Fucking kill me. Even the most ambitious push for abating the death of every fish in the ocean is plagued by anti-nuclear spooks. AOC's bill was unveiled today and it specifically says there will be zero investment in new nuclear because it "isn't renewable". While that is true, its also necessary. The claim that it isn't environmentally friendly because of the waste omits that the alternative, massive amounts of batteries for base renewable power, requires ripping up the global south for hazardous material. It's not much better, and real people are going to be getting cancer and dying from it in real time, they just happen to all be from places like Africa! To contrast, the hazard of nuclear waste is VERY MANAGEABLE if the political will is there to do it.
"Green New Deal" revealed, no nuclear power
Nuclear power 100% under state control is the only realistic power production tool we have. So-called ecologists calling for nuclear plants to be dismantled are useful idiots of capital.
The problem with nostalgia for the New Deal (obviously discounting any critiques to the left of Kenysian/Social Democratic ones) is that it wasn't a particularly coherent economic strategy to begin with.
The fact that it occupies a cultural cornerstone of liberal/progressive thought when it was basically a hodgepodge of unconnected work programs and infrastructure spending means that any attempt to replicate and modernise it is going to be a mess, unless there's a real DemSoc/SocDem national economic strategy behind it (which AOC, and probably even Bernie, doesn't have).
Solar energy isn't renewable, once the heat death of the universe occurs there will be absolutely no sunlight.
...
...
Actually my OP was wrong. They don't just say they want to not invest anything into nuclear. They said they want to decommission every nuclear plant in 10 years.
Lol what's the point in using nuclear energy? Nuclear materials will run out in like 1000 years and THEN what will we do???
If we go nuclear now, that dramatically cuts carbon emission. While we fix that problem we can transition from nuclear to other energy sources. It's not a permanent solution so much as a stop-gap.
By then we'll be an inter-solar socialist federation fam.
Can we link this to big oil, and coal somehow?
Nah, it's more than likely just common and garden hippie bullshit. Greenpeace et al are a fucking menace.
The real green new deal is doing away with industrial society
I recently got a reddit account, can you give me some proofs so I can go laugh at the Chapos?
How about NOOOOOO
We need technology to try avert the worst of the damage anyway.
The real ecological redpill is advancing to spacer level tech and leaving Earth entirely to nature.
That's what you get when you put your hopes in backstabbing cryptofascist socdems.
blackpill is nuking earth from orbit once we're finished with it.
made by NRx gang
God I miss pre-boomer Nick Land. Yes he was a recovering speedfiend, but at least you could plausibly make the argument that the Dark Enlightenment was a massive troll on his part.
Space is a waste of time and resources at this juncture. It's a meme.
uh but how bout water deposits in meteors uh? ever think about that bucKO
I didn't say now fuckboy.
technology is what is damaging the earth the most
this has to be possible first
I cringe hard every time you faggots say that you are leftists only because of global warming, now you are cheering for destroying most efficient way of reducing emissions. Comrades, you are retarded and should seriously self-crit.
who the fuck is saying that
Reminder that non-fusion nuclear energy facilities take so long to build that they are obsolete when they are finally completed.
More like 5 billion years.
Phone posting so it feels like a hassle, but if you look up “green new deal nuclear” on google you’ll get some of the normal MSM outlets talking about it. I’m getting the impression that this might be a rift between AOC’s office and other members of Congress. They had a press conference that I saw a clip of on the CNN YouTube channel, and a reporter asks about the no nuclear thing. Another congressman takes the mic and says that they haven’t made any decisions about targeted specific sources of energy yet. The reporter mentions they got a fact sheet that said nuclear was off the table and the congressman said that was wrong. The news articles said AOC’s people passed these factsheets out to the press, so it seems like there are disagreements about that.
Who cares? As long as they work. You just need a good model that is safe and effective enough to provide energy. Meanwhile, developed countries are shooting themselves in the foot over this anti-nuclear thing. Several including the US have been decommissioning plants before their life cycle is finished, which is just a waste of money, and then they replace them with coal and gas! What the fuck for? We may as well be paying people to dig fucking holes in the ground!
This board has a garrison of retards who comment purely on the titles of threads and hope that someone has made the idiotic statement they're arguing with.
It's fucking stupid, I find it odd the mainstream Dems are the ones not being retarded for once.
Probably only because they're being paid off but hey
phys.org
Nuclear power will never be scaled to the level that it could replace conventional power plants. It is situationally useful at best.
The Green New Deal is a sham anyways; greenwashed Keynesianism meant to prop up capitalist growth. Any efficiency gained through technology will be cancelled out by the increased emissions and resource consumption generated by economic growth.
