Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by Raoul Duke, Jan 14, 2020.
I’m starting to think it should be. Besides, fuck the Saudis.
It's a testament to the power of greed that oil has mattered more than democracy in other countries, the security of this country, America not being a moral hypocrite country, the lives of our soldiers, the lives of innocent people that get hit with our bombs, the lives of wildlife killed by oil spills, the lives of guys working the rigs, the future of this planet's environment...ANYTHING.
Morals, liberty, lives, nothing has mattered, just keep that fucking black gold flowing.
I was thinking we treat it like the interstate highway system. I mean Ike didn’t tell everyone that it was being built so that we could mobilize tanks across the country, but that’s what it was for. It was in the interest of national security. With the never ending turmoil in the Middle East and the never ending wars plus the energy crises looming over our heads, I think it’s time for a huge undertaking that takes us off the teat of big oil and middle eastern oil. @Order2Chaos is right, we have to build more nuclear plants and I’m all for it, but bleeding heart liberals need to understand this. The bonus is those countries go back to living in the Middle Ages like they want to anyway and the terrorists fade away. Also, it creates a shit ton of jobs.
Hey look, something that Dickynoo and General Rancher agree on!
Seriously though, not just National Security but World Security.
Also, teh baba
Are you describing the Green New Deal?
Well, not really seeing the idea of making millions of people live in the Dark Ages as a bonus, but ok.
Yes, we do need away from Big Oil and the Middle East are in a position to play a major part in that. After all, if we are diversifying energy sources they have a pretty big surplus of sunlight.
You’re just now starting to think that, huh?
That’s been a key talking point of global warming activist since 911. Hell, Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the White House as a reaction to the Iran Hostage crisis.
Glad you’re finally coming around.
This is a joke, right?
cuz if you don’t stop, my eyes might roll right the fuck out of my face and under my furniture.
But yeah... this is you’re idea. “Lib-tards” need to get on board.
Yes. As someone once said, a civilization that relies on a mineral slime for its energy needs is no civilization at all.
It's not "bleeding heart liberals" that are the problem. It's the anti-taxation/Gubmint is evil/I've got x-shares in Exxon Mobil/windmills cause cancer mob that will resist this.
Yanno, @Marso and @Tuttle.
Why do you want to replace one dangerous technology with another when you could get a cheaper and less dangerous one instead?
I'm of two minds about this. For one thing, the conversation needs to be reframed and the technology needs to suit the locale.
You do not, for example, build nuclear in California or anywhere there are active earthquake faults. You do not build solar farms in WA/OR where it rains all the damn time (however, geothermal would work well there). You do build wind farms along the coasts or on the prairies where there's actual wind, and wave-power generators (something I've never seen discussed here) offshore. Come to think of it, I've never seen geothermal mentioned here, either; even Mexico has the U.S. beat on that.
Nuclear? I used to be 100% opposed to it, and if we'd gotten invested in renewables, say, 20-30 years ago it wouldn't be necessary. Is it necessary as a stopgap now? I don't know enough about it to comment, though we're told the technology's been improved (Fukushima disagrees).
Safer and less polluting than oil refineries? Well, yeah. Drive through Bayonne, NJ and you'll see paint peeling off houses (that's after the stench hits you) and cancer rates are multiple times the norm. When the Bayway refinery blew, the shockwaves broke windows 10 miles away and the glow in the sky lasted days.
Then there are the oil spills, from the Exxon Valdez to Deepwater Horizon, and there'll be more.
The practical problems with nuclear are twofold - disposal and dismantling. How do you persuade the investors 20 years from now "Well, thanks, guys, but we don't need this plant anymore. You'll be compensated [cue howls from the "Taxation Is Theft!" mob], but it's time to pack up and leave"?
Might want to use a different counter-example. Fukushima Daiiichi Nuclear Power Plant came online in 1971, not exactly an argument against technology having improved in modern times.
Edit to Add: FDNPP was a Boiling Water Reactor, much less inherently safe than a Pressurized Water Reactor.
Actually, if you look at the big picture, nuclear is not dangerous at all. Coal has killed far, far more people than nuclear power has.
Plus, if we can use them to power ships of war for over 60 years without any major mishaps, then it shouldn't be dangerous nor expensive.
*By "we", I mean the U.S. Navy. The Russians are a nation of Homer Simpsons when it comes to nuclear power.
yet we just had a false alarm at the Pickering plant, which uses CANDU PWRs. They aren't fool proof and there are other conditions, such as increasing seismic concerns in the region, which add an unplanned hazard at that facility.
While years of improvements have allowed for nuclear to become less of a risk, there are better options outpacing it.
hmm... I wonder what happens when a nuclear carrier gets hit by a couple of ASMs?
Not trying to be snide... I really wanna know if there are impact studies and contingency plans?
