First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
trumps first 100 day plan
24563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 23 days ago , edited 23 days ago

Yorutenchi wrote:

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.


True, but wind turbines don't produce like coal plants, either. A little loss of energy-per-fuel-weight isn't really an issue, when accompanied by a comparatively far more massive relative improvement in waste-per-energy-output

I'm not knocking wind power; I think it's a good option, but it's not viable for everywhere and every application. If nothing else, there needs to be brownout redundancy, and having part of the grid operating on nuclear helps provide consistency for those stagnant weather days. Wind is a good option for places like the US, because we have that whole midwest/ continental divide area containing vast expanses of generally non-arable, un-populable land with consistent wind on which we can build wind farms.

Places like much of western europe just don't have the real estate to emplace large wind farms, though.
14745 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 23 days ago , edited 23 days ago
And for those who weren't ALIVE twenty years ago--which is a distinct possibility --here's Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America" that was designed to put away Bill Clinton.
And pretty much what started the whole Slay Hillary quest to begin with, and where Trump got his "original" idea from in the first place.
(Oh, no, wait, his is the "Contract with the American Voter", completely different.)

https://web.archive.org/web/19990427174200/http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.htmla

Gingrich insisted every Republican voter literally sign the contract, which is where Trump also got his "Raise your right hand" idea at one point in the campaign.
Which, naturally, became a little understandably.........misinterpreted in the press.
1194 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25
Offline
Posted 23 days ago

outontheop wrote:


Yorutenchi wrote:

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.


True, but wind turbines don't produce like coal plants, either. A little loss of energy-per-fuel-weight isn't really an issue, when accompanied by a comparatively far more massive relative improvement in waste-per-energy-output

I'm not knocking wind power; I think it's a good option, but it's not viable for everywhere and every application. If nothing else, there needs to be brownout redundancy, and having part of the grid operating on nuclear helps provide consistency for those stagnant weather days.


Again the only problem with solar and wind is the storage of energy. There is a massive amount of energy naturally stored with fossil fuels and nuclear energy. The massive metal turbines that spin at incredible rates during the process have large quantities of inertial kinetic energy that can be used for micro-adjustments in the grid. The tesla battery was a promising invention but we need something similar that can be charged numerous times without loosing its holding power. Once we have that we are set. Done. Boom. Set up the solar panels and we are good to go forever.
24563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 23 days ago

Yorutenchi wrote:

Again the only problem with solar and wind is the storage of energy. There is a massive amount of energy naturally stored with fossil fuels and nuclear energy. The massive metal turbines that spin at incredible rates during the process have large quantities of inertial kinetic energy that can be used for micro-adjustments in the grid. The tesla battery was a promising invention but we need something similar that can be charged numerous times without loosing its holding power. Once we have that we are set. Done. Boom. Set up the solar panels and we are good to go forever.


But many of those energy storage devices require metals (or metalloids) which are quite environmentally destructive to mine and refine, and again you've got the additional economic and environmental burden of, y'know, MAKING and emplacing all of them. Can it be done practically? Sure. Is the net impact on the economy and environment really that much lesser than some of the other options? Less certain.
1194 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25
Offline
Posted 23 days ago

outontheop wrote:


Yorutenchi wrote:

Again the only problem with solar and wind is the storage of energy. There is a massive amount of energy naturally stored with fossil fuels and nuclear energy. The massive metal turbines that spin at incredible rates during the process have large quantities of inertial kinetic energy that can be used for micro-adjustments in the grid. The tesla battery was a promising invention but we need something similar that can be charged numerous times without loosing its holding power. Once we have that we are set. Done. Boom. Set up the solar panels and we are good to go forever.


But many of those energy storage devices require metals (or metalloids) which are quite environmentally destructive to mine and refine, and again you've got the additional economic and environmental burden of, y'know, MAKING and emplacing all of them. Can it be done practically? Sure. Is the net impact on the economy and environment really that much lesser than some of the other options? Less certain.


Extremely so. There is an old myth that solar panels created more damage than they saved. It was true in the 70's but it hasn't been true for nearly 30 years. It will not cause more harm than what we are doing.

So lets say we wait 10 years yeah? On the one hand we do nothing for 10 years. We have 10 years of negative impact on the environment. No changes. On the other we set up solar energy. We have maybe 2 years worth of negative impact with 8 severely reduced or zero impact. Electric cars and other vehicles become viable with solar power to power them. We will still need to mine for resources but it can be done now without fossil fuels. That is the difference. The earlier we start the less we impact the environment in the long run. The first 2 years do we see a major difference? No. 10 years? Yes. 100 years very very very much so.
51209 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 23 days ago
I'm really curious to see how much of this 100-day plan Trump actually intends to fulfill and how much of it he'll accomplish. There's some good and some bad in that list along with some goals that might have unknown consequences.

