Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Texas mayor resigns after telling "lazy residents" that "no one owes you anything."

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Texas mayor resigns after telling "lazy residents" that "no one owes you anything."

What an idiot. It seems that in his ridiculous FB rant he blamed "socialism" as well.

I saw a story on FOX where a mother and her daughter died in Texas from carbon monoxide poisoning because they were using their car in an enclosed garage to generate heat.

Hope this is over soon for the people of Texas, thats crazy.

Its ultimately the not being prepared for anything like this. They don't have the equipment nor the resources to deal with this kind of thing, right?

I'm just trying to imagine because I've read a couple articles talking about how many centimeters of snow they got and how cold it could get and as a Canadian, its honestly like.... nothing. 10-15 cm of snow and slightly below zero Celsius.

Last week it was -20 where I lived and we just got about 25 cm of snow the other day, but thats just how it is. Wild how different it must be living in the south.

Originally posted by Trocity
Hope this is over soon for the people of Texas, thats crazy.

Its ultimately the not being prepared for anything like this. They don't have the equipment nor the resources to deal with this kind of thing, right?

I'm just trying to imagine because I've read a couple articles talking about how many centimeters of snow they got and how cold it could get and as a Canadian, its honestly like.... nothing. 10-15 cm of snow and slightly below zero Celsius.

Last week it was -20 where I lived and we just got about 25 cm of snow the other day, but thats just how it is. Wild how different it must be living in the south. from what ive heard its mainly due to the generators at the electric companies not being made to withstand such low temps. This has led to them freezing/falling resulting in not only people with electric heat being shit outa luck but the gas companies have no electricity either causing them to be basically useless and putting people who rely on gas heat in the same boat.

Is that why it's snowing in Louisiana?

Ted Cruz faces backlash after photos reportedly show him flying to Cancun in Texas' deadly winter storm

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas faced a barrage of criticism as unverified images said to show him taking a flight out of the storm-ravaged state circulated on Twitter on Wednesday.

Insider was unable to immediately verify the images and could not immediately reach Cruz or one of his representatives for comment.

As of early Thursday, no media outlet had reported receiving a response from Cruz. Fox News and The Associated Press, citing unnamed sources, reported that Cruz had indeed flown with his family to Cancun, Mexico.

Even without verification, the images were politically explosive. The Texas Democratic Party called for Cruz's resignation, accusing him of abandoning the state in a crisis. -snip


Typical

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Texas mayor resigns after telling "lazy residents" that "no one owes you anything."

Pretty sure a failing infrastructure isn't a handout. It's one of those things even Conservatives agree is a duty to the public good.

Not to mention a duty to aide in a natural disaster.

This guy is out of his mind. Does he consider Covid relief a "handout"?


Tim Boyd should be kicked off the council.

Originally posted by Raptor22
from what ive heard its mainly due to the generators at the electric companies not being made to withstand such low temps. This has led to them freezing/falling resulting in not only people with electric heat being shit outa luck but the gas companies have no electricity either causing them to be basically useless and putting people who rely on gas heat in the same boat.



That makes sense.

The governor blaming this on "green energy" is a distraction, as wind power makes about 15-16% of Texas' power.

Of course it didn't help that the turbines in Texas are not fitted for deep cold operation like in other states where it freezes and the turbines keep spinning.

The entire state government failed the people.

The sad thing is, at worst they get to step down, while everyone else pays for their neglect.

Texas and the South are being punished by the Lord for following the Dark Mandonald Trump. They like the devil quote false Scripture. The power outage will be followed by dogs and cats living together and the end of times. These Southerners are not Christians they worshipped a false idol for 4 years. God sees the evil in men's hearts.

Q: when is it considered inappropriate to drop a ghostbusters reference?

A: never

Good news everyone we can all breathe a sigh of relief.

Ted Cruz and his family are safe.

"Sen. Ted Cruz confirmed Thursday that he traveled to Cancun, Mexico, as millions of Texas residents were without power and safe drinking water amid freezing temperatures that have left at least 21 people dead in the southern United States.

In a statement, the Texas Republican said that he flew with his daughters Wednesday and that he would be returning Thursday amid an uproar and calls to resign over the family trip."

