The Green New Deal is Actually Feasable

[Manonthestreet]

Point of the green new deal is not to make peoples lives better but control them thus even hydropower is evil. No matter what you propose that improves the situation if it doesn't include that element they will be against it.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Until it’s economically feasible and if it’s in place of abundant fossil fuel resources, it only serves to drive the price of everything up. The poorest people in third-world countries will starve as those dictators will not take the economic hardship on the chin. They will pass those costs onto the poorest in their countries driving them from poverty to starvation.

I am talking about a program for the USA, not the Third World. I suppose eventually it rolls out to third world countries too, but only as a secondary effect.

But if this supplants US oil extraction the global price of oil goes way up and that ripples globally. In a very bad way.

 

[Lewdog]

If the U.S. had a better public transportation in the infrastructure, it would be REALLY feasible. Take for example how Japan has so many high speed trains.

High speed trains would be a threat to that shit worthless liberal darling called Amtrak. Then you would have to deal with unions, environmentalists and all the other bullshit. High speed trains would work if we scrapped Amtrak and let private sector invest $$$ into the project and manage it. Only thing the federal government is good at is Armed Forces. Everything else the Touch turns to shit.

GREAT idea! If anything isn't an easy project we should ignore it and instead just throw more money into the military.

Fuck infrastructure! Who needs it!

 

[fncceo]

The so-called renewables “rape the landscape”

Well, the landscape has a "purdy mouth".

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The so-called renewables “rape the landscape”

Well, the landscape has a "purdy mouth".

That was the other character. The one method-acted by Tommy Tainant.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Fossil is the most efficient we have right now (except nuclear).
The so-called renewables “rape the landscape”, quoting Lewis Medlock from Deliverance.

Hmm, Thorium nuclear reactors using the Molten Salt model, is 250 times more efficient by fuel weight than current uranium designs.

And it has so little waste it c an be stored in the reactor itself until it needs to be refurbished, I think once every 20 years, then restarted.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It is NOT proven technology or we would be using them.

Molten salt reactors were run back in the 1960s.
Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment - Wikipedia

The Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) was an experimental molten salt reactor at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) researching this technology through the 1960s; constructed by 1964, it went critical in 1965 and was operated until 1969.[1]

The MSRE was a 7.4 MWth test reactor simulating the neutronic "kernel" of a type of inherently safer epithermal thorium breeder reactor called the liquid fluoride thorium reactor. It primarily used two fuels: first uranium-235 and later uranium-233. The latter 233UF4 was the result of breeding from thorium in other reactors. Since this was an engineering test, the large, expensive breeding blanket of thorium salt was omitted in favor of neutron measurements.

In the MSRE, the heat from the reactor core was shed via a cooling system using air blown over radiators. It is thought similar reactors could power high-efficiency heat engines such as closed-cycle gas turbines.

The MSRE's piping, core vat and structural components were made from Hastelloy-N and its moderator was a pyrolytic graphite core. The fuel for the MSRE was LiF-BeF2-ZrF4-UF4 (65-29-5-1), the graphite core moderated it, and its secondary coolant was FLiBe (2LiF-BeF2), it operated as hot as 650 °C and operated for the equivalent of about 1.5 years of full power operation.

The result promised to be a simple, reliable reactor. The purpose of the Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment was to demonstrate that some key features of the proposed molten-salt power reactors could be embodied in a practical reactor that could be operated safely and reliably and be maintained without excessive difficulty. For simplicity, it was to be a fairly small, one-fluid (i.e. non-breeding) reactor operating at 10 MWth or less, with heat rejection to the air via a secondary (fuel-free) salt.​

Liquid fluoride thorium reactor - Wikipedia

The liquid fluoride thorium reactor (acronym LFTR; often pronounced lifter) is a type of molten salt reactor. LFTRs use the thorium fuel cycle with a fluoride-based, molten, liquid salt for fuel. In a typical design, the liquid is pumped between a critical core and an external heat exchanger where the heat is transferred to a nonradioactive secondary salt. The secondary salt then transfers its heat to a steam turbine or closed-cycle gas turbine.[1]

Molten-salt-fueled reactors (MSRs) supply the nuclear fuel mixed into a molten salt. They should not be confused with designs that use a molten salt for cooling only (fluoride high-temperature reactors, FHRs) and still have a solid fuel.[2] Molten salt reactors, as a class, include both burners and breeders in fast or thermal spectra, using fluoride or chloride salt-based fuels and a range of fissile or fertile consumables. LFTRs are defined by the use of fluoride fuel salts and the breeding of thorium into uranium-233 in the thermal spectrum.