I don't know, although I'd be surprised as hell if there weren't contingency plans, but we've had plenty of Nuclear subs crashing into other ships (and one case where one ran headlong, full speed into an underwater mountain) and survived without any nuclear calamity.
Useful information - thanks!
That Japan, which is probably more seismically active than CA, should not have built NPPs in the first place...
... which are 35 years old. Again, hardly an argument against "the technology is better now".
I worked on the nuclear power plants onboard USS Nimitz. Without revealing classified information publicly on the internet, there are contingency plans.
Nuclear power is relatively safe. And a whole hell of a lot safer than fossil fuels.
That being said, as @garamet pointed out, it make sense to put green energy in spots where it will do best. Wind farms off the coast and windy area, solar panels in deserts, hydroelectric where there are sources of water (and wouldn't fuck up an existing ecosystem by building a new dam).
California's solar power has been doing so well that we have had to pay neighboring states to take the excess electricity so as to avoid an overload. By some estimates, it would only take 21,000 square miles of solar panels to power the whole US (that's about 0.5% of the entire country), so solar could be a great route especially if some states have the resources to generate it (sunny weather) and other states are willing to buy it.
Nuclear might only be appropriate in areas that have no other options (for instance I'm not sure how feasible it is to send solar electricity from California to North Dakota). But we certainly shouldn't adopt nuclear power everywhere.
On the other hand, USS Thresher and USS Scorpion actually sank, and as far as we know their reactor vessels are still intact.
more that I doubt its capability to improve at the same rate as other, less risky alternatives... that we're not going to get much more mileage out of it. They're pretty much on life support now, having reached the end of their service life and are being decommissioned. I'm not arguing against the tech being better now...indeed, its greatly improved (although I can't find info on which Mk of CANDU they're refitting to up the road from there at Darlington.)
And that it was a false alarm, but that the moment of worry was widely made public actually boosted my confidence in OPG's ability to respond.
I wanna know about one of these babies hitting at mach 10?
That ain't the same...
Fusion isn't here yet; fission is the stopgap to take out fossil fuels until that happens. Solar and wind are not going to be cheaper much longer; big hydro is even harder to get built than nuclear, and has larger environmental impacts upstream.
Wind is uneconomical once it starts to eat into base load capacity, because you have to overbuild by 3-5x, and in disparate regions so as not have the entire fleet becalmed by a lack of weather fronts, or install gas plants as backup, which defeats the whole emissions point of building wind. Solar doesn't work at all as base load without grid storage which more than dodectuples (not a typo -- 12x) the cost for only 4 hours (thermal storage systems are even more expensive at present). Double that again if you want to get all the way through the night (although you probably don't need to, as long as the wind is blowing; but you can't double count that power, so you need extra wind installation).
The 2 main reasons nuclear is as expensive as it is, are that a) every time a new plant gets built, local and sometimes state government busybodies come in and demand changes to the design mid-way through construction*, and b) unlike every other power source out there, nuclear plant builders are required to pre-insure for the dismantling and disposal of the plant and nuclear waste. No other power plants have to internalize that cost, rarely since 1980, never since 1995. Coal tailings ponds? "We'll clean it up later (read: go out of business and stick taxpayers with the cleanup)". Recycling old wind turbines? "If we get to it." Civilian nuclear power (read: not Hanford) is by far and away the most accountable and responsible power source in the US, and we need to build a lot more of it until fusion power becomes available if we want to avoid climate change.
*which in turn makes it even harder to get long-term loans.
Why harp on this now? Solar and wind (and gas, but let's not go there) are eating up peak power demand. And that's great*. But it's the most economical, low-hanging fruit. Once it starts eating into base load, it has to be consistent and/or dispatch-able, which means the expensive redundancies mentioned before, which means it's suddenly much *less* economical.
*for most values of great; the solar "duck curve" as the sun goes down and demand goes up is already a problem being solved with natural gas plants.
Like I said...I don't know.
It totally should, but not because of the false 'we're all gonna die' narrative if we don't.
You're right. That's a totally false narrative.
Point of order, while Ike gets credit for the interstate highway system, the simple fact of the matter is that the concept of building it pre-dates his administration by several decades. Work began on it in the 1920s, but because the tax system was insufficient, not a lot was done. It was only after WWII and the introduction of various taxes, before, during, and after the war, that the US government had the funds to undertake the project. (And it's not just to allow the military to move tanks around. There are large stretches of the highway system which are designed to be used as runways in an emergency.)
And that idea goes all the way back to Nixon, at the very least.
(He also talked about it a State of the Union address, but I'm not going to bother trying to find the video.)
You mean like one of the founders of Greenpeace? He's big on nuclear.
Except that they don't. The leaders of those countries will live in zones that are similar to places like Beverly Hills, while the common-folk will live in places that are basically refugee camps. And if you don't think that many in power (either political or economic) in the US don't want the same thing, you're kidding yourself.
Separate names with a comma.