Was probably a retarded idea to have a texas only power grid then.

the problem is that politicians in states like yours are allowed to sit on these impending infrastructure disasters for years, maybe even decades, before something significant happen to expose all the gross negligence

as such, I'm "toughing it out" in an apartment that is way too warm rn. that's because nj's infrastructure is typically tested hard at least once per winter, not because we're a bunch of toughguys.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Was probably a retarded idea to have a texas only power grid then.

Reading about that boggles the mind. I get it was to both keep the money in Texas and to offer lower rates to customers, but why not build in the option to get power from other states in case of emergencies.

Originally posted by Blakemore
aren't you famous for BBQ? i wish.

im from Massachusetts. were famous for gross ass clam chowder and shitty bitter cranberries.

No snide feelings from Chicago man. Stay safe and help someone else who isn't. I don't wish being cold on anyone. I'm sitting under something like thirty inches cumulative of snow that hasn't melted at all during February, but it's different- we have an army of people and machines to move snow here. Awd is pretty standard. Drainage systems and heated to oofs and gutters... I can't even imagine the hell you guys are going through experiencing it for the first time.

Originally posted by Robtard
Reading about that boggles the mind. I get it was to both keep the money in Texas and to offer lower rates to customers, but why not build in the option to get power from other states in case of emergencies.

It was done, so Texas power companies would not have to comply with the federal regulations that would have prevented this, so they could pocket the money.

I can't speak about Alaska, but summer highs in the Northern Midwest aren't much cooler than in Texas. We get both extremes here in MN.

Originally posted by Raptor22
i wish.

im from Massachusetts. were famous for gross ass clam chowder and shitty bitter cranberries. don't forget Sam Adams

And I meant imp. Why not just have a coal fire or propane

Originally posted by ares834
I can't speak about Alaska, but summer highs in the Northern Midwest aren't much cooler than in Texas. We get both extremes here in MN.

Same with most parts of Canada.

However, I am not sure if I can deal with Florida's summer humidity. I can deal with the damn cold temps, ice everywhere, snow everywhere...but 100% humidity at high temps all summer.....I am not so sure.

Originally posted by Raptor22
i wish.

im from Massachusetts. were famous for gross ass clam chowder and shitty bitter cranberries.

Oh shit is that what we're known for? I gotta get me some of them cranberries

Originally posted by cdtm
And your government should all be lined up against a wall. Seriously.


Wait, so now Trump should have built his wall?

Anyone saying Texas needs to man up or whatever is likely saying it while wearing multiple layers from the warmth of their own home, do Texans even own winter clothing?

Originally posted by Quincy
Oh shit is that what we're known for? I gotta get me some of them cranberries


Don't forget the witch trials.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
the problem is that politicians in states like yours are allowed to sit on these impending infrastructure disasters for years, maybe even decades, before something significant happen to expose all the gross negligence

as such, I'm "toughing it out" in an apartment that is way too warm rn. that's because nj's infrastructure is typically tested hard at least once per winter, not because we're a bunch of toughguys.

The trouble is politicians get away with murder, unless the public complains.

No pressure from anyone to get on infrastructure, no reason for a useless politician to get off his ass and earn his money.


The very definition of someone sitting on their ass and getting government handouts, the handout being his paycheck from the tax payers.

@Imp

Yeah that type of shit is just stupid and not helpful.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It was done, so Texas power companies would not have to comply with the federal regulations that would have prevented this, so they could pocket the money.


Figures it was greed.

Originally posted by cdtm
The trouble is politicians get away with murder, unless the public complains.

No pressure from anyone to get on infrastructure, no reason for a useless politician to get off his ass and earn his money.


The very definition of someone sitting on their ass and getting government handouts, the handout being his paycheck from the tax payers.

In this instance, representatives did exactly what voters voted them in office to do: reduce government regulations to save them money on their energy bills.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
In this instance, representatives did exactly what voters voted them in office to do: reduce government regulations to save them money on their energy bills.

Even if this is the case, a king who allows the realm to burn is a failed king.

Public safety shouldn't be something you lobby for. They should all be executed as traitors.

Isnt it disgusting Ted tried to vacate the area instead of helping them??

Im glad someone spotted him and made it known!!

Texas has warmed up today, yeah? Weather forecast seems to have them with a high in the seventies today.

Not enough

Lol...


...

No I reckon not.......I cant believe what they have been thru!!!!

There's also a fair amount of posts and tweets by supporters of the Democrats saying Texans deserve it for voting for Republicans, which is also messed up.

