First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
trumps first 100 day plan
1194 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25
Offline
Posted 25 days ago


About half of it is pretty good. The other half varies from terrible to only sub-par.

Examples of the good.
- All and everything dealing with ending lobbyist and instilling term limits.

Examples of terrible
- Ending regulation on fossil fuels.

Another good
-Repealing ACA

Another Bad
- The shitty vague thing that he wants to replace it with.

Many of the "ACTS" that are at the end of the list I only have basic understandings of and don't feel qualified to give an opinion on it being positive or negative.

Really really really really dumb Idea
- walls. Dumb walls. ON A FRIGGING RIVER! Walls don't work well on a riverbank.
127 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / US
Offline
Posted 25 days ago
Climate change is a big issue. I love how people can't accept that and play it off with a joke.
It's all fun and games until the US becomes Atlantis.
runec 
28248 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 25 days ago , edited 25 days ago

Axizu wrote:
Climate change is a big issue. I love how people can't accept that and play it off with a joke.
It's all fun and games until the US becomes Atlantis.


The news media threw actual policy talk out the window this election. To a staggering degree:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/10/26/study-confirms-network-evening-newscasts-have-abandoned-policy-coverage-2016-campaign/214120
1542 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 25 days ago
24563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 25 days ago , edited 25 days ago

Yorutenchi wrote:



About half of it is pretty good. The other half varies from terrible to only sub-par.

Examples of the good.
- All and everything dealing with ending lobbyist and instilling term limits.

Examples of terrible
- Ending regulation on fossil fuels.

Another good
-Repealing ACA

Another Bad
- The shitty vague thing that he wants to replace it with.

Many of the "ACTS" that are at the end of the list I only have basic understandings of and don't feel qualified to give an opinion on it being positive or negative.

Really really really really dumb Idea
- walls. Dumb walls. ON A FRIGGING RIVER! Walls don't work well on a riverbank.


Depends on what you want the wall to accomplish. Context matters. Militarily, walls on the defended side of a riverbank are fantastic, because it's an obstacle reinforced by an obstacle with a clear field of observation and fire across the river. No, this doesn't mean I'm advocating that the Mexican border should be a war zone, just pointing out that context matters.

As to the wailing and gnashing of teeth about fossil fuels... honestly, I think it's a bit overblown. First, consider that once upon a time, before the carboniferous period in Earth's geological history, there was NO carbon sequestered in fossil fuels. It was all either in the biomass, or in the atmosphere. The atmosphere had many times the carbon dioxide that it currently has. Yet that period was a "garden earth" phase. Before plants evolved lignin, all plants that died just rotted. Then they evolved lignin (the fibrous organic polymer that makes wood "woody") during the carboniferous period, and the bacteria that normally broke them down didn't have any way to break down the lignin, so all the woody parts of dead plants just fell to the ground, were covered by other dead plants, and became fossil fuels. But then bacteria and fungi evolved the ability to break down lignin, and plant matter was no longer buried un-biodegraded. After that, no more fossil fuels were, nor ever will be, produced again. But it's important to remember that prior to that phase, all that carbon that is now sequestered in fossil fuels was just free in the atmosphere. That is a natural state of the earth's atmosphere (not the only natural state, but one of them, which happily supported life). Now, that's not to say that *rapid* climate change would not disrupt ecosystems; it certainly could. Species could (and would) be driven to extinction. But it's not going to end life on earth by any stretch of the imagination. The notion that some kind of exponential increase in atmospheric CO2 will continue beyond the next 30-40 years, as is shown in alarmist graphs and graphics? No, that's just physically impossible, and even lasting that long is assuming we can actually access all of the reserves, which presently we cannot. At this rate of consumption, there wouldn't be any left to burn!

People act as if the fossil-fuel carbon dioxide emissions will last forever. They will not. Even if absolutely NO government action is taken on reducing them, they can only last so long as there are fossil fuels *remaining* to burn, and there's really not that much left all considered. We've already had to invent new technologies to extract petroleum from reserves we couldn't previously access, because the large oil fields are running out. Ultimately, the most CO2 we can add to the atmosphere through fossil fuel use is the same amount that was already in the atmosphere during the verdant earth phase prior to the end of the carboniferous period (by the way, there's a reason it's called the CARBONiferous period!) We're freaking out over 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2? It was 2200 ppm in the Devonian period, and life flourished in that period!
1194 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25
Offline
Posted 25 days ago

outontheop wrote:


Yorutenchi wrote:



About half of it is pretty good. The other half varies from terrible to only sub-par.

