88
๐ in surpising news, hillary clinton acquitance comes out as supporter of status duo
(hexbear.net)
this post was submitted on 30 May 2024
88 points (100.0% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15915 readers
1 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to [email protected]
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
She has some typical green bad vibes around vaccines and nuclear, i think, and electoral politics is a void, outside of polling amount of non-genocidal electorate of the usa, its relatively useless. Plus we have pumpkin spice latte
She's right about nuclear. If you disagree you're a fucking lib. This is my hot take, I won't back down. The socialists who endorse nuclear in America are redditors and turbolibs.
There's a difference between "nuclear will singlehandedly solve the climate crisis" and "nuclear can be in the mix idgaf" which more accurately describes most people here's opinion of it.
The answer to this is a resounding "it depends"
The answer is actually "We can't burn a limited resource to escape our reliance on limited resources". There is no "This depends" There's a side that's wrong (The "Nuclear is a solution" side) and there is a side that's not wrong.
To be fair renewables rely on nonrenewable steel and rare earth metals as well
No that's not being fair. There is a difference between the resources needed to build something, and lighting a limited resource on fire for fuel. Especially when you still need to build the nuclear power plants. We literally can't switch to all nuclear right now, if we do we run out of fuel in a presidential term.
Solar panels have limited lifespans as well and are difficult to recycle. Also the issue is not limited resources. Even if oil was infinite there would still be a problem as climate change is the issue, not reliability. Uranium reserves still have quite a bit left and if China's breeder reactor programs work, uranium is less of an issue. Also, nobody here is advocating for switching entirely to nuclear. Nuclear is only really a good option for places that get unreliable sun and wind and for that it works pretty well, provided work is done now.
Here is the list of total places that don't have access to wind, solar, water, or geothermal power but does have access to permanent nuclear waste storage:
End of list
That's before we even get into the notion of reliable and cheap access to nuclear fuel. If we're going to talk about logistics, we should actually talk about the enormous logistics required for any kind of major expansion of nuclear power that isn't happening, won't happen, and for which there is no plan. Not to mention the fact that maintenance of nuclear facilities is also costly. It's not a problem unique to or especially incumbent upon renewable energy. The attempts to "be fair" here, are just regurgitating conservative arguments for fossil fuels, except the idea here is to create a gigantic infrastructure project for an intentional stopgap that would take so long to actually build we could also just build the fucking renewable capacity.
It genuinely cannot be overstated how much nuclear is just a distraction at this point.
You're argument to not invest in infrastructure projects because it's expensive is one of the single most moronic statements I have read in a long time. Of course maintenance of a power plant is going to be expensive. So is doing literally anything to fight climate change. There is no plan right now because any method of fighting climate change is entirely against the interests of the ruling class. There is no plan for major renewables infrastructure. There is no plan for any sort of decarbonization. There is no silver bullet here and reliance on any one sort of technology will without a doubt screw us over because every method has weaknesses. Nuclear power also does not need to be a stopgap, especially if you look at the way China is doing it, with rapid development alongside renewables and focusing on technology not to run out of uranium.
That's fucking cute coming from someone acting like their argument is being misunderstood. Absolute banger of a nonsense statement. I'd delete my entire account had I said something like this. You owe me an actual apology for this.
The issue is not merely that nuclear is "expensive". It's that any argument about the cost and necessity of maintenance of renewable energy sources applies equally if not more so to nuclear power. It is not "Being fair" to apply the issue of cost to renewable energy but not to nuclear power. It's a selective application of a problem that exists more so for the thing you're arguing for. It's dishonest.
But on top of that any kind of responsible expansion of nuclear power requires infrastructure that we not only aren't building because of cost, but won't build because it is a gigantic political hot potato with incredibly vast implications. Permanent nuclear waste storage does not exist. The closest is a facility in Finland that's been "almost built" for decades.
Edit: And that's not even getting into the fact that expanding nuclear power capacity would take as long as expanding renewable capacity. It's a non solution to the issue.
It literally fucking does. That's... the entire environmentalist argument for nuclear. What the fuck are you smoking. The reason nuclear power can even be defended is that it is a superior alternative environmentally to fossil fuels, not that it can serve as a permanent replacement to other sources of energy.
