GOP Primary Megathread II—Electoral Boogaloo

[Ashmoria]

what has mr Rubio said about nuclear power?

"clean, safe nuclear energy is another promising option to diversity Florida’s energy portfolio" for one.

http://energyfuse.org/energy-policy-201 ... rco-rubio/

and THAT makes him "very pro nuclear"?

[Novus America]

This is not a right wing thread. There is another thread for that.

Isnt the GOP a right wing party, with the Dems being the left?

Most people here are not Republicans. I am not. However the GOP is a big tent party. It is more right wing. But it is hard to characterize as it does not have a single unified ideology. It is everything from centrists to far right types. And the left right thing over simplifies, the GOP has both libertarians and social conservatives. The GOP spend as much time on infighting and fighting each other as they do fighting the Democrats. It is really a confused mess more than anything.

[Novus America]

"clean, safe nuclear energy is another promising option to diversity Florida’s energy portfolio" for one.

http://energyfuse.org/energy-policy-201 ... rco-rubio/

and THAT makes him "very pro nuclear"?

That is the first qoute I found. He has consistently supported expanded nuclear power.

Hillary will not say. Many Democrats want nuclear power banned. Certainly the Republicans are more nuclear friendly.

[Teemant]

Isnt the GOP a right wing party, with the Dems being the left?

Most people here are not Republicans. I am not. However the GOP is a big tent party. It is more right wing. But it is hard to characterize as it does not have a single unified ideology. It is everything from centrists to far right types. And the left right thing over simplifies, the GOP has both libertarians and social conservatives. The GOP spend as much time on infighting and fighting each other as they do fighting the Democrats. It is really a confused mess more than anything.

And democrats are all united and never fight each other?

[Novus America]

Most people here are not Republicans. I am not. However the GOP is a big tent party. It is more right wing. But it is hard to characterize as it does not have a single unified ideology. It is everything from centrists to far right types. And the left right thing over simplifies, the GOP has both libertarians and social conservatives. The GOP spend as much time on infighting and fighting each other as they do fighting the Democrats. It is really a confused mess more than anything.

And democrats are all united and never fight each other?

Never said that. They are a "big tent" party as well, but seem more unified. Their primary is already basically decided.

They fight each other a lot, but less.

[Teemant]

And democrats are all united and never fight each other?

Never said that. They are a "big tent" party as well, but seem more unified. Their primary is already basically decided.

They fight each other a lot, but less.

There is no one to fight with if there is no one to fight with it.

[Ashmoria]

and THAT makes him "very pro nuclear"?

That is the first qoute I found. He has consistently supported expanded nuclear power.

Hillary will not say. Many Democrats want nuclear power banned. Certainly the Republicans are more nuclear friendly.

mrs Clinton has made neutral statements about nuclear power but if it were MY top priority I would not expect her to do anything to promote it should she become president. it is too unpopular in the democratic party.

[Novus America]

That is the first qoute I found. He has consistently supported expanded nuclear power.

Hillary will not say. Many Democrats want nuclear power banned. Certainly the Republicans are more nuclear friendly.

mrs Clinton has made neutral statements about nuclear power but if it were MY top priority I would not expect her to do anything to promote it should she become president. it is too unpopular in the democratic party.

I understand. The point is the Democrats are the more ant-nuclear party.

Which you acknowledge.

[Ashmoria]

mrs Clinton has made neutral statements about nuclear power but if it were MY top priority I would not expect her to do anything to promote it should she become president. it is too unpopular in the democratic party.

I understand. The point is the Democrats are the more ant-nuclear party.

Which you acknowledge.

yes we are.

personally I'm more of a anti-gigantic nuclear power plant democrat. I still don't expect the democratic party to support the idea of small, localized nuclear power plants.

[Novus America]

I understand. The point is the Democrats are the more ant-nuclear party.

Which you acknowledge.

yes we are.

personally I'm more of a anti-gigantic nuclear power plant democrat. I still don't expect the democratic party to support the idea of small, localized nuclear power plants.

The fact that you are is a problem. How do the Democrats expect to provide clean base load power? Solar and wind, which destroy way more land are usually ill suited for base loads, but ok for peak loads. Do the democrats understand load following and capacity factor? Sadly it seems their energy policy is not well informed.

Small localized powerplants are not always bad, but not always better. Larger plants are more secure, and can invest more in safety.

[Ashmoria]

yes we are.

personally I'm more of a anti-gigantic nuclear power plant democrat. I still don't expect the democratic party to support the idea of small, localized nuclear power plants.