Examples of the good.
- All and everything dealing with ending lobbyist and instilling term limits.

Examples of terrible
- Ending regulation on fossil fuels.

Another good
-Repealing ACA

Another Bad
- The shitty vague thing that he wants to replace it with.

Many of the "ACTS" that are at the end of the list I only have basic understandings of and don't feel qualified to give an opinion on it being positive or negative.

Really really really really dumb Idea
- walls. Dumb walls. ON A FRIGGING RIVER! Walls don't work well on a riverbank.


Depends on what you want the wall to accomplish. Context matters. Militarily, walls on the defended side of a riverbank are fantastic, because it's an obstacle reinforced by an obstacle with a clear field of observation and fire across the river. No, this doesn't mean I'm advocating that the Mexican border should be a war zone, just pointing out that context matters.

As to the wailing and gnashing of teeth about fossil fuels... honestly, I think it's a bit overblown. First, consider that once upon a time, before the carboniferous period in Earth's geological history, there was NO carbon sequestered in fossil fuels. It was all either in the biomass, or in the atmosphere. The atmosphere had many times the carbon dioxide that it currently has. Yet that period was a "garden earth" phase. Before plants evolved lignin, all plants that died just rotted. Then they evolved lignin (the fibrous organic polymer that makes wood "woody") during the carboniferous period, and the bacteria that normally broke them down didn't have any way to break down the lignin, so all the woody parts of dead plants just fell to the ground, were covered by other dead plants, and became fossil fuels. But then bacteria and fungi evolved the ability to break down lignin, and plant matter was no longer buried un-biodegraded. After that, no more fossil fuels were, nor ever will be, produced again. But it's important to remember that prior to that phase, all that carbon that is now sequestered in fossil fuels was just free in the atmosphere. That is a natural state of the earth's atmosphere (not the only natural state, but one of them, which happily supported life). Now, that's not to say that *rapid* climate change would not disrupt ecosystems; it certainly could. Species could (and would) be driven to extinction. But it's not going to end life on earth by any stretch of the imagination. The notion that some kind of exponential increase in atmospheric CO2 will continue beyond the next 30-40 years, as is shown in alarmist graphs and graphics? No, that's just physically impossible, and even lasting that long is assuming we can actually access all of the reserves, which presently we cannot. At this rate of consumption, there wouldn't be any left to burn!

People act as if the fossil-fuel carbon dioxide emissions will last forever. They will not. Even if absolutely NO government action is taken on reducing them, they can only last so long as there are fossil fuels *remaining* to burn, and there's really not that much left all considered. We've already had to invent new technologies to extract petroleum from reserves we couldn't previously access, because the large oil fields are running out. Ultimately, the most CO2 we can add to the atmosphere through fossil fuel use is the same amount that was already in the atmosphere during the verdant earth phase prior to the carboniferous period (by the way, there's a reason it's called the CARBONiferous period!)


Context noted.

The kind of life that existed during that period is different on a grand scale than the life currently here. It does cause rapid climate change and the CO2 levels should be of concern. Even if we were to throw that out and assume it just works out otherwise the massive implications of short term pollution and ecological damage is extreme. A good example of why we should fight this is the Dakota Access pipeline. He proposes forcing it through and the Native American reservation be damned. We have already curbed our incredibly destructive display of pollution on such a grand scale its amazing. The reason why most people can just say "eh" to it is because the past 80 years we've been actively protecting the environment and laying down regulations on where they can dump their waste and how much they can pump in the air. Cities used to be covered in a permanent smog and buildings were stained black all across because of pollution. Whole waterways have been polluted so badly that we don't have clean drinking water in most random streams we find in the US.
199 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 25 days ago , edited 20 days ago
I have to wonder sometimes if you people are serious. Worried about climate change rather than the horde of humans illegally invading the nation yearly, quite literally drowning the country in overpopulation? The wall is going to cost very little compared to what keeping and letting in illegal immigrants costs, that is a large part of why USA is doing economically so badly.
24563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 25 days ago

Yorutenchi wrote:

Context noted.