The real "greenpill" involves drastically reducing emissions and energy use, then stabilizing consumption at a lower level, while allowing for technological development and efficiency gains to be passed on to the workers rather than reinvested in production. If limited nuclear plant construction and operation could be a part of such a plan, but the idea that nuclear energy alone is a solution (much less an option to continue business as usual) is absolutely infantile.
Because they don't need them anymore, since they have socially engineered a global eugenics program to massively reduce the earth population.
the "green new deal" was never green to begin with
Are we fucked?
The first world is fucked yes.
Reducing consumption is fine, it's better than dying anyway. Besides, people would rather have stable lives than the chaos we have now.
fuck off larouche
People in the comments dispute the article, and I’d say just on its face it sounds like it makes a lot of assumptions. Without even being a nuclear engineer when he talked about finding so many sites for power plants I was thinking “can’t you have multiple generators at the same site?” and it seems others suggested that is possible. Also, the extrapolation that there’d be a major accident every month is just silly, most of the highly damaging nuclear accidents were very unique events. There isn’t going to be a Fukushima every month because there isn’t even a freak tsunami wiping out a major city every month!
But I’d agree with the article that 100% nuclear isn’t a reasonable thing to expect. How much energy should nuclear provide? I dunno, I just know it sounds dumb as hell to be pre-emptively decommissioning plants and replacing them with coal/gas in the middle of an increasingly sever climate crisis. We should maintain what we have, build more, continue research and also build renewables. The actual specifics will require detailed feasibility studies on a level of planning knowledge and expertise I’m certainly incapable of meeting.
I’ll also say that it’s obvious there is a nuclear lobby trying to tie their ship to the climate crisis as a way to get more investment and funding. But there is also a renewables lobby! Everything is a business! I don’t believe the nuclear lobby wholesale, but I can see that Germany’s emissions shot up when they started to move off nuclear while France is one of the cleanest developed countries on the planet, and it is hugely invested in nuclear. Clearly something is actually working there, while for renewables all we get is the insistence that it’s the ONLY future possible. And they’ve had plenty of funding, domestic solar panels can be found in the fucking DPRK and Cuba. But here we are, with our emissions actually rising!
You sure about that? The reaction this limpdick outline is getting makes me think otherwise.
we are on Zig Forums, baiting redlibs is what makes me enjoy time here more. The fact that most of you are actually sane chan users is not helping me much in this regard.
Technology powering aims determined by the market is what is damaging the earth. We need actual ecological specialists to make decisions and we need to do everything in our power to heed their decisions.
Stupid fucking hippy.
I would also accept a handful of massive arcologies where humans live in megacities (situated on major historical sites presumably).
Humans can live in space and on other planets, the rest of nature can't, generally speaking.
What's your big issue with it?
Not him, but i don't enjoy anthropologizing nature, i value biodiversity and don't condone useless violence against animals, but i also think we must always come first. Unless you make me choose to nuke a guy in a desert or a dolphin pod in the ocean, i will choose to nuke the guy any day tbh
Dont france and japn literally have over 50 percent nuclear power?
I don't exactly disagree with that, humans are at the top of the pile, but since urban areas have the highest standards of living anyway, I see no reason not to ultra-concentrate into megacities and leave all that we can to nature.
France is closer to 80%
No it is technology in general even the USSR drained Aral Sea.
Megacities have no natural resources, and no agriculture. They are highly dependent on extracting resources from surrounding rural areas.
Emissions will skyrocket if they do that.
...
Recycling should near 100% efficiency ideally, and obviously I forsee agriculture (bear in mind we might be totally converted to vat-grown feedstock type diets by this point) being integrated into the city proper. With technology and socialism there are few limits to what we can accomplish. With an abundance of excess renewable energy plenty of things become possible that we would call 'uneconomical' today, plastics can be created from the air, oil can be artificially created in the lab, and so on.
reuseable is superior to recyclable
Obviously, it's not possible to have 0% waste though.
its not possible to have 100% recycling either
Depends on what materials you use, and how much energy you're willing to put into the process. Obviously there will always be some percentage of waste but the point is to reduce it, and there are plenty of sustainable ways to replace that loss.
you're more likely to have waste when your goal is recycling rather than reuse.