The fact that you are is a problem. How do the Democrats expect to provide clean base load power? Solar and wind, which destroy way more land are usually ill suited for base loads, but ok for peak loads. Do the democrats understand load following and capacity factor? Sadly it seems their energy policy is not well informed.

Small localized powerplants are not always bad, but not always better. Larger plants are more secure, and can invest more in safety.

and more dangerous when things go wrong. and quite problematical with radioactive waste and huge problems with uranium mining. companies are working on ways to reuse the waste so that we don't need to bury it or mine more but that's still in the future so I'm not counting on it.


democrats think that they can do all renewable. *shrug* maybe we can?

[Atomic Utopia]

The fact that you are is a problem. How do the Democrats expect to provide clean base load power? Solar and wind, which destroy way more land are usually ill suited for base loads, but ok for peak loads. Do the democrats understand load following and capacity factor? Sadly it seems their energy policy is not well informed.

Small localized powerplants are not always bad, but not always better. Larger plants are more secure, and can invest more in safety.

and more dangerous when things go wrong. and quite problematical with radioactive waste and huge problems with uranium mining. companies are working on ways to reuse the waste so that we don't need to bury it or mine more but that's still in the future so I'm not counting on it.


democrats think that they can do all renewable. *shrug* maybe we can?

The nuclear waste problem is less than the massive tons of battery waste problem. With nuclear waste you can select a site best suited for it due to the small quantities, not so with battery waste. Uranium mining is not great, yes, but where do you think the thousands of tons of steel, silicon, concrete, and rare earth metals for solar and wind?

[Novus America]

The fact that you are is a problem. How do the Democrats expect to provide clean base load power? Solar and wind, which destroy way more land are usually ill suited for base loads, but ok for peak loads. Do the democrats understand load following and capacity factor? Sadly it seems their energy policy is not well informed.

Small localized powerplants are not always bad, but not always better. Larger plants are more secure, and can invest more in safety.

and more dangerous when things go wrong. and quite problematical with radioactive waste and huge problems with uranium mining. companies are working on ways to reuse the waste so that we don't need to bury it or mine more but that's still in the future so I'm not counting on it.


democrats think that they can do all renewable. *shrug* maybe we can?

No big ones are not more dangerous. How many people have died because of US civillian nuclear power? Look at Three Mile Island. A reactor can melt down and harm no one. You just need solid containment structures. Is a power source that kills no one even when everything goes bad really that dangerous?

The waste problem was created by the Democrats. A single facility can house it all but Democrats shut that facility down. And you can recycle it. On mining you do know maufacturing solar requires huge amounts of mining?

Democrats may think that. But hope is not a strategy. Maybe we can... but what if we cannot?

Unrealistic hopes is not a sound plan.

And what about habitat destruction? You do know that wind farms and solar farms take up an absurd amount of space and destroy wildlife, right?

See the Democrats seem to be simply misinformed and think wind and solar are panaceas that do not harm the enviroment which is totally false. Wind and solar have big downsides and environmental harms too. Nuclear does not take up much land. Wind and solar do. Is protecting land not important?

[Trumpostan]

When did wind and solar power last have a 'Fukushima'. That was a big fukuppi wasn't it? Republicans need to learn to look to the future.

[Novus America]

When did wind and solar power last have a 'Fukushima'. That was a big fukuppi wasn't it? Republicans need to learn to look to the future.

Seriously, I covered this.

Fukushima resulted in 39 NON FATAL injuries, only 2 radiation related. Unlike US reactors like Three Mile Island, there were inadequate containment facilities. The Onagawa power plant was closer to the earthquake and Tsunami than Fukushima. Yet had adequate containment facilities so was fine.

So your argument is silly. Just as silly as the Chernobyl arguement. Both prove that reactors with poor containment structures can be a problem. Three Mile Island and Onagawa proved containment structures work. All US reactors have insanely strong containment structures.


And Thorium reactors ARE the future. Until we get nuclear fusion. Nuclear IS the future!

Again solar and wind take up too much space and kill to many animals to be our main source. Not sure why you think cutting down forests and paving over deserts is the future...

[Teemant]

When did wind and solar power last have a 'Fukushima'. That was a big fukuppi wasn't it? Republicans need to learn to look to the future.

Nuclear energy is the 21st century energy. People who are against nuclear energy while claiming to support wind and solar power are actually not willing to help earth and environment. They just want to talk about helping it.

[Pulau Singapura]

When did wind and solar power last have a 'Fukushima'. That was a big fukuppi wasn't it? Republicans need to learn to look to the future.

Seriously, I covered this.

Fukushima resulted in 39 NON FATAL injuries, only 2 radiation related. Unlike US reactors like Three Mile Island, there were inadequate containment facilities. The Onagawa power plant was closer to the earthquake and Tsunami than Fukushima. Yet had adequate containment facilities so was fine.