The LFTR concept was first investigated at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment in the 1960s, though the MSRE did not use thorium. The LFTR has recently been the subject of a renewed interest worldwide.[3] Japan, China, the UK and private US, Czech, Canadian[4] and Australian companies have expressed the intent to develop, and commercialize the technology.

LFTRs differ from other power reactors in almost every aspect: they use thorium that is turned into uranium, instead of using uranium directly; they are refueled by pumping without shutdown; they use a liquid salt coolant, which allows for higher operating temperatures, and which thereby allows for much lower pressure in the system.​

Thorium has also been used in running reactors in the 1960s and was widely considered a safer alternative to nuclear power using uranium..

Thorium-based nuclear power - Wikipedia

After World War II, uranium-based nuclear reactors were built to produce electricity. These were similar to the reactor designs that produced material for nuclear weapons. During that period, the government of the United States also built an experimental molten salt reactor using U-233 fuel, the fissile material created by bombarding thorium with neutrons. The MSRE reactor, built at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, operated critical for roughly 15,000 hours from 1965 to 1969. In 1968, Nobel laureate and discoverer of plutonium, Glenn Seaborg, publicly announced to the Atomic Energy Commission, of which he was chairman, that the thorium-based reactor had been successfully developed and tested.

In 1973, however, the US government settled on uranium technology and largely discontinued thorium-related nuclear research. The reasons were that uranium-fueled reactors were more efficient, the research was proven, and thorium's breeding ratio was thought insufficient to produce enough fuel to support development of a commercial nuclear industry. As Moir and Teller later wrote, "The competition came down to a liquid metal fast breeder reactor (LMFBR) on the uranium-plutonium cycle and a thermal reactor on the thorium-233U cycle, the molten salt breeder reactor. The LMFBR had a larger breeding rate ... and won the competition." In their opinion, the decision to stop development of thorium reactors, at least as a backup option, “was an excusable mistake.”[3]

Science writer Richard Martin states that nuclear physicist Alvin Weinberg, who was director at Oak Ridge and primarily responsible for the new reactor, lost his job as director because he championed development of the safer thorium reactors.[6][7] Weinberg himself recalls this period:

[Congressman] Chet Holifield was clearly exasperated with me, and he finally blurted out, "Alvin, if you are concerned about the safety of reactors, then I think it may be time for you to leave nuclear energy." I was speechless. But it was apparent to me that my style, my attitude, and my perception of the future were no longer in tune with the powers within the AEC.[8]

Martin explains that Weinberg's unwillingness to sacrifice potentially safe nuclear power for the benefit of military uses forced him to retire:

Weinberg realized that you could use thorium in an entirely new kind of reactor, one that would have zero risk of meltdown. ... his team built a working reactor .... and he spent the rest of his 18-year tenure trying to make thorium the heart of the nation’s atomic power effort. He failed. Uranium reactors had already been established, and Hyman Rickover, de facto head of the US nuclear program, wanted the plutonium from uranium-powered nuclear plants to make bombs. Increasingly shunted aside, Weinberg was finally forced out in 1973.[9]

Despite the documented history of thorium nuclear power, many of today’s nuclear experts were nonetheless unaware of it. According to Chemical & Engineering News, "most people—including scientists—have hardly heard of the heavy-metal element and know little about it...," noting a comment by a conference attendee that "it's possible to have a Ph.D. in nuclear reactor technology and not know about thorium energy."[10] Nuclear physicist Victor J. Stenger, for one, first learned of it in 2012:

It came as a surprise to me to learn recently that such an alternative has been available to us since World War II, but not pursued because it lacked weapons applications.[11]

Others, including former NASA scientist and thorium expert Kirk Sorensen, agree that "thorium was the alternative path that was not taken … "[12][13]:2 According to Sorensen, during a documentary interview, he states that if the US had not discontinued its research in 1974 it could have "probably achieved energy independence by around 2000."[14]​

The Russians seem to have a lot of reactor accidents that kill thousands. Ever wonder why? It is because they mess with this kind of shit!