The kind of life that existed during that period is different on a grand scale than the life currently here. It does cause rapid climate change and the CO2 levels should be of concern. Even if we were to throw that out and assume it just works out otherwise the massive implications of short term pollution and ecological damage is extreme. A good example of why we should fight this is the Dakota Access pipeline. He proposes forcing it through and the Native American reservation be damned. We have already curbed our incredibly destructive display of pollution on such a grand scale its amazing. The reason why most people can just say "eh" to it is because the past 80 years we've been actively protecting the environment and laying down regulations on where they can dump their waste and how much they can pump in the air. Cities used to be covered in a permanent smog and buildings were stained black all across because of pollution. Whole waterways have been polluted so badly that we don't have clean drinking water in most random streams we find in the US.


The Dakota Access pipeline is run through private lands, not reservation lands.

As to cleaner energy, I'm all for it.... if it actually IS cleaner. Some of the "clean" "environmentally responsible" options are, in fact, horrible when it comes to sustainability, and are actually WORSE for the environment than the petroleum options. For example, all-electric cars. They have to get that electricity from somewhere, and chances are, it's from coal-fired powerplants. The electric car is just adding multiple levels of inefficiency and thermodynamic loss between power generation and drivetrain, while petroleum cars have a much simpler fuel-to-wheel chain. Ethanol fuel is another HORRID "sustainable" energy source; it actually takes MORE energy to plant, tend, harvest, and process the corn than the energy that is gotten from the end product. You literally have to burn more fuel in the equipment than you are saving at the gas pump. AND it consumes tons of arable land.

Some "renewable" energy sources are nothing more than feel-good new-age status symbols; physical manifestation of virtue signalling. And that is disgusting.

If people paid attention to the actual science and wanted to talk clean energy, we'd be talking thorium nuclear.
1194 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25
Offline
Posted 25 days ago

outontheop wrote:


Yorutenchi wrote:

Context noted.

The kind of life that existed during that period is different on a grand scale than the life currently here. It does cause rapid climate change and the CO2 levels should be of concern. Even if we were to throw that out and assume it just works out otherwise the massive implications of short term pollution and ecological damage is extreme. A good example of why we should fight this is the Dakota Access pipeline. He proposes forcing it through and the Native American reservation be damned. We have already curbed our incredibly destructive display of pollution on such a grand scale its amazing. The reason why most people can just say "eh" to it is because the past 80 years we've been actively protecting the environment and laying down regulations on where they can dump their waste and how much they can pump in the air. Cities used to be covered in a permanent smog and buildings were stained black all across because of pollution. Whole waterways have been polluted so badly that we don't have clean drinking water in most random streams we find in the US.


The Dakota Access pipeline is run through private lands, not reservation lands.

As to cleaner energy, I'm all for it.... if it actually IS cleaner. Some of the "clean" "environmentally responsible" options are, in fact, horrible when it comes to sustainability, and are actually WORSE for the environment than the petroleum options. For example, all-electric cars. They have to get that electricity from somewhere, and chances are, it's from coal-fired powerplants. The electric car is just adding multiple levels of inefficiency and thermodynamic loss between power generation and drivetrain, while petroleum cars have a much simpler fuel-to-wheel chain. Ethanol fuel is another HORRID "sustainable" energy source; it actually takes MORE energy to plant, tend, harvest, and process the corn than the energy that is gotten from the end product. You literally have to burn more fuel in the equipment than you are saving at the gas pump. AND it consumes tons of arable land.

Some "renewable" energy sources are nothing more than feel-good new-age status symbols; physical manifestation of virtue signalling. And that is disgusting.

If people paid attention to the actual science and wanted to talk clean energy, we'd be talking thorium nuclear.


Electric cars would be the idea when the grid itself is powered by renewable sources such as wind and solar powers. I also feel it is important to note that it is not an energy source but an alternative form of transportation that may become more clean than petroleum fueled cars. Ethanol is mostly dead as an idea. I can't remember the last time someone seriously suggested it as an alternative to petroleum. LIke...2002 and it wasn't really taken seriously.