So your argument is silly. Just as silly as the Chernobyl arguement. Both prove that reactors with poor containment structures can be a problem. Three Mile Island and Onagawa proved containment structures work. All US reactors have insanely strong containment structures.


And Thorium reactors ARE the future. Until we get nuclear fusion. Nuclear IS the future!

Again solar and wind take up too much space and kill to many animals to be our main source. Not sure why you think cutting down forests and paving over deserts is the future...

how in the name of god/allah/whatever does wind or solar kill animals? NUCLEAR. KILLS.

[Teemant]

When did wind and solar power last have a 'Fukushima'. That was a big fukuppi wasn't it? Republicans need to learn to look to the future.

Seriously, I covered this.

Fukushima resulted in 39 NON FATAL injuries, only 2 radiation related. Unlike US reactors like Three Mile Island, there were inadequate containment facilities. The Onagawa power plant was closer to the earthquake and Tsunami than Fukushima. Yet had adequate containment facilities so was fine.

So your argument is silly. Just as silly as the Chernobyl arguement. Both prove that reactors with poor containment structures can be a problem. Three Mile Island and Onagawa proved containment structures work. All US reactors have insanely strong containment structures.


And Thorium reactors ARE the future. Until we get nuclear fusion. Nuclear IS the future!

Again solar and wind take up too much space and kill to many animals to be our main source. Not sure why you think cutting down forests and paving over deserts is the future...

Both of the times it wasn't actually the nuclear technology that was fault. Chernobyl was caused by humans and Fukushima by natural disaster. More reason to support nuclear power.
And as you pointed out with thorium reactors that technology has advanced.

[Trumpostan]

When did wind and solar power last have a 'Fukushima'. That was a big fukuppi wasn't it? Republicans need to learn to look to the future.

Nuclear energy is the 21st century energy. People who are against nuclear energy while claiming to support wind and solar power are actually not willing to help earth and environment. They just want to talk about helping it.

Then maybe you can convince republicans to stop voting against infrastructure spending and maintenance bills and stop worshipping privatization. Because the free market will cut corners if it thinks it can get away with it. Look to the BP Gulf oil spill for an example. GOP politicians even apologized to BPs CEO for having a hearing in Congress.

Regulations for nuke power must be tough, stringent and above all effectively enforced, all things that the GOP is against.

[Novus America]

Seriously, I covered this.

Fukushima resulted in 39 NON FATAL injuries, only 2 radiation related. Unlike US reactors like Three Mile Island, there were inadequate containment facilities. The Onagawa power plant was closer to the earthquake and Tsunami than Fukushima. Yet had adequate containment facilities so was fine.

So your argument is silly. Just as silly as the Chernobyl arguement. Both prove that reactors with poor containment structures can be a problem. Three Mile Island and Onagawa proved containment structures work. All US reactors have insanely strong containment structures.


And Thorium reactors ARE the future. Until we get nuclear fusion. Nuclear IS the future!

Again solar and wind take up too much space and kill to many animals to be our main source. Not sure why you think cutting down forests and paving over deserts is the future...

how in the name of god/allah/whatever does wind or solar kill animals? NUCLEAR. KILLS.

Oh so wrong.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/ ... ways-paid/

Nuclear SAVES! It is the SAFEST. Everyone who knows anything about energy knows nuclear kills the least. It is a fact.

Baseloads solar plants require paving over and destroying thousands of acres of desert. Wind chops up birds and bats like giant blenders. That is how they kill animals.

Habitat destruction and massive choppy blades of death.

[Khadgar]

When did wind and solar power last have a 'Fukushima'. That was a big fukuppi wasn't it? Republicans need to learn to look to the future.

What exactly do you think the impact of Fukishima was? Because if your answer is anything other than "Fuck all" you're wrong. There was little radiation release and it wasn't actually dangerous. The anti-nuclear panic certainly caused more direct and indirect suffering than the damage to the power plant.

[Novus America]

Nuclear energy is the 21st century energy. People who are against nuclear energy while claiming to support wind and solar power are actually not willing to help earth and environment. They just want to talk about helping it.

Then maybe you can convince republicans to stop voting against infrastructure spending and maintenance bills and stop worshipping privatization. Because the free market will cut corners if it thinks it can get away with it. Look to the BP Gulf oil spill for an example. GOP politicians even apologized to BPs CEO for having a hearing in Congress.

Regulations for nuke power must be tough, stringent and above all effectively enforced, all things that the GOP is against.

What does building roads have to do with this?