The Russians explode things because they are Russians. Roddenbury's Klingons were based on Russian culture. that should tell you enough about Russian explosions, lol.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Hocket is a lying sleazoid.

If you are talking about the confusion between him and Carlson about the Green New Deal document, that has been explained as Hockett was referring to the one he read that was circulating in Congress, not the one that was a draft up on AOCs website for a short time.

I think we can discuss the topic without dipping into character assassination, can we not?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Point of the green new deal is not to make peoples lives better but control them thus even hydropower is evil. No matter what you propose that improves the situation if it doesn't include that element they will be against it.

I do not see how reading the minds of people over hundreds of miles of distance is a productive topic.

Do you have examples of proponents of the GND claiming that they want to establish more power for the government in doing this?

 

[JimBowie1958]

But if this supplants US oil extraction the global price of oil goes way up and that ripples globally. In a very bad way.

I think the idea is to phase this stuff in by expediting new technologies that are coming along anyway.

And we are not doing this solo, we are basically playing catch up to advances already being made in Europe, China, India, Indonesia, and Russia.

What we are looking at is probably the collapse of the US dollar due to the loss of its status as world reserve currency since the need for petroleum is going to eventually be reduced drastically.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Point of the green new deal is not to make peoples lives better but control them thus even hydropower is evil. No matter what you propose that improves the situation if it doesn't include that element they will be against it.

I do not see how reading the minds of people over hundreds of miles of distance is a productive topic.

Do you have examples of proponents of the GND claiming that they want to establish more power for the government in doing this?

The Green New Deal: Less About Climate, More About Control

 

[22lcidw]

I believe we could build mini habitats for people that have limited abilities from solar in third world nations.

 

[boedicca]

Hocket is a lying sleazoid.

If you are talking about the confusion between him and Carlson about the Green New Deal document, that has been explained as Hockett was referring to the one he read that was circulating in Congress, not the one that was a draft up on AOCs website for a short time.

I think we can discuss the topic without dipping into character assassination, can we not?

I stand by my opinion. Hockett is a lying sleazoid. I do not believe the spin being used to disclaim the original document.

 

[Dana7360]

Slowly tax gas so a new electric car is cheaper than driving your 4 year old car. My issue is water pollution-far worse than carbon and already a major shortage around the world.

That is kind of harsh on family budgets.

If we improved the electric grid, modernizing it, and put TMSR to supply all the energy we need, it wouldnt really require any manipulation of gas prices.

You're right.

My state started building one of the largest wind farms in our nation in the 1990s. Now it's huge.

When the electricity first came on line, it produced way too much electricity for the existing grid to handle.

So we voted to raise our taxes on electricity, not gas, to build a new grid.

We also started shutting down our coal fire plants. We have one left and it's being shutdown now.

We have more electricity than we use and sell our excess to other states for a profit. We also have the second lowest electric rates in the nation.

Most of our electricity comes from water, a little over 60%. The rest comes from wind, sun, natural gas with a very little from that coal fire plant that is used by farmers out in the middle of nowhere. Soon they too will be off coal.

I have not read the green new deal but I support something that does seriously address this problem.

I've been watching the causes of climate change since the 80s. I've been watching the damage from climate change since the early 2000s.

Rivers that once were huge raging rivers that supplied water to farmers and both commercial and sport fishermen. That supplied water to people all over the state for a variety of uses. Including to drink. Everything alive on this planet needs water to survive. Now those rivers are small trickles that I can literally step over.

Mountains that had ice caves that existed for millions of years. Those ice caves started melting in the 80s and some are totally gone forever.

The tallest free standing mountain in the lower 48 states used to be covered with snow on it all year round. We used to call it our giant ice cream cone. We can't do that anymore. Now that mountain doesn't have snow on all of it all year around. Now the bottom up to half way up the mountain is most without snow. I saw it this past weekend and just cried. In my 59 years of living here I have never seen that mountain without snow like that before. I've been seeing the black spots that are spots without snow but I've never seen it like it is now. There's waterfalls where there used to be snow and ice. Our ice cream cone is melting and I wish something could be done about it.

My state is more environmentally friendly than most states but no matter what we do, the rest of the nation and world isn't doing it so our efforts won't make much difference. We need everyone in all nations to be changing and working on this very critical problem.