AOC raising a good bit of funds for Texas. I hope it helps them out.

https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-winter-storms-2021/2021/02/20/969809679/ocasio-cortez-fundraising-drive-for-texas-relief-raises-4-million

Originally posted by Artol
There's also a fair amount of posts and tweets by supporters of the Democrats saying Texans deserve it for voting for Republicans, which is also messed up.

How is it messed up? In life, when you choose a behavior, you also choose the consequence of that behavior. They are getting exactly what they voted for. Want different consequences, make different choices. How many of the Republicans suffering right now will turn around and vote straight Republican ticket after this, even though all of their representatives abandoned them? Meanwhile, Democrats like Castro, Ocasio-Cortez, and O'Rourke are actually raising millions, phone banking, and distributing supplies.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
How is it messed up? In life, when you choose a behavior, you also choose the consequence of that behavior. They are getting exactly what they voted for. Want different consequences, make different choices. How many of the Republicans suffering right now will turn around and vote straight Republican ticket after this, even though all of their representatives abandoned them? Meanwhile, Democrats like Castro, Ocasio-Cortez, and O'Rourke are actually raising millions, phone banking, and distributing supplies.

Plenty of Republicans manage to not run their state into the ground, and blame the people for dying by their poorr decisions.


And vice versa for Democrats. Take Connecticut, we elected in Ned Lamont as governor. And you know what that bastard did?

He raised taxes on food. Prepared foods, single serving bottles of soda, water, six bagels or less.

Who do you think gets hurt most by this? The poor do. The people already living pay check to pay check, or scraping togerher just enough for one meal.

Originally posted by Newjak
AOC raising a good bit of funds for Texas. I hope it helps them out.

https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-winter-storms-2021/2021/02/20/969809679/ocasio-cortez-fundraising-drive-for-texas-relief-raises-4-million


Doesn't matter, most Rightist will take the money and continue to hate her.

Tucker Carson blames "green energy" on Texas crisis.

lA46v_aMidQ
Link

"The windmills failed like the silly fashion accessory they are, and people in Texas died". -Tucker Carlson @2:37





Tucker continues to be a gaslighting pile of human filth. No surprise.

Originally posted by cdtm
Plenty of Republicans manage to not run their state into the ground, and blame the people for dying by their poorr decisions.


And vice versa for Democrats. Take Connecticut, we elected in Ned Lamont as governor. And you know what that bastard did?

He raised taxes on food. Prepared foods, single serving bottles of soda, water, six bagels or less.

Who do you think gets hurt most by this? The poor do. The people already living pay check to pay check, or scraping togerher just enough for one meal.

Those situations are not even comparable.

Never said they were.

Good job to AOC on raising funds for Texas. Bi partisanship kinda would look like that, if it were to ever exist again.

Originally posted by Robtard
Tucker Carson blames "green energy" on Texas crisis.

lA46v_aMidQ
Link

"The windmills failed like the silly fashion accessory they are, and people in Texas died". -Tucker Carlson @2:37





Tucker continues to be a gaslighting pile of human filth. No surprise.

How was it not ? 24 percent of Texas's power comes from wind turbine. 12 percent failed. That would leave 3-4 million without power.

P.s. lefty talking heads blamed it on not getting the much more expensive cold pack.

I wonder if anyone in Texas was like scared to see snow for the first time, wtf is this shit? Lol

Originally posted by Robtard
Tucker Carson blames "green energy" on Texas crisis.

lA46v_aMidQ
Link

"The windmills failed like the silly fashion accessory they are, and people in Texas died". -Tucker Carlson @2:37





Tucker continues to be a gaslighting pile of human filth. No surprise. I hate Tucker Carlson. Sometimes I like to throw on the Crossfire John Stewart video to see him get called out to his face.

Certainly not shocked by the immediate conservative pundits trying to find a way that democrats are at fault for this

Originally posted by ilikecomics
How was it not ? 24 percent of Texas's power comes from wind turbine. 12 percent failed. That would leave 3-4 million without power.

P.s. lefty talking heads blamed it on not getting the much more expensive cold pack.


It seems to be less than 24%. But even going by your numbers, you're blaming wind power failing as the culprit, when it's the low minority in how Texans get their power. Natural gas is the main source of Texas power, then coal.

Originally posted by Robtard
It seems to be less than 24%. But even going by your numbers, you're blaming wind power failing as the culprit, when it's the low minority in how Texans get their power. Natural gas is the main source of Texas power, then coal. And both coal and natural gas facilities also experienced issues with them freezing and not being able to run.