Thorium has never been economically viable and it has been researched since the 50's. It still produces significant amounts of waste and has all of the negatives that regular nuclear waste has.

Currently the best concepts we have is solar/wind with sufficient storage. We could, within a year, produce enough solar panels to provide us with enough energy to run the whole world. The only problem is the storage of electricity has proven to be tricky. However we have made major strides and many have stated that by the year 2020 we should have viable battery power to make such an endeavor feasible.
1194 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25
Offline
Posted 25 days ago , edited 21 days ago

DIO_and_TheWorld wrote:

I have to wonder sometimes if you people are serious. Worried about climate change rather than the horde of humans illegally invading the nation yearly, quite literally drowning the country in overpopulation? The wall is going to cost very little compared to what keeping and letting in illegal immigrants costs, that is a large part of why USA is doing economically so badly.


Don't know if this was aimed at me or not but lets take it with stride. Can you provide any legitimate evidence that our current economic difficulties are in any way actually related to illegal immigration? I agree its an issue but banning people from entering the nation seems silly when bettering paths to citizenship as well as integration programs would be far more effective. Overpopulation isn't the issue either.

The main issue above all others is that we have lost many of our jobs to overseas operations. The jobs we currently have only deliver stagnant wages and paths to better education is riddled with debt and pitfalls. The reason that the median income of today isn't significantly higher than it was the year I was born but yet we have seen drastic increases in the costs of living in all areas is disturbing. None of that has a single thing to do with how many people jumped the border.
24563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 25 days ago , edited 20 days ago

Yorutenchi wrote:


outontheop wrote:


Yorutenchi wrote:

Context noted.

The kind of life that existed during that period is different on a grand scale than the life currently here. It does cause rapid climate change and the CO2 levels should be of concern. Even if we were to throw that out and assume it just works out otherwise the massive implications of short term pollution and ecological damage is extreme. A good example of why we should fight this is the Dakota Access pipeline. He proposes forcing it through and the Native American reservation be damned. We have already curbed our incredibly destructive display of pollution on such a grand scale its amazing. The reason why most people can just say "eh" to it is because the past 80 years we've been actively protecting the environment and laying down regulations on where they can dump their waste and how much they can pump in the air. Cities used to be covered in a permanent smog and buildings were stained black all across because of pollution. Whole waterways have been polluted so badly that we don't have clean drinking water in most random streams we find in the US.


The Dakota Access pipeline is run through private lands, not reservation lands.

As to cleaner energy, I'm all for it.... if it actually IS cleaner. Some of the "clean" "environmentally responsible" options are, in fact, horrible when it comes to sustainability, and are actually WORSE for the environment than the petroleum options. For example, all-electric cars. They have to get that electricity from somewhere, and chances are, it's from coal-fired powerplants. The electric car is just adding multiple levels of inefficiency and thermodynamic loss between power generation and drivetrain, while petroleum cars have a much simpler fuel-to-wheel chain. Ethanol fuel is another HORRID "sustainable" energy source; it actually takes MORE energy to plant, tend, harvest, and process the corn than the energy that is gotten from the end product. You literally have to burn more fuel in the equipment than you are saving at the gas pump. AND it consumes tons of arable land.

Some "renewable" energy sources are nothing more than feel-good new-age status symbols; physical manifestation of virtue signalling. And that is disgusting.

If people paid attention to the actual science and wanted to talk clean energy, we'd be talking thorium nuclear.


Electric cars would be the idea when the grid itself is powered by renewable sources such as wind and solar powers. I also feel it is important to note that it is not an energy source but an alternative form of transportation that may become more clean than petroleum fueled cars. Ethanol is mostly dead as an idea. I can't remember the last time someone seriously suggested it as an alternative to petroleum. LIke...2002 and it wasn't really taken seriously.

Thorium has never been economically viable and it has been researched since the 50's. It still produces significant amounts of waste and has all of the negatives that regular nuclear waste has.

Currently the best concepts we have is solar/wind with sufficient storage. We could, within a year, produce enough solar panels to provide us with enough energy to run the whole world. The only problem is the storage of electricity has proven to be tricky. However we have made major strides and many have stated that by the year 2020 we should have viable battery power to make such an endeavor feasible.