I have photos of it all but I'm not going to go through my photos and post them. It's too big of a job. But here's the photos I took this weekend. Clouds were covering half the mountain so the top can't be seen. All of what's in these photos except the trees, is supposed to be under many feet of snow and ice. The first shot is the bottom of the whole mountain taken with a wide angle lens. The rest of the shots are parts of the mountain taken with a zoom lens.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Slowly tax gas so a new electric car is cheaper than driving your 4 year old car. My issue is water pollution-far worse than carbon and already a major shortage around the world.

That is kind of harsh on family budgets.

If we improved the electric grid, modernizing it, and put TMSR to supply all the energy we need, it wouldnt really require any manipulation of gas prices.

If they used silver instead of Copper it would be cheaper yet. LOL and that is true.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Slowly tax gas so a new electric car is cheaper than driving your 4 year old car. My issue is water pollution-far worse than carbon and already a major shortage around the world.

That is kind of harsh on family budgets.

If we improved the electric grid, modernizing it, and put TMSR to supply all the energy we need, it wouldnt really require any manipulation of gas prices.

If they used silver instead of Copper it would be cheaper yet. LOL and that is true.

Gold plated wiring is even better still.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

But if this supplants US oil extraction the global price of oil goes way up and that ripples globally. In a very bad way.

I think the idea is to phase this stuff in by expediting new technologies that are coming along anyway.

And we are not doing this solo, we are basically playing catch up to advances already being made in Europe, China, India, Indonesia, and Russia.

What we are looking at is probably the collapse of the US dollar due to the loss of its status as world reserve currency since the need for petroleum is going to eventually be reduced drastically.

China and India, no way. They’re still fossil fuel heavy. China’s involvement in renewables is mainly slave-labor manufacturing of landscape-raping wind turbines that ultimately leave large bullshit carbon footprints.

 

[Third Party]

Slowly tax gas so a new electric car is cheaper than driving your 4 year old car. My issue is water pollution-far worse than carbon and already a major shortage around the world.

That is kind of harsh on family budgets.

If we improved the electric grid, modernizing it, and put TMSR to supply all the energy we need, it wouldnt really require any manipulation of gas prices.

You're right.

My state started building one of the largest wind farms in our nation in the 1990s. Now it's huge.

When the electricity first came on line, it produced way too much electricity for the existing grid to handle.

So we voted to raise our taxes on electricity, not gas, to build a new grid.

We also started shutting down our coal fire plants. We have one left and it's being shutdown now.

We have more electricity than we use and sell our excess to other states for a profit. We also have the second lowest electric rates in the nation.

Most of our electricity comes from water, a little over 60%. The rest comes from wind, sun, natural gas with a very little from that coal fire plant that is used by farmers out in the middle of nowhere. Soon they too will be off coal.

I have not read the green new deal but I support something that does seriously address this problem.

I've been watching the causes of climate change since the 80s. I've been watching the damage from climate change since the early 2000s.

Rivers that once were huge raging rivers that supplied water to farmers and both commercial and sport fishermen. That supplied water to people all over the state for a variety of uses. Including to drink. Everything alive on this planet needs water to survive. Now those rivers are small trickles that I can literally step over.

Mountains that had ice caves that existed for millions of years. Those ice caves started melting in the 80s and some are totally gone forever.

The tallest free standing mountain in the lower 48 states used to be covered with snow on it all year round. We used to call it our giant ice cream cone. We can't do that anymore. Now that mountain doesn't have snow on all of it all year around. Now the bottom up to half way up the mountain is most without snow. I saw it this past weekend and just cried. In my 59 years of living here I have never seen that mountain without snow like that before. I've been seeing the black spots that are spots without snow but I've never seen it like it is now. There's waterfalls where there used to be snow and ice. Our ice cream cone is melting and I wish something could be done about it.

My state is more environmentally friendly than most states but no matter what we do, the rest of the nation and world isn't doing it so our efforts won't make much difference. We need everyone in all nations to be changing and working on this very critical problem.

I have photos of it all but I'm not going to go through my photos and post them. It's too big of a job. But here's the photos I took this weekend. Clouds were covering half the mountain so the top can't be seen. All of what's in these photos except the trees, is supposed to be under many feet of snow and ice. The first shot is the bottom of the whole mountain taken with a wide angle lens. The rest of the shots are parts of the mountain taken with a zoom lens.


