb dumb. I’m talking about using nuclear power as part of research to get us from fission to fusion. That said, fission power gets us to a better place than we’re at right now. Why are you such a fucking dumbass? 

I have some theories.  Digesting large quantities of paint chips as a child is the current favorite.

[Orange]

On 6/15/2024 at 2:14 PM, retrofade said:

Hey dumb dumb. I’m talking about using nuclear power as part of research to get us from fission to fusion. That said, fission power gets us to a better place than we’re at right now. Why are you such a fucking dumbass? 

Yes, let’s do more research and capitalism and building all to find out that capitalism and consumerism is what’s doomed our kids.  Brilliant. 

[retrofade]

On 6/15/2024 at 4:21 PM, Orange said:

Yes, let’s do more research and capitalism and building all to find out that capitalism and consumerism is what’s doomed our kids.  Brilliant. 

You're hopeless. 

[renoskier]

On 6/15/2024 at 4:21 PM, Orange said:

Yes, let’s do more research and capitalism and building all to find out that capitalism and consumerism is what’s doomed our kids.  Brilliant. 

do you have kids?

[Orange]

On 6/15/2024 at 5:55 PM, retrofade said:

You're hopeless. 

This is truly evangelical thinking you guys have toward nuclear.   It will solve 5% of the problem for $10b per plant, each one of which takes decades to build and we can’t possibly build enough to solve the climate crisis, yet it seems to be 95% of the solution to you guys. 

[Orange]

On 6/15/2024 at 6:27 PM, renoskier said:

do you have kids?

Yes. 

[RSF]

On 6/15/2024 at 10:08 PM, Orange said:

This is truly evangelical thinking you guys have toward nuclear.   It will solve 5% of the problem for $10b per plant, each one of which takes decades to build and we can’t possibly build enough to solve the climate crisis

Not familiar with SMRs, are ya...

 

On 6/15/2024 at 10:08 PM, Orange said:

yet it seems to be 95% of the solution to you guys. 

Hyperbole is fun.

[Madmartigan]

On 6/15/2024 at 9:32 PM, RSF said:

Not familiar with SMRs, are ya...

 

Hyperbole is fun.

I think many opposed to nuclear aren’t up to speed with the latest and picture the nuclear reactor featured in the Simpsons. 

[Orange]

On 6/15/2024 at 10:08 PM, Madmartigan said:

I think many opposed to nuclear aren’t up to speed with the latest and picture the nuclear reactor featured in the Simpsons. 

No

[Orange]

Concerned about energy?  Address this problem:

 

 

[Sactowndog]

On 6/15/2024 at 8:08 PM, Orange said:

This is truly evangelical thinking you guys have toward nuclear.   It will solve 5% of the problem for $10b per plant, each one of which takes decades to build and we can’t possibly build enough to solve the climate crisis, yet it seems to be 95% of the solution to you guys. 

I think the point you are missing is the rise of mini reactors a number of which are salt cooled versus water cooled and have better half life’s.  Some are based on Thorium.   

these options are an interesting option for the high demand data centers versus distributing that much energy hundreds of miles over the grid.  The below podcast is worth a listen on the topic.  @Joe from Wyo may want to listen as it is a competitor to Fission which may get to market faster.  Hard to say.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/macro-voices/id1079172742?i=1000655041947
 

[Spaztecs]

On 6/11/2024 at 10:40 AM, Orange said:

Yes, and we were told Chernobyl and Fukushima were foolproof, too. 

So was Three Mile Island

[Spaztecs]

On 6/13/2024 at 9:24 AM, Joe from Wyo said:

Yeah and according to Orange none of that has caused habitat destruction or the like at all for desert dwellers. 

Oil fields oil refineries, coal mines, and other fossil fuel extraction schemes are far more environmentally devestating. 

Yet, because green energy is undergoing growing pains, we should kill it and never dabble there again. Since it's not perfect as yet.

Nothing but Big Oil talking points.

[Spaztecs]

On 6/13/2024 at 1:28 PM, azgreg said:

The Palo Verde nuclear plant has been operating in the Arizona desert since the 80's and has very little issues. All the wasted it's generated is still onsite.

 

Awesome.

Spent nuclear fuel rods with a half life of thousands of years laying around in the desert.

What could possibly go wrong ?

Based on American businesses history of handling nuclear waste, I'm not a fan. When they figure that part out, I will change my mind on nukes.

[stanfordchef]

On 6/16/2024 at 11:01 PM, Spaztecs said:

Oil fields oil refineries, coal mines, and other fossil fuel extraction schemes are far more environmentally devestating. 

Yet, because green energy is undergoing growing pains, we should kill it and never dabble there again. Since it's not perfect as yet.

Nothing but Big Oil talking points.

you could say the same thing about nuclear power, no?

that said, if it's a "big oil talking point" to point out that killing thousands of endangered Joshua Trees (which are limited in where they can grow) so some rich folk in LA can feel good about using "green" energy is both asinine and selfish, then I guess I'm a consultant for Chevron or Shell or whomever at this point.

[stanfordchef]

On 6/16/2024 at 11:05 PM, Spaztecs said:

Awesome.

Spent nuclear fuel rods with a half life and thousands of years laying around in the desert.

What could possibly go wrong ?

Based on American businesses history of handling nuclear waste, I'm not a fan. When they figure that part out, I will change my mind on nukes.

what about all the nasty mining practices that have to occur to get the minerals to use to make solar panels, lithium batteries, etc.?

or is that like a net-zero emissions/pollution strip mining activity because rich people can "feel good" about "doing their part" to "fight climate change"?

[Nevada Convert]

On 6/14/2024 at 6:55 PM, Orange said:

Safety issues aside, nuclear doesn’t move the needle.  
 

https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/52758/reasons-why-nuclear-energy-not-way-green-and-peaceful-world/

 

 

According to scenarios from the World Nuclear Association and the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (both nuclear lobby organisations), doubling the capacity of nuclear power worldwide in 2050 would only decrease greenhouse gas emissions by around 4%. But in order to do that, the world would need to bring 37 new large nuclear reactors to the grid every year from now, year on year, until 2050.

The last decade only showed a few to 10 new grid connections per year. Ramping that up to 37 is physically impossible – there is not sufficient capacity to make large forgings like reactor vessels. There are currently only 57 new reactors under construction or planned for the coming one-and-a-half decade. Doubling nuclear capacity – different from the explosive growth of clean renewable energy sources like solar and wind – is therefore unrealistic. 

Greenpeace? Who fucking cares what extremist wankers think? And I could care less what the Wally World Nuclear goofs think. We are responsible for our own country to do what makes sense to us using the latest technology. SMR’s are the future, and they’re going to happen, period. They’re so overwhelming the right direction to go even if we didn’t have a climate situation. 
 

 

[Spaztecs]

On 6/17/2024 at 12:53 AM, Joe from Wyo said:

what about all the nasty mining practices that have to occur to get the minerals to use to make solar panels, lithium batteries, etc.?

or is that like a net-zero emissions/pollution strip mining activity because rich people can "feel good" about "doing their part" to "fight climate change"?

Keep pimping those Big Oil talking points.

Actually, there is a load of pushback from Communities. Who would have thought that wealthy Coastal dwellers would suddenly care about right whales and ecological impacts from offshore wind ?

I'm guessing they would rather see the environmental devastation of existing communities near fossil fuel projects that are far, far away from them them, than clean energy near them.

No surprise there.