Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread

[Destino]

Anyone watching this climate change town hall?  I just tuned in to see Kamala Harris dodge a question on helping those with jobs in the fossil fuel industry as we transition to green magic.  

 

I’m not digging the lack of support for nuclear energy I’m seeing.  Kamala Harris refused to say she supported it, but didn’t oppose it.  She said she wouldn’t force any state to take on nuclear waste and made it a states rights issue, which is a weird position for democrats to take.  Bernie, according to the cnn host, is apparently not only against building more nuclear energy, but he wants to phase it out completely.  

 

 

[twa]

The notion we can transition to no fossil fuels and no nuclear any time soon just ignores reality....which is why they prefer not to have it as a debate subject.

[visionary]

 

[Destino]

Elizabeth Warren is bouncing around like she did a few lines of cocaine prior to coming out on stage.  She’s also against nuclear and wants to phase it out.  She’s all in on green magic (technology that hasn’t been invented yet).  We’ll be able to sell green magic around the world and create a billion new jobs.  There is nothing green magic can’t do.  Cleans wine stains off shirt and gets those carpets looking like new.  

 

I’m all for investing in new tech and transitioning away from fossil fuels.  It has to be done.  The science is clear.  I’m just annoyed that all these candidates are eschewing nuclear, which is real technology that exists today, for something that just isn’t there yet.  

[Cooked Crack]

5 hours ago, nonniey said:

Easily? Uhh no you'd need to work exceedingly hard to do that. Did it slip your mind which states they represent?

Warren took her seat from a Republican though. It's not outside the realm of possibility.

[mammajamma]

1 hour ago, Destino said:

 She’s all in on green magic (technology that hasn’t been invented yet).  

Uh, last time I checked solar/wind/geo/hydro tech has been invented, and used by many developed nations (completely or almost completely powering entire nations already)...

 

And sidenote, your post is a bit immature for a "moderator"

[LadySkinsFan]

I wrote a term paper in 1981 and we are no closer to a solution for spent fuel rods than we were then. Given the devastation of Fukushima polluting the Pacific Ocean and eventually all seas and oceans, I want to see the elimination of nuclear power. It's an outgrowth of nuclear weapons research.

 

Hillary had a jobs retraining program in her platform. If you're doing away with fossil fuels, you HAVE to have a retraining program. To dodge this question doesn't show leadership, and is one reason why Harris is falling behind. She needs to drop out now and support Warren. 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

39 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

Warren took her seat from a Republican though. It's not outside the realm of possibility.

 

Yeah and both states have Republican governors that will put a Republican in office until the end of term or until a special election (which often seem to be crazy) can be completed 

 

[Destino]

22 minutes ago, mammajamma said:

Uh, last time I checked solar/wind/geo/hydro tech has been invented, and used by many developed nations (completely or almost completely powering entire nations already)...

Have we solved the intermittent production and storage problems for solar and wind?  Hydropower tends to require the building of great big dams which aren't viewed as being particularly green by many.  Geothermal is very location specific.  Cost remains a significant hurdle as well.   

 

 

22 minutes ago, mammajamma said:

And sidenote, your post is a bit immature for a "moderator"

You're welcome. 

[Larry]

2 hours ago, Destino said:

I’m all for investing in new tech and transitioning away from fossil fuels.  It has to be done.  The science is clear.  I’m just annoyed that all these candidates are eschewing nuclear, which is real technology that exists today, for something that just isn’t there yet.  

 

I'm with you.  We ought to be working on things like solar and wind and who knows what else.  (Biofuels?)  But nuclear works now.  

 

(I also, though, think we need to just have a national leader pick a disposal site, and start putting things there.  If nothing else, just drill holes in the dirt in an empty hunk of Nevada, and dump the stuff there.  No, it's not perfect.  But it doesn't have to be.)  

[Renegade7]

3 hours ago, twa said:

The notion we can transition to no fossil fuels and no nuclear any time soon just ignores reality....which is why they prefer not to have it as a debate subject.

Hate to agree with you, but this cant get to zero emissions without fission power and meet the growing energy demands without getting fushion power right.  I dont think its realistic either, I'm open to someone showing the math to discredit it.  That's a lot of wind turbines and solar panels.

1 hour ago, mammajamma said:

Uh, last time I checked solar/wind/geo/hydro tech has been invented, and used by many developed nations (completely or almost completely powering entire nations already)...

 

And sidenote, your post is a bit immature for a "moderator"

 

Are we talking about meeting the energy demands of Costa Rica or a superpower?  I'd like to see the science behind where we could put geothermal plants, because I thought it made more sense were volcanic activity could be found, that's not Texas.  And cant jus put dams everywhere, it effects everything down stream from it.

 

Getting rid of fission without having fusion is a very bad idea, where is that science that says we can actually do that?  And not just meet current demands but keep up with growing demands.

[mammajamma]

14 minutes ago, Destino said:

Have we solved the intermittent production and storage problems for solar and wind?  Hydropower tends to require the building of great big dams which aren't viewed as being particularly green by many.  Geothermal is very location specific.  Cost remains a significant hurdle as well.   

That's the whole point of putting funding into these green initiatives. To solve those solvable problems. There are also already studies that show it can be done with current technology. As I said, there are already countries doing it, we just need to invest to do it on a larger scale

[Destino]

1 hour ago, LadySkinsFan said:

I wrote a term paper in 1981 and we are no closer to a solution for spent fuel rods than we were then.

Burying fuel rods deep underground seems to work pretty well.  Nuclear is proven technology that works now, and the clock is ticking on climate change. 

 

Quote

 

Hillary had a jobs retraining program in her platform. If you're doing away with fossil fuels, you HAVE to have a retraining program. To dodge this question doesn't show leadership, and is one reason why Harris is falling behind. She needs to drop out now and support Warren. 