View attachment 277134 View attachment 277135 View attachment 277136 View attachment 277137 View attachment 277138

Two problems-10 million people work with fossil fuels-not enough"clean" jobs for them. We don't know for sure carbon is creating climate change, and other countries produce way more carbon than we do.

 

[Third Party]

Slowly tax gas so a new electric car is cheaper than driving your 4 year old car. My issue is water pollution-far worse than carbon and already a major shortage around the world.

That is kind of harsh on family budgets.

If we improved the electric grid, modernizing it, and put TMSR to supply all the energy we need, it wouldnt really require any manipulation of gas prices.

If they used silver instead of Copper it would be cheaper yet. LOL and that is true.

Silver used to be more expensive-did copper jump that much?

 

[Dana7360]

Slowly tax gas so a new electric car is cheaper than driving your 4 year old car. My issue is water pollution-far worse than carbon and already a major shortage around the world.

That is kind of harsh on family budgets.

If we improved the electric grid, modernizing it, and put TMSR to supply all the energy we need, it wouldnt really require any manipulation of gas prices.

You're right.

My state started building one of the largest wind farms in our nation in the 1990s. Now it's huge.

When the electricity first came on line, it produced way too much electricity for the existing grid to handle.

So we voted to raise our taxes on electricity, not gas, to build a new grid.

We also started shutting down our coal fire plants. We have one left and it's being shutdown now.

We have more electricity than we use and sell our excess to other states for a profit. We also have the second lowest electric rates in the nation.

Most of our electricity comes from water, a little over 60%. The rest comes from wind, sun, natural gas with a very little from that coal fire plant that is used by farmers out in the middle of nowhere. Soon they too will be off coal.

I have not read the green new deal but I support something that does seriously address this problem.

I've been watching the causes of climate change since the 80s. I've been watching the damage from climate change since the early 2000s.

Rivers that once were huge raging rivers that supplied water to farmers and both commercial and sport fishermen. That supplied water to people all over the state for a variety of uses. Including to drink. Everything alive on this planet needs water to survive. Now those rivers are small trickles that I can literally step over.

Mountains that had ice caves that existed for millions of years. Those ice caves started melting in the 80s and some are totally gone forever.

The tallest free standing mountain in the lower 48 states used to be covered with snow on it all year round. We used to call it our giant ice cream cone. We can't do that anymore. Now that mountain doesn't have snow on all of it all year around. Now the bottom up to half way up the mountain is most without snow. I saw it this past weekend and just cried. In my 59 years of living here I have never seen that mountain without snow like that before. I've been seeing the black spots that are spots without snow but I've never seen it like it is now. There's waterfalls where there used to be snow and ice. Our ice cream cone is melting and I wish something could be done about it.

My state is more environmentally friendly than most states but no matter what we do, the rest of the nation and world isn't doing it so our efforts won't make much difference. We need everyone in all nations to be changing and working on this very critical problem.

I have photos of it all but I'm not going to go through my photos and post them. It's too big of a job. But here's the photos I took this weekend. Clouds were covering half the mountain so the top can't be seen. All of what's in these photos except the trees, is supposed to be under many feet of snow and ice. The first shot is the bottom of the whole mountain taken with a wide angle lens. The rest of the shots are parts of the mountain taken with a zoom lens.


View attachment 277134 View attachment 277135 View attachment 277136 View attachment 277137 View attachment 277138

Two problems-10 million people work with fossil fuels-not enough"clean" jobs for them. We don't know for sure carbon is creating climate change, and other countries produce way more carbon than we do.

Have you ever heard of being retrained in a different career?

Many people have done it throughout history.

Should we not have changed to floppy disks because keypunch operators wouldn't have a job? Should we have not changed to fossil fuels because whale hunters would be out of a job?
Should we have not changed to cars because blacksmiths and buggy manufacturers would be out of a job?

What you're saying is ridiculous. What makes fossil fuel jobs more important than any other job that has become obsolete?

Yes we do know that carbon is causing climate change or is one of the causes. You just don't want to accept it.

If you don't believe that carbon is one of the things causing it why say that other countries produce more than we do in a pathetic attempt to justify not doing what's right? And why should we not change just because other countries put out more carbon than we do?

All of your post is written like it's coming from a 12 year old child. You're using the same rational that a child uses when they're caught doing something they know they shouldn't be doing. Make lame excuses and point fingers.

Shame on you.