Not sure where you got that thorium was proven economically unviable; successful reactors were run as early as the 1950s, it doesn't require the expensive and infrastructure-intensive enrichment process that uranium does, and it's ridiculously common in comparison. It *does* create radioactive fission byproducts, but as it tends to burn exclusively *down* the periodic table instead of both up (into non-fissile materials) and down like uranium, it produces orders of magnitude *less* fission byproduct, and most of it is extremely short half-life. Within mere months, the vast majority has broken into inert (I mean non-radioactive) elements, and the little that remains radioactive is largely of the type that is actually useful in medical imaging, radiotherapy, and other industrial applications. What held thorium back historically is that a) it doesn't make plutonium, so it's not useful for building weapon stockpiles, and b) that to run a liquid-fuel reactor requires fuel mixes that were pretty corrosive and would eat through the piping. In the 1950s-1980s, the materials wouldn't have lasted long enough to make a viable reactor vessel. Modern steels are up to the task, though.
24563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 25 days ago , edited 25 days ago

Yorutenchi wrote:


DIO_and_TheWorld wrote:

I have to wonder sometimes if you people are serious. Worried about climate change rather than the horde of humans illegally invading the nation yearly, quite literally drowning the country in overpopulation? The wall is going to cost very little compared to what keeping and letting in illegal immigrants costs, that is a large part of why USA is doing economically so badly.


Don't know if this was aimed at me or not but lets take it with stride. Can you provide any legitimate evidence that our current economic difficulties are in any way actually related to illegal immigration? I agree its an issue but banning people from entering the nation seems silly when bettering paths to citizenship as well as integration programs would be far more effective. Overpopulation isn't the issue either.

The main issue above all others is that we have lost many of our jobs to overseas operations. The jobs we currently have only deliver stagnant wages and paths to better education is riddled with debt and pitfalls. The reason that the median income of today isn't significantly higher than it was the year I was born but yet we have seen drastic increases in the costs of living in all areas is disturbing. None of that has a single thing to do with how many people jumped the border.


In all fairness, when you look past the rather myopic presentation the media gave Trump on the issue, his actual statements have been that he wants to cut down on illegal immigration, not that he wants to end all immigration; even regarding the Muslim states with active terrorist groups, the message has been "moratorium until we can vet properly", more than "ban them all".

I mean, the guy is married to an immigrant; I would hope he understands that immigrants aren't all horrible.

As to the lack of jobs and stagnant wages, the honest truth is that some of that really IS the direct result of government regulation- to include environmental regulation- driving away industry to places they can operate with a higher profit margin. That's why the reality is that you have to compromise on how much environmental and workers-protection regulation you put in.

Is it better to pollute a little ourselves while providing Americans jobs, or to buy products from China et al in factories that pollute far worse, treat workers less well, and cost American jobs? Having strict environmental regulations is nice in principle, but if the end result is to simply drive the factories to nations with even worse pollution margins, it's a net loss for the environment (but Americans get to feel smug about having moral high ground, so... yay?) You have to find the balance somewhere.
1194 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25
Offline
Posted 25 days ago

outontheop wrote:


Yorutenchi wrote:


outontheop wrote:


Yorutenchi wrote:

Context noted.

The kind of life that existed during that period is different on a grand scale than the life currently here. It does cause rapid climate change and the CO2 levels should be of concern. Even if we were to throw that out and assume it just works out otherwise the massive implications of short term pollution and ecological damage is extreme. A good example of why we should fight this is the Dakota Access pipeline. He proposes forcing it through and the Native American reservation be damned. We have already curbed our incredibly destructive display of pollution on such a grand scale its amazing. The reason why most people can just say "eh" to it is because the past 80 years we've been actively protecting the environment and laying down regulations on where they can dump their waste and how much they can pump in the air. Cities used to be covered in a permanent smog and buildings were stained black all across because of pollution. Whole waterways have been polluted so badly that we don't have clean drinking water in most random streams we find in the US.


The Dakota Access pipeline is run through private lands, not reservation lands.