Originally posted by Newjak
And both coal and natural gas facilities also experienced issues with them freezing and not being able to run.

They didn't winterize their plants despite being warned and it looks like they might not winterize them going forward either, cos it's costly.

Hopefully enough Texans come together and force change.

"it is wrong, sinful and blasphemous for you to suggest, imply or help others come to the conclusion that Americans killed 3,000 of it's own people." - Tucker Carlson, regarding 9/11

Originally posted by Robtard
They didn't winterize their plants despite being warned and it looks like they might not winterize them going forward either, cos it's costly.

Hopefully enough Texans come together and force change. Yeah hopefully they put their feet to the fire.

Originally posted by Newjak
Yeah hopefully they put their feet to the fire. or they could do a big prayer like when Rick Perry was guv'nor

Originally posted by Robtard
It seems to be less than 24%. But even going by your numbers, you're blaming wind power failing as the culprit, when it's the low minority in how Texans get their power. Natural gas is the main source of Texas power, then coal.

In the link you sent it says 17.4 percent is provided by ercot, not that 17.4 percent of Texas's total energy consumption was provided by wind, so I'd guess there's other agencies that provide wind turbines.

Of course they wouldn't want to winterize, because it would hike energy prices through the roof.

https://youtu.be/H0J64y124fo

This is a video of Steven Crowder covering it. This may make you roll your eyes because the source, but know that YouTube wants to destroy this guy, have attempted to multiple times, and is looking for any reason to 86 his channel. The standard Crowder now operates under is only saying things he'd say in court, under threat of perjury.

It handles every lefty argument and covers the math.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fact-check-renewable-energy-not-blame-texas-energy-crisis-n1258185


About 56 percent of Texas' energy comes from natural gas, just under 24 percent comes from wind, 19 percent from coal, and almost 9 percent from nuclear energy.



This is from lefty nbc

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fact-check-renewable-energy-not-blame-texas-energy-crisis-n1258185

Originally posted by ilikecomics
In the link you sent it says 17.4 percent is provided by ercot, not that 17.4 percent of Texas's total energy consumption was provided by wind, so I'd guess there's other agencies that provide wind turbines.

Of course they wouldn't want to winterize, because it would hike energy prices through the roof.

https://youtu.be/H0J64y124fo

This is a video of Steven Crowder covering it. This may make you roll your eyes because the source, but know that YouTube wants to destroy this guy, have attempted to multiple times, and is looking for any reason to 86 his channel. The standard Crowder now operates under is only saying things he'd say in court, under threat of perjury.

It handles every lefty argument and covers the math.
Originally posted by ilikecomics
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fact-check-renewable-energy-not-blame-texas-energy-crisis-n1258185


About 56 percent of Texas' energy comes from natural gas, just under 24 percent comes from wind, 19 percent from coal, and almost 9 percent from nuclear energy.



This is from lefty nbc

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fact-check-renewable-energy-not-blame-texas-energy-crisis-n1258185


Compared to not winterizing and people going without power, some dying and some getting $10k+ power bills?


Again, even using your numbers you're blaming wind power when it's the minority of the power sources.

Why can't texans use solar power?

Originally posted by Robtard
Compared to not winterizing and people going without power, some dying and some getting $10k+ power bills?


Again, even using your numbers you're blaming wind power when it's the minority of the power source.


Not when it's being handled by the state, which spends money at 1/10th the efficiency a private Enterprise could.
If green energy weren't so politicised, private Enterprise would provide energy through fracking or nuclear.

I'm not blaming green energy, I'm blaming virtue signaling politicians saying green energy is effective than it actually is

Windmills need replacing after 7-10 years, solar panels even faster.

Green energy is a mirage.

Nuclear energy is a much better solution than wind or solar, but has been demonized.

I'm not an anti alt energy person, but I am against political schemes that use things like climate change as a cudgel to enact political change, and position opponents to their schemes as morally deficient.

Clearly you aren't against thousands of people being left to die with no energy, however...

I'm meming. I will say though, what people don't understand about the issues with nuclear isn't that it's scary but that the start up costs are insane. Nuclear is a clean energy and safe but in order for it to stay safe it's extremely expensive.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Clearly you aren't against thousands of people being left to die with no energy, however...