First, the good/reasonable:



The bad/stupid:



The unknown/gray area:



Overall, there are some ideas I hope succeed, a lot that I hope get blocked by Congress, and other ideas that I'm curious about but have no clue how they would turn out. In the best case scenario, Trump will succeed with some of his positive ideas but some of the pointless or counterproductive ones will also pass through Congress. He'd be no more than a decent president. The worst case scenario, which is where I think Trump will more than likely lean closer to, is that the good policies with fail to pass in Congress or he flip flops and breaks those promises, leaving us with only the negative policies. I'm trying to be as optimistic about this as I can possibly be, but my expectations are pretty low unless we start seeing a more presidential Trump who behaves different from the Trump we've gotten to know this past year and a half. Much of his success will depend on how compliant or rebellious Congress is, for better or worse.
17761 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / outer wall, level...
Offline
Posted 23 days ago

Yorutenchi wrote:


outontheop wrote:


Yorutenchi wrote:

Again the only problem with solar and wind is the storage of energy. There is a massive amount of energy naturally stored with fossil fuels and nuclear energy. The massive metal turbines that spin at incredible rates during the process have large quantities of inertial kinetic energy that can be used for micro-adjustments in the grid. The tesla battery was a promising invention but we need something similar that can be charged numerous times without loosing its holding power. Once we have that we are set. Done. Boom. Set up the solar panels and we are good to go forever.


But many of those energy storage devices require metals (or metalloids) which are quite environmentally destructive to mine and refine, and again you've got the additional economic and environmental burden of, y'know, MAKING and emplacing all of them. Can it be done practically? Sure. Is the net impact on the economy and environment really that much lesser than some of the other options? Less certain.


Extremely so. There is an old myth that solar panels created more damage than they saved. It was true in the 70's but it hasn't been true for nearly 30 years. It will not cause more harm than what we are doing.

So lets say we wait 10 years yeah? On the one hand we do nothing for 10 years. We have 10 years of negative impact on the environment. No changes. On the other we set up solar energy. We have maybe 2 years worth of negative impact with 8 severely reduced or zero impact. Electric cars and other vehicles become viable with solar power to power them. We will still need to mine for resources but it can be done now without fossil fuels. That is the difference. The earlier we start the less we impact the environment in the long run. The first 2 years do we see a major difference? No. 10 years? Yes. 100 years very very very much so.



solar doesnt have to be photovoltaic. google the solana generating station. 280 MW of sun powered energy. its badass, like something out of movie. i take pics every time i drive by it.
24257 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Online
Posted 23 days ago
It should include watched Ruth Bater-Ginsburg wither and retire and appoint her replacement.
Posted 23 days ago
Stopped reading, started laughing at "climate change denier"

I'm all for cleaning up actual, real pollution.

But mangled data and statistical bastardizations do not a climate crisis make.


1194 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25
Offline
Posted 23 days ago

nemoskull wrote:


Yorutenchi wrote:


outontheop wrote:


Yorutenchi wrote:

Again the only problem with solar and wind is the storage of energy. There is a massive amount of energy naturally stored with fossil fuels and nuclear energy. The massive metal turbines that spin at incredible rates during the process have large quantities of inertial kinetic energy that can be used for micro-adjustments in the grid. The tesla battery was a promising invention but we need something similar that can be charged numerous times without loosing its holding power. Once we have that we are set. Done. Boom. Set up the solar panels and we are good to go forever.


But many of those energy storage devices require metals (or metalloids) which are quite environmentally destructive to mine and refine, and again you've got the additional economic and environmental burden of, y'know, MAKING and emplacing all of them. Can it be done practically? Sure. Is the net impact on the economy and environment really that much lesser than some of the other options? Less certain.


Extremely so. There is an old myth that solar panels created more damage than they saved. It was true in the 70's but it hasn't been true for nearly 30 years. It will not cause more harm than what we are doing.

So lets say we wait 10 years yeah? On the one hand we do nothing for 10 years. We have 10 years of negative impact on the environment. No changes. On the other we set up solar energy. We have maybe 2 years worth of negative impact with 8 severely reduced or zero impact. Electric cars and other vehicles become viable with solar power to power them. We will still need to mine for resources but it can be done now without fossil fuels. That is the difference. The earlier we start the less we impact the environment in the long run. The first 2 years do we see a major difference? No. 10 years? Yes. 100 years very very very much so.



solar doesnt have to be photovoltaic. google the solana generating station. 280 MW of sun powered energy. its badass, like something out of movie. i take pics every time i drive by it.