As to cleaner energy, I'm all for it.... if it actually IS cleaner. Some of the "clean" "environmentally responsible" options are, in fact, horrible when it comes to sustainability, and are actually WORSE for the environment than the petroleum options. For example, all-electric cars. They have to get that electricity from somewhere, and chances are, it's from coal-fired powerplants. The electric car is just adding multiple levels of inefficiency and thermodynamic loss between power generation and drivetrain, while petroleum cars have a much simpler fuel-to-wheel chain. Ethanol fuel is another HORRID "sustainable" energy source; it actually takes MORE energy to plant, tend, harvest, and process the corn than the energy that is gotten from the end product. You literally have to burn more fuel in the equipment than you are saving at the gas pump. AND it consumes tons of arable land.

Some "renewable" energy sources are nothing more than feel-good new-age status symbols; physical manifestation of virtue signalling. And that is disgusting.

If people paid attention to the actual science and wanted to talk clean energy, we'd be talking thorium nuclear.


Electric cars would be the idea when the grid itself is powered by renewable sources such as wind and solar powers. I also feel it is important to note that it is not an energy source but an alternative form of transportation that may become more clean than petroleum fueled cars. Ethanol is mostly dead as an idea. I can't remember the last time someone seriously suggested it as an alternative to petroleum. LIke...2002 and it wasn't really taken seriously.

Thorium has never been economically viable and it has been researched since the 50's. It still produces significant amounts of waste and has all of the negatives that regular nuclear waste has.

Currently the best concepts we have is solar/wind with sufficient storage. We could, within a year, produce enough solar panels to provide us with enough energy to run the whole world. The only problem is the storage of electricity has proven to be tricky. However we have made major strides and many have stated that by the year 2020 we should have viable battery power to make such an endeavor feasible.


Not sure where you got that thorium was proven economically unviable; successful reactors were run as early as the 1950s, it doesn't require the expensive and infrastructure-intensive enrichment process that uranium does, and it's ridiculously common in comparison. It *does* create radioactive fission byproducts, but as it tends to burn exclusively *down* the periodic table instead of both up (into non-fissile materials) and down like uranium, it produces orders of magnitude *less* fission byproduct, and most of it is extremely short half-life. Within mere months, the vast majority has broken into inert (I mean non-radioactive) elements, and the little that remains radioactive is largely of the type that is actually useful in medical imaging, radiotherapy, and other industrial applications. What held thorium back historically is that a) it doesn't make plutonium, so it's not useful for building weapon stockpiles, and b) that to run a liquid-fuel reactor requires fuel mixes that were pretty corrosive and would eat through the piping. In the 1950s-1980s, the materials wouldn't have lasted long enough to make a viable reactor vessel. Modern steels are up to the task, though.

If it were economically viable we would be doing it. There are a few projects being run but for the most part the numbers come back and countries say nay. It also still doesn't solve the already existing problems of nuclear energy. It lessens them true but does not eliminate them. It is not the permanent solution we should be looking for.

outontheop wrote:


Yorutenchi wrote:


DIO_and_TheWorld wrote:

I have to wonder sometimes if you people are serious. Worried about climate change rather than the horde of humans illegally invading the nation yearly, quite literally drowning the country in overpopulation? The wall is going to cost very little compared to what keeping and letting in illegal immigrants costs, that is a large part of why USA is doing economically so badly.


Don't know if this was aimed at me or not but lets take it with stride. Can you provide any legitimate evidence that our current economic difficulties are in any way actually related to illegal immigration? I agree its an issue but banning people from entering the nation seems silly when bettering paths to citizenship as well as integration programs would be far more effective. Overpopulation isn't the issue either.

The main issue above all others is that we have lost many of our jobs to overseas operations. The jobs we currently have only deliver stagnant wages and paths to better education is riddled with debt and pitfalls. The reason that the median income of today isn't significantly higher than it was the year I was born but yet we have seen drastic increases in the costs of living in all areas is disturbing. None of that has a single thing to do with how many people jumped the border.


In all fairness, when you look past the rather myopic presentation the media gave Trump on the issue, his actual statements have been that he wants to cut down on illegal immigration, not that he wants to end all immigration; even regarding the Muslim states with active terrorist groups, the message has been "moratorium until we can vet properly", more than "ban them all".

I mean, the guy is married to an immigrant; I would hope he understands that immigrants aren't all horrible.