The infrastructure spending bills do not cover power production. The government should build more hydro, but the enviromentalists oppose that. Oh and the Army operates most Federal dams. And who is against defense spending?

You seriously think the government does NOT cut corners?!

Yeah, the TVA is infamous for pollution and the EPA just recently caused this...
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/11/us ... l?referer=

All us nuclear deaths have been in GOVERNMENT OWNED FACILITIES!

The private industry has a much BETTER nuclear safety record!
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/11/us ... l?referer=

Obviously we need safety regulations for nuclear power. I might not like the GOP but they are not against nuke safety.

[Novus America]

When did wind and solar power last have a 'Fukushima'. That was a big fukuppi wasn't it? Republicans need to learn to look to the future.

What exactly do you think the impact of Fukishima was? Because if your answer is anything other than "Fuck all" you're wrong. There was little radiation release and it wasn't actually dangerous. The anti-nuclear panic certainly caused more direct and indirect suffering than the damage to the power plant.

I would also note Fukushima is NOT in the US. Three Mile Island is the only one truly applicable to the US, and guess what? Nobody got hurt.

US reactors have excellent containment structures. Some Japanese ones do. They survived fine. Fukushima did not. Still no one died.

People seem to think nuclear reactors explode like nuclear bombs. Which is literally physically impossible.

[The United Territories of Providence]

Seriously, I covered this.

Fukushima resulted in 39 NON FATAL injuries, only 2 radiation related. Unlike US reactors like Three Mile Island, there were inadequate containment facilities. The Onagawa power plant was closer to the earthquake and Tsunami than Fukushima. Yet had adequate containment facilities so was fine.

So your argument is silly. Just as silly as the Chernobyl arguement. Both prove that reactors with poor containment structures can be a problem. Three Mile Island and Onagawa proved containment structures work. All US reactors have insanely strong containment structures.


And Thorium reactors ARE the future. Until we get nuclear fusion. Nuclear IS the future!

Again solar and wind take up too much space and kill to many animals to be our main source. Not sure why you think cutting down forests and paving over deserts is the future...

Both of the times it wasn't actually the nuclear technology that was fault. Chernobyl was caused by humans and Fukushima by natural disaster. More reason to support nuclear power.
And as you pointed out with thorium reactors that technology has advanced.

Wouldn't that be less reason to support nuclear power? Who runs power plants? Humans. Human error in a solar plant, maybe there is a black out. Human error in a nuclear facility...there's more than a black out. Humans error, a lot. It's like being superman. Superman has to bat 100 every time, because the one time he fucks up...everyone dies. If you're in a technical position in a power plant, you have to bat 100. Because if you don't, people might die and you'll certainly cause some damage to the environment. Then there's natural disasters....If a random weather occurrence can cause something like a meltdown...that's unsettling. Weather is unpredictable, and thanks to climate change it has become a lot more intense. If all it takes is a hurricane or a really strong tornado to cause big problems...that's unsettling. Because what I'm getting is "People are known to fuck up, and Chernobyl was caused by a series of fuck ups. Weather is dangerous and unpredictable, Fukushima was the result of a natural disaster."

I don't think we're ready for nuclear, I'm not an expert and this isn't something I'm passionate about, that's just what I think. We need renewable, but Nuclear has room for improvement.

[Novus America]

Both of the times it wasn't actually the nuclear technology that was fault. Chernobyl was caused by humans and Fukushima by natural disaster. More reason to support nuclear power.
And as you pointed out with thorium reactors that technology has advanced.

Wouldn't that be less reason to support nuclear power? Who runs power plants? Humans. Human error in a solar plant, maybe there is a black out. Human error in a nuclear facility...there's more than a black out. Humans error, a lot. It's like being superman. Superman has to bat 100 every time, because the one time he fucks up...everyone dies. If you're in a technical position in a power plant, you have to bat 100. Because if you don't, people might die and you'll certainly cause some damage to the environment. Then there's natural disasters....If a random weather occurrence can cause something like a meltdown...that's unsettling. Weather is unpredictable, and thanks to climate change it has become a lot more intense. If all it takes is a hurricane or a really strong tornado to cause big problems...that's unsettling. Because what I'm getting is "People are known to fuck up, and Chernobyl was caused by a series of fuck ups. Weather is dangerous and unpredictable, Fukushima was the result of a natural disaster."

I don't think we're ready for nuclear, I'm not an expert and this isn't something I'm passionate about, that's just what I think. We need renewable, but Nuclear has room for improvement.

When a us nuclear reactor goes bad, nobody dies. Nuclear is the SAFEST type of power.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

We are not ready for "renewables" then as they actually cause more deaths.