I agree entirely with this.  We can't have a President that intentionally puts a huge amount of the american middle class out of work without any plan to help them. 

[mammajamma]

7 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Hate to agree with you, but this cant get to zero emissions without fission power and meet the growing energy demands without getting fushion power right.  I dont think its realistic either, I'm open to someone showing the math to discredit it.  That's a lot of wind turbines and solar panels.

"According to a 2008 analysis by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, supplying all of the United States’ electricity needs with photovoltaic solar energy would require roughly 0.6 percent of America's total land area or 1,948 square feet per person."

 

Not to mention most of those panels go directly on commerical buildings, homes, parking lot structures, etc.

 

And thats just solar panels. There are already many regions powered by wind and hydro, so it wouldnt have to all be solar.

 

Yes, nuclear would be the easiest solution to the problem. But if we're going to spend the money, don't you think we might as well spend it developing completely renewable energy options?

[Destino]

6 minutes ago, mammajamma said:

That's the whole point of putting funding into these green initiatives. To solve those solvable problems.

I'm not against funding research, but I can't get fully behind a plan that depends on technology that doesn't exist. 

 

6 minutes ago, mammajamma said:

There are also already studies that show it can be done with current technology. As I said, there are already countries doing it, we just need to invest to do it on a larger scale

I haven't seen any study that shows the US can replace it's existing energy infrastructure entirely with current green energy technology without wildly increase energy costs.  This doesn't mean it doesn't exist, I might have missed it.

[Renegade7]

5 minutes ago, mammajamma said:

"According to a 2008 analysis by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, supplying all of the United States’ electricity needs with photovoltaic solar energy would require roughly 0.6 percent of America's total land area or 1,948 square feet per person."

 

Not to mention most of those panels go directly on commerical buildings, homes, parking lot structures, etc.

 

And thats just solar panels. There are already many regions powered by wind and hydro, so it wouldnt have to all be solar.

 

Yes, nuclear would be the easiest solution to the problem. But if we're going to spend the money, don't you think we might as well spend it developing completely renewable energy options?

 

That's between 21k and 22k square miles, that's larger then some states.  If were going to go all in on any green energy, it should be fusion, that's the real game changer.

[mammajamma]

16 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

That's between 21k and 22k square miles, that's larger then some states.  If were going to go all in on any green energy, it should be fusion, that's the real game changer.

Like I said, that doesnt include the fact that a lot of that would be on roofs, etc, so it wouldnt nearly be that much open land needed. We're WAY closer on other green tech than fusion

[88Comrade2000]

26 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

I'm with you.  We ought to be working on things like solar and wind and who knows what else.  (Biofuels?)  But nuclear works now.  

 

(I also, though, think we need to just have a national leader pick a disposal site, and start putting things there.  If nothing else, just drill holes in the dirt in an empty hunk of Nevada, and dump the stuff there.  No, it's not perfect.  But it doesn't have to be.)  

I vote that all Trump properties, are designated as disposal sites.

[mammajamma]

14 minutes ago, Destino said:

I'm not against funding research, but I can't get fully behind a plan that depends on technology that doesn't exist. 

 

I haven't seen any study that shows the US can replace it's existing energy infrastructure entirely with current green energy technology without wildly increase energy costs.  This doesn't mean it doesn't exist, I might have missed it.

Again, it does exist... and is being used to power large portions of major countries already...

 

Here's one study I just randomly came across:

"Our results show that when using future anticipated costs for wind and solar, carbon dioxide emissions from the US electricity sector can be reduced by up to 80% relative to 1990 levels, without an increase in the levelized cost of electricity. The reductions are possible with current technologies and without electrical storage. Wind and solar power increase their share of electricity production as the system grows to encompass large-scale weather patterns. This reduction in carbon emissions is achieved by moving away from a regionally divided electricity sector to a national system enabled by high-voltage direct-current transmission."

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2921

 

[Renegade7]

3 minutes ago, mammajamma said:

Like I said, that doesnt include the fact that a lot of that would be on roofs, etc, so it wouldnt nearly be that much open land needed. We're WAY closer on other green tech than fusion

 

Right...so do we take that money and put into solar panels or fusion?  One can get us to Mars in 30 days and uses the most plentiful element in the universe regardless of the amount of sunlight.

[mammajamma]

10 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Right...so do we take that money and put into solar panels or fusion?  One can get us to Mars in 30 days and uses the most plentiful element in the universe regardless of the amount of sunlight.

Ha I'm with you, it's just with one, we have the tech already and just have to add it to new buildings, and the other is still in dream stage and we don't even know how to control it yet. Would be awesome to see that in my lifetime though

[Larry]

27 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

One can get us to Mars in 30 days and uses the most plentiful element in the universe regardless of the amount of sunlight.

 

. . . just as soon as we get the dilithium intermix set.  

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

 

[Llevron]

**** like that is really bad for our country if it continues past this man and his crass family. The VP of the United States being cautious and on guard of the Presidents family because they have more power than they should and want him gone. What country is this even? 

 

Thats not supposed to happen here. 

[LadySkinsFan]

10 hours ago, Larry said:

 

I'm with you.  We ought to be working on things like solar and wind and who knows what else.  (Biofuels?)  But nuclear works now.  

 

(I also, though, think we need to just have a national leader pick a disposal site, and start putting things there.  If nothing else, just drill holes in the dirt in an empty hunk of Nevada, and dump the stuff there.  No, it's not perfect.  But it doesn't have to be.)  

 

One of the solutions to handle spent fuel rods in 1981 was to load them into a rocket and shoot it toward the Sun. I'm sure there are some people out there who still think that this is a good idea.