I could drag out all of the racist things he has said but I don't have the energy. We both know what he said. The difference is that some people can just kinda shrug it off because they know he is full of shit most of the time he says anything and stick to what they hope he generally means or corrects himself later to mean.

But it still doesn't really address the point I made that illegal immigration is not a major drag on our economy. No where near as bad as our military budget spending or extremely expensive healthcare system at least. Also Regan and Clinton (bill this time) have done more to harm our income than all of the illegals from all the countries combined.
24563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 25 days ago , edited 25 days ago

Yorutenchi wrote:

If it were economically viable we would be doing it. There are a few projects being run but for the most part the numbers come back and countries say nay. It also still doesn't solve the already existing problems of nuclear energy. It lessens them true but does not eliminate them. It is not the permanent solution we should be looking for.


You're leaving some important aspects out of the reasons why thorium has not been accepted. Beyond the economic viability, people have to WANT it. But people are terrified of nuclear power and radiation, because they don't understand it, and they have an unreasoning fear that was founded first in the cold-war fears of nuclear holocaust, and then propped up by Chernobyl and Fukushima. But the reality is that nuclear reactors are- even counting those two- statistically safer than almost all other energy sources, and actually put less radiation into the environment than coal does.

It's also worth noting that fission byproducts actually have LESS net radiation in them than the uranium does before being fissioned (having dumped some of it's potential energy in the process of fission); it's just that it's in the form of higher-output, shorter halflife isotopes rather than low-output long-lived isotopes. Either way, a thorium fuel load sufficient to power a major city for five years will produce, at the end of the fuel life, about 500 pounds of fission byproduct (and a crap-ton of lead) at shut-down, 95% of which will decay down to inertness within months. It really is orders of magnitude less radioactive than uranium-chain fission byproducts. Has to do with the neutron capture profile of the thorium nucleus compared to that of uranium.

Personally, I think the industrial burden of building, emplacing (and clearing the land on which to emplace), and maintaining/ replacing wind turbines is every bit as economically expensive and negative to the environment as thorium; more so, in fact. The number of turbines needed to equal the output of a thorium reactor complex the size of a small office building is *immense*
1194 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25
Offline
Posted 25 days ago

outontheop wrote:


Yorutenchi wrote:

If it were economically viable we would be doing it. There are a few projects being run but for the most part the numbers come back and countries say nay. It also still doesn't solve the already existing problems of nuclear energy. It lessens them true but does not eliminate them. It is not the permanent solution we should be looking for.


You're leaving some important aspects out of the reasons why thorium has not been accepted. Beyond the economic viability, people have to WANT it. But people are terrified of nuclear power, because they don't understand it, and they have an unreasoning terror that was founded first in the cold-war fears of nuclear holocaust, and then propped up by Chernobyl and Fukushima. But the reality is that nuclear reactors are- even counting those two- statistically safer than almost all other energy sources, and actually put less radiation into the environment than coal does.

It's also worth noting that fission byproducts actually have LESS net radiation in them than the uranium does before being fissioned (having dumped some of it's potential energy in the process of fission); it's just that it's in the form of higher-output, shorter halflife isotopes rather than low-output long-lived isotopes. Either way, a thorium fuel load sufficient to power a major city for five years will produce, at the end of the fuel life, about 500 pounds of fission byproduct (and a crap-ton of lead) at shut-down, 95% of which will decay down to inertness within months. It really is orders of magnitude less radioactive than uranium-chain fission byproducts. Has to do with the neutron capture profile of the thorium nucleus compared to that of uranium.

Personally, I think the industrial burden of building, emplacing (and clearing the land on which to emplace), and maintaining/ replacing wind turbines is every bit as negative to the environment as thorium; more so, in fact. The number of turbines needed to equal the output of a thorium reactor complex the size of a small office building is *immense*


I'm no stranger to thorium and researched it heartily a few years back. The problem was most of the proponents were laying flat with actual evidences and results and no one seemed to be taking it seriously. People aren't knocking thorium because they fear nuclear power. We have nuclear power now and we continue to make new plants. I agree that thorium would produce many grades lower byproduct but it looses large amounts of energy in the process. Thorium simply doesn't output like uranium despite its cheaper costs.

I hope we have a breakthrough in it and we manage to transition to thorium but I don't see it happening.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.