Banning plastics would be a start and force reuseable water bottles, cups and silverware
Jeez, you knew what I meant. Fine fine, obviously I support whatever process cuts down on waste. But even still metal cutlery can get bent or damaged, that's the point I'm trying to make. My point is that with the application of high technology and smart governance a city can sustain itself with minimal impact on the surrounding planet.
in theory but this has never happened. Any sort of environmental regulation to limit bad technology is just a social agreement that will eventually break down over time where as the ability to destory the planet though this tech will remain
the best solution is doing away with industrial society all together
With utilising man's full capabilities we might actually get to some kind of stasis point where we are able to advance while repairing the damage we have done over the years. You can't say it's impossible because we've never done it. Moral philosophy advances alongside technology too. I mean our current society is imperfect but compare to previous eras.
On the other hand, as well as making life 'nasty, brutish and short', your goals are sure to lead back to industrial society, but this time with less resources to use and an even higher chance of the violent destruction of society. Whatever ethos you try to instill in the next generations will break down with no way to realistically preserve it in its original form. Eventually your beliefs will become just another folk religion that will be discarded as science is rediscovered.
Nah, we're have to commit mass genocide if no nukes and Capitalism wants tons of people.
There are presently 50,000 spent nuclear cores in storage around the world. They're too hot to bury and expensive to store and monitor. A single storage cask costs $100 million dollars.
this has to be possible first
moral philosophy doesn't "advance" it changes with the change in technology.
our current society has aspects both better and worse of previous eras.
how does that make life nasty brutish and short?
no they lead to the destruction of industrial society
There is no way to predict a future that far away, sorry.
...
What does that mean?
that uh it's all fake, obviously, what else could it mean?
Are you trolling or being serious? What does that mean that it’s fake? Like the moon landing? Like the Holodomor?
I don't actually know what he meant.
In other words, they're fuel.
this seems to be the only Green New Deal thread, so I'll just dump some OC
This is pocket change compared to the destruction that climate change is doing.
we're doomed
And this is why we need communism. But that'll never happen until the mass of workers in the first world demand it. But that'll never happen until they are completely opposed to bourgeois politics. But that'll never happen until their standard of living drops to near that of the third world. But that'll never happen until climate change drives equatorial populations to migrate north and increasingly acidic oceans destroy the current biosphere destroying our agriculture industry that's built on fucking almonds because they sell for lots.
Who else here 1st World 3rd Worldist gang?
renewables and green garbage has been funded by big oil since the 70s to prevent nukes from completely putting them out of business
good point
*dabs on greenies*
Yeah I often think about how we need this but people just can't see reason. I'm sure there are orgs like that but we've just never heard about them because they're not as sexy as running around in hazmat suits scaremongering about GMOs etc.
nuclear weren't ready in the 1970s, it only became ready when you could do computational modeling of reactor cores.
Manageable, yes. Managed, no.
You cannot manage nuclear power in the context of neoliberalism and obsession with austerity.
The reason you don't care about the risk is because you probably think you're safe from it and other people will bear it.
actually we have infinite nuclear energy
web.archive.org
at last AOC is being based
LITERALLY ZERO People in this thread are cheering this on, every single post is criticizing it. Fuck off retard.
Nuclear isn't a solution though, no-one thinks it is, it's simply a large part of the most efficient stopgap plan to reduce emissions and stabilize consumption because renewables have even more lag problems with development and can't be used on industrial scale effectively. I haven't seen a single person in this thread argue that we should move exclusively to nuclear and just go on about our days. Agree about the Green New Deal regardless though, that's obvious.
Ikr but muh fukushima tho
t. Char Aznable
not really, there's massive health issues with it
If nuclear energy is so great where does the waste go?
We store it in your mother's kidneys.
you can reprocess it and use it for more fuel for a time, but then you have to store it away
realistically it's not gonna happen and we're not gonna transition away from fossil fuels
Hey all you anit-nuclear faggots, read up on the Integral Fast Reactor. The same month and year that Chernobyl happened, the US was testing a reactor with passive safety, can use 99% of the energy in Uranium vs 1% in conventional ones, and that literally eats nuclear waste. It worked. And then a decade later it was defunded for more money than it would take to complete it. Anti-nuclear bullshit is rooted in capitalist reaction, otherwise we'd have a limitless source of clean energy already.
They can get pryoprocessed and turned back into more fuel.
that sounds too good to be true. and how does capitalism work against nuclear energy? a country that would benefit with having nuclear energy would invest heavily in it, but the only one which is doing that now is china.
It's pretty obvious that it got lobbied out of existence by coal and oil and fossil fuel companies in general.
but if say the ugandan authorities hired every nuclear scientist on the planet and built a nuclear empire, what could stop them?
fossil fuels are cheaper by far, along with fossil fuels being an established global industry
A CIA-backed coup?
ok maybe, but what about russia? they could trump usa