I'm against the loss of any life, especially human.
Thus why I speak out against top down governance, which is inefficient at best and massively deadly at worst e.g. the famine, the great leap forward and the cultural revolution in china, the famine in North Korea, the gulag system in the USSR, the holomodor, the Holocaust, etc.

Isn't it awful to insinuate someone doesn't care about the loss of human life, and kind of a low handed tactic, based on a false sense of moral superiority ?

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Clearly you aren't against thousands of people being left to die with no energy, however...

I'm meming. I will say though, what people don't understand about the issues with nuclear isn't that it's scary but that the start up costs are insane. Nuclear is a clean energy and safe but in order for it to stay safe it's extremely expensive.


Didn't see your edit. Appreciate humor

But zero carbon emissions !

Is the current power infrastructure not costly rn ?
Think of the health cost from pollutants from burning coal ?
Nuclear has the lower death per unit of energy.
Green energy is unreliable and needs coal as a crutch anyways.

I would be happy to see your info on how expensive nuclear is.

Originally posted by Blakemore
Why can't texans use solar power?


Idk good question. Not prepared I guess

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Didn't see your edit. Appreciate humor

But zero carbon emissions !

Is the current power infrastructure not costly rn ?
Think of the health cost from pollutants from burning coal ?
Nuclear has the lower death per unit of energy.
Green energy is unreliable and needs coal as a crutch anyways.

I would be happy to see your info on how expensive nuclear is.

Flibe Energy say they'd need about a billion dollars to create a proof of concept LFTR and about 4 billion for their first full scale commercial reactor.

Relatively cheap compared to ITER which the US DoE is saying will now run possibly in excess of $65,000,000,000 just for the experimental fusion tokamak reactor currently being built in France which won't actually provide any electricity to the grid. There will also be absolutely zero room for error with ITER. If there's any kind of loss of containment or any kind of explosion, the levels of radiation will be several orders of magnitude greater than any nuclear disaster ever.

To give you an idea of the difference in scale. The highest estimated dose of an emergency worker at Chernobyl was 16 sieverts acute dose.

The inner wall of the ITER reactor will be subject to 70,000,000 sieverts per hour.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Not when it's being handled by the state, which spends money at 1/10th the efficiency a private Enterprise could.
If green energy weren't so politicised, private Enterprise would provide energy through fracking or nuclear.

I'm not blaming green energy, I'm blaming virtue signaling politicians saying green energy is effective than it actually is

Windmills need replacing after 7-10 years, solar panels even faster.

Green energy is a mirage.

Nuclear energy is a much better solution than wind or solar, but has been demonized.

I'm not an anti alt energy person, but I am against political schemes that use things like climate change as a cudgel to enact political change, and position opponents to their schemes as morally deficient.

Then your issue seems to be with the government of Texas.

You were though, that's how our exchange started.

Greens won't absolutely solve our energy needs, at least not for the foreseeable future, but they are the future alongside other sources, because we need to combat pollution.

I've no real problem with nuclear being used until something better comes along, but again, greens and nuclear can work in conjunction. eg a home can run on solar panels/batteries and still be connected to a grid that runs off a nuclear plant. Using more solar during the day and tapping back into the grid at night.

Climate change is real, as is pollution and humanity needs a fulcrum to enact change. Fossil fuel isn't going away anytime soon, but there will be less and less cars running on it as time goes on and technology progresses. Just as natural gas is replacing coal more and more.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Flibe Energy say they'd need about a billion dollars to create a proof of concept LFTR and about 4 billion for their first full scale commercial reactor.

Relatively cheap compared to ITER which the US DoE is saying will now run possibly in excess of $65,000,000,000 just for the experimental fusion tokamak reactor currently being built in France which won't actually provide any electricity to the grid. There will also be absolutely zero room for error with ITER. If there's any kind of loss of containment or any kind of explosion, the levels of radiation will be several orders of magnitude greater than any nuclear disaster ever.

To give you an idea of the difference in scale. The highest estimated dose of an emergency worker at Chernobyl was 16 sieverts acute dose.

The inner wall of the ITER reactor will be subject to 70,000,000 sieverts per hour.

Have to wonder why someone like Musk, Bezos, Gates or even Zuckerberg isn't funding the LFTR project. They could blow 5 billion and not feel it.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Flibe Energy say they'd need about a billion dollars to create a proof of concept LFTR and about 4 billion for their first full scale commercial reactor.