Nuclear waste storage is not an issue. High level waste is safety contained today in facilities and construction of waste facilities is solely a matter of political will. We have the technology and waste storage of high level material is not a critical issue. Furthermore, the decision to solely focus on nuclear waste from reactors is deeply unserious. Coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste and the medical industry generates far more nuclear waste than power does. This stampede against helpful technically accomplishes no good whatsoever. Anti nuclear activists in Germany successfully fought for the climate by shutting down nuclear plants and letting the government further cement it's reliance on coal. Rallying against useful, viable, albeit imperfect technology (as all technologies are) is phenomenaly counterproductive and unserious.
Yeah calling me unserious and then jumping over to arguments against coal power as an argument isn't going to fly. Do better. Especially when you then claim nuclear storage is not an issue. Nuclear is only useful insofar as it is a temporary stopgap and a replacement for building fossil fuel plants, but the time to build up nuclear capacity was 40 years ago. It is not now, when we should be focusing on renewable sources of energy, clamoring against that by saying yeah well it's gonna take steel to do that is fucking baby brained, and calling anyone unserious after that was your first fucking argument isn't even ironic, it's just fucking stupid.
genuinely go back to reddit
Are you illiterate? The argument against coal was saying that all fighting against nuclear does is hinder it's progress and therefore help coal. Also, nuclear is more than just a stopgap as I said earlier. Nuclear power can provide power for extended durations, especially with breeder reactors and ocean mining for uranium. Your inability to look at usecases, nuance or anything other than repeating turbolib propaganda that causes real, material harm is incredibly frustrating and honestly concerning that you can't see how your position is being used directly against your interests. We need to pull all the stops to fight climate change and that means all the stops. Rallying against nuclear does absolutely nothing and only prevents more low carbon power from being constructed. Stop aligning yourself with absolutist, unproductive turbolibs and realize that two things can be done at once.
You don't get to make more argument redditbrained dumbass. You argued that renewable using steel was an argument against them. You just don't have a leg to fucking stand on. You don't rise to the level of unserious. In fact. You're not getting more from me. I'm just going to call you a dumb fuck until I get an apology for your dumb ass behavior and bad arguments.
I'm not apologizing for calling you out on being a total idiot and being unable to read or carrying more about fighting spoopy nuclear power than fighting climate change. You absolute fucking moron.
No I'm not asking you to apologize for shit that never happened. I'm asking you to apologize for being a fucking dipshit without any brain activity who still insists on being annoying as fuck. Like the fucking audacity of calling other people dumb after advocating the "Oh yeah but you have to use steel for renewable energy" argument alone. Genuinely stop posting, don't inflict your stupid on the world.
You are literally the one who is using retoric used to prevent climate action. Nuclear isn't a silver bullet but it is useful but you are more focused on swearing like a toddler that just learned how to say fuck than you are thinking about the climate crisis.
Trying to tone police at this stage is almost as audacious as calling someone else stupid after the arguments you have presented so far. "Oh no the person I have been insulting for an hour said the word fuck, they sure are immature and stupid". I'm going to block you now, because your posts have been so dumb that I suspect you are not actually capable of adding anything to any conversation of any kind in any context.
Sure, I don't love talking to self proclaimed leftists with the philosophy of German or Canadian greens
Nuclear is already in the mix. It's not doing anything to help the situation. For it to actually do anything to alleviate the situation the pro nuclear position has to involve fucking sci fi technology and totally unworkable political projects. You are not getting a permanent nuclear waste storage facility and Thorium will not solve the energy crisis, therefore nuclear is not a panacea. Nuclear is a limited fuel source regulated by the most captured body in the entire universe. No climate solution can possibly involve leaning heavily into it. It just can't. Just build renewable fucking energy. We don't need to start 30 year long projects as stepping stones to converting the energy industry, that's a time horizon that's entirely out of step with reality, especially when you also expect and require the long projects to use sci fi technology that does not exist and for their reliable use have to finish political hot potatoes that the US has solidly avoided doing anything about for almost 100 years