True it doesn't have to but it still runs into the same problem of what happens after dark. I know this plant uses most of its energy to store it at night? I think something like this would be needed for after hours production of electricity but most efficient method of modern energy is to make a move away from "power plants" and more to smaller generators spread across. Same with the batteries. Not one big battery to hold all the energy for the system but countless smaller ones.
8651 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Pennsylvania
Offline
Posted 23 days ago

Dogempire wrote:

The freeze on federal employees, the rule that for every new federal regulation; 2 regulations need to be deleted worry me. I'm unsure of how his immigration policies will affect illegal/legal immigrants though.

His denial of climate change also bothers me.

I'm glad that he wants to snuff out corruption, but eh, I'm still uncertain of how things are going to go with the republicans running the show.


can you elaborate on those 2 things you mentioned.
81 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 23 days ago , edited 23 days ago
That swamp is still looking pretty damn swampy:


— Cindy Hayden of tobacco company Altria is in charge of Homeland Security.
— Steve Hart, the chairman of Williams & Jensen, is in charge of Labor. His clients include Visa, the American Council of Life Insurers, Anthem, Cheniere Energy, Coca-Cola, General Electric, HSBC, Pfixer, PhRMA and United Airlines. He worked at the Labor Department in the Pension Welfare Benefits Program and on the Office of Management and Budget's ERISA Reorganization Task Force under Ronald Reagan.
— For the Energy Department, Michael McKenna of MWR Strategies lobbies for Engie (formerly GDF Suez), Southern Company and Dow Chemical.
— For Interior, David Bernhardt of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck lobbies for the Westlands Water District and used to represent Freeport LNG Expansion and Rosemont Copper Company. He was the Interior Department's solicitor, deputy solicitor, deputy chief of staff, counselor to the secretary of the Interior and director of the Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs under George W. Bush.
— Michael Torrey, who has the Agriculture portfolio, has his own firm representing the American Beverage Association and the Crop Insurance and Reinsurance Bureau.
— Mira Ricardel, tasked with defense, isn't a registered lobbyist but is a consultant for Federal Budget IQ, a government research firm. Until recently she worked for Boeing.
— Dan DiMicco, overseeing the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, serves on Duke Energy's board and represents steel company Nucor (of which he used to be CEO) on the U.S. Council on Competitiveness and the Coalition for a Prosperous America.
— Paul Atkins, though not a lobbyist, is CEO of advisory firm Patomak Global Partners and charged with independent financial agencies.
— Ken Blackwell, in charge of domestic issues, isn't a lobbyist but is a senior fellow of the Family Research Council, which does lobbying.

http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/politico-influence/2016/11/lobbyists-abound-on-trump-transition-217349
3056 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / In a Yaoi Fanfic
Offline
Posted 23 days ago

Em0SceneStabr wrote:


Dogempire wrote:

The freeze on federal employees, the rule that for every new federal regulation; 2 regulations need to be deleted worry me. I'm unsure of how his immigration policies will affect illegal/legal immigrants though.

His denial of climate change also bothers me.

I'm glad that he wants to snuff out corruption, but eh, I'm still uncertain of how things are going to go with the republicans running the show.


can you elaborate on those 2 things you mentioned.


First one I'm not sure I can talk about the subject because of my lack of knowledge of it.

Second bold I'm worried because he thinks climate change is a concept made up by the Chinese, as evidenced by this tweet:

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385?lang=en

So he doesn't care about the environment or changing to clean energy, all he cares about is oil.

199 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 19 days ago
You are wrong. It is some pretty basic and common knowledge that illegal immigration costs a lot of money to the host country. I shouldn't even have to explain to you why, but it is because they do not pay taxes and/or many other contributions that are a responsibility of a citizen in return for the benefits they get from the nation. Illegal immigrants are parasites that leech off on other peoples hard work and contribute nothing in return. Not only that but the globalist corporate interests prefer to hire those foreigners because it is cheaper to the company - it drives wages down, takes away jobs from real Americans, and the only one who benefit from illegal immigration are the rich.

In addition, illegal immigrants (and 3rd world immigrants in general, legal ones too) are overwhelmingly violently criminal when compared to the native population of western nations.

There is simply a staggering amount of negative effects from illegal immigration and mass immigration in general, and NO BENEFITS WHATSOEVER. At all. It is completely a drain on our system and hurts our people. Immigration is not a good thing.
35888 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Georgia, USA
Offline
Posted 19 days ago

DIO_and_TheWorld wrote:
and NO BENEFITS WHATSOEVER.


B-but muh tacos, kebabs and chinese food /s
^ People actually use that as 'benefit' of illegal and mass third world immigration.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.