Relatively cheap compared to ITER which the US DoE is saying will now run possibly in excess of $65,000,000,000 just for the experimental fusion tokamak reactor currently being built in France which won't actually provide any electricity to the grid. There will also be absolutely zero room for error with ITER. If there's any kind of loss of containment or any kind of explosion, the levels of radiation will be several orders of magnitude greater than any nuclear disaster ever.

To give you an idea of the difference in scale. The highest estimated dose of an emergency worker at Chernobyl was 16 sieverts acute dose.

The inner wall of the ITER reactor will be subject to 70,000,000 sieverts per hour.

Thank you for the info. Seems like a no brainer to me.
4 billion wouldn't be a thing because how much you'd save on health outcomes.

Originally posted by Robtard
Then your issue seems to be with the government of Texas.

You were though, that's how our exchange started.

Greens won't absolutely solve our energy needs, at least not for the foreseeable future, but they are the future alongside other sources, because we need to combat pollution.

I've no real problem with nuclear being used until something better comes along, but again, greens and nuclear can work in conjunction. eg a home can run on solar panels/batteries and still be connected to a grid that runs off a nuclear plant. Using more solar during the day and tapping back into the grid at night.

Climate change is real, as is pollution and humanity needs a fulcrum to enact change. Fossil fuel isn't going away anytime soon, but there will be less and less cars running on it as time goes on and technology progresses. Just as natural gas is replacing coal more and more.

It started that way because the thread is about Texas.
I see the problems in Texas as a result of top down governance, green energy has become a favorite Trojan horse of the political class.
I'm not against green energy, I'm against politicians leveraging it and the average Joe not being able to make the distinction between innovative alternative energy ideas, brought to you by capitalists and entrepreneurs, and coercive measures that not everyone is on board with.

It reminds me of a trick that the communists I used to debate employ.

I point out atrocity committed by s communist leader.
Im met with a rebuttal talking about how many schools were built.
I point out that those are reeducation camps, meant to grab the young minds in the masses, while they're still soft.
Get a response that a I must hate education.

I don't think you followed that formula and everything you said in terms of energy diversification seems pretty reasonable.

Originally posted by rudester
Idk good question. Not prepared I guess thanks 😊

Originally posted by ilikecomics
It started that way because the thread is about Texas.
I see the problems in Texas as a result of top down governance, green energy has become a favorite Trojan horse of the political class.
I'm not against green energy, I'm against politicians leveraging it and the average Joe not being able to make the distinction between innovative alternative energy ideas, brought to you by capitalists and entrepreneurs, and coercive measures that not everyone is on board with.

It reminds me of a trick that the communists I used to debate employ.

I point out atrocity committed by s communist leader.
Im met with a rebuttal talking about how many schools were built.
I point out that those are reeducation camps, meant to grab the young minds in the masses, while they're still soft.
Get a response that a I must hate education.

I don't think you followed that formula and everything you said in terms of energy diversification seems pretty reasonable.

D99qI42KGB0

6fV6eeckxTs

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
D99qI42KGB0

6fV6eeckxTs


Checking these out now, thanks for posting.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Clearly you aren't against thousands of people being left to die with no energy, however...

I'm meming. I will say though, what people don't understand about the issues with nuclear isn't that it's scary but that the start up costs are insane. Nuclear is a clean energy and safe but in order for it to stay safe it's extremely expensive.

Then there is the waste, which there is no safe way to dispose of.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Then there is the waste, which there is no safe way to dispose of.

Depleted uranium only exists because the state made it illegal to reuse, it's 99.9 percent recyclable

@ Jaden this is a link on my perspective on it. It's a link to a PDF on the ancap perspective on pollution.

https://mises.org/library/law-property-rights-and-air-pollution

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Then there is the waste, which there is no safe way to dispose of.

Yes there is. You can utilise spent fuel waste from traditional reactor technologies in molten salt reactors and reduce it's radioactivity from lasting for tens of thousands of years down to decades. Current uranium and plutonium reactors use between 0.5% and 0.8% of the energy in the fuel before they are considered "spent". Molten salt reactors use upwards of 95% of the energy.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Yes there is. You can utilise spent fuel waste from traditional reactor technologies in molten salt reactors and reduce it's radioactivity from lasting for tens of thousands of years down to decades. Current uranium and plutonium reactors use between 0.5% and 0.8% of the energy in the fuel before they are considered "spent". Molten salt reactors use upwards of 95% of the energy.


Thank you for being more exact on the numbers. You're a g.

@ jaden2.0 That video didn't acknowledge how intertwined private Enterprise band state plans are in china.

Also it's weird this guy recognizes the libertarian perspective that any governmental solution to climate change is ineffectual and immoral, but goes on to use Thatcher, THE HEAD OF A GOVERNMENT, as a aha gotcha points. This seems logically inconsistent.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
@ Jaden this is a link on my perspective on it. It's a link to a PDF on the ancap perspective on pollution.

https://mises.org/library/law-property-rights-and-air-pollution

I'm almost certain you've linked me this previously. Can't recall the thread though. It's very similar to potholers "freedonia" concept about your freedoms and actions impacting on others freedoms. The problem as it relates to pollution and the environment is the straight up denial of certain actions having a detrimental impact on others. Particularly when it is not a direct impact. Even when it is a direct impact on others it can take years or even decades of campaigning to break through the denial and lobbying.

Examples would be...

PFOA
passive smoking
Depleted Uranium munitions
Asbestos
Leaded fuels
Thalidomide
Phossy jaw

Think of the flat out denial of the deleterious effects of these things and how long it took or is taking for governments and corporations to accept responsibility, admit to their effects and compensate people who were affected.

Now imagine how much more difficult it is to get corporations and countries to accept responsibility when their individual contributions to an issue and small but cumulatively have much bigger impacts.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
I'm almost certain you've linked me this previously. Can't recall the thread though. It's very similar to potholers "freedonia" concept about your freedoms and actions impacting on others freedoms. The problem as it relates to pollution and the environment is the straight up denial of certain actions having a detrimental impact on others. Particularly when it is not a direct impact. Even when it is a direct impact on others it can take years or even decades of campaigning to break through the denial and lobbying.

Examples would be...

PFOA
passive smoking
Depleted Uranium munitions
Asbestos
Leaded fuels
Thalidomide
Phossy jaw

Think of the flat out denial of the deleterious effects of these things and how long it took or is taking for governments and corporations to accept responsibility, admit to their effects and compensate people who were affected.

Now imagine how much more difficult it is to get corporations and countries to accept responsibility when their individual contributions to an issue and small but cumulatively have much bigger impacts.

I don't deny those things are deleterious. I am claiming that a company, who did something harmful, can only continue to exist via being subsidized by the state, because the state is force incarnate. And obviously a state can do anything with total imputiny because, again, they have the guns.

In response to how long it took to fix those problems, that's because the state monopolized environmental catastrophe response also the EPA, this people are disincentivized to create private entities to compete with the state, who has infinite funds. Additionally, due to the state being bloated with bureaucracy it doesn't have response time like a private entity would.

In a free market a company that does something deleterious would have to accept responsibility and fix it, otherwise they would shit down because there would be no state to bail it out and they would have to exist solely on merit/reputation.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
@ jaden2.0 That video didn't acknowledge how intertwined private Enterprise band state plans are in china.

Also it's weird this guy recognizes the libertarian perspective that any governmental solution to climate change is ineffectual and immoral, but goes on to use Thatcher, THE HEAD OF A GOVERNMENT, as a aha gotcha points. This seems logically inconsistent.

He doesn't agree that government solutions are ineffectual and immoral. He states that the American conservative belief is that the only solutions being proposed by "the left" involve big government intervention and that those interventions are ineffectual. Neither of those beliefs stand up to scrutiny. As he shows with the Australian carbon pricing example.

Things are never as black and white as left and right dogma would have people believe. The libertarian principle of "let the market decide" never seems to bother to address how subtle governmental interventions gained through powerful lobbying bodies have benefitted certain sectors and deliberately and covertly stifled others. Market forces can't "decide" when aspects of that market are manipulated.

For example. You run a company that has existed for 100 years and is worth 10's of billions of dollars. Over the years your company has spent considerable money lobbying politicians to enact policies which benefit your company. Whether that be tax breaks, removal of regulatory instruments etc.
In the last few years a new company has started up with a technology that has the potential to massively out-compete your own providing that company can get access to the raw materials it needs to scale up. Does your company let theirs continue and thus let the consumers and the market decide? Or does it spend money lobbying politicians to enact legislation that will restrict your competitor from accessing the materials it needs? Does your company use its resources to buy up the same raw materials your competitor requires in order to manipulate the price of the resources? Does your company attempt to drive stock prices of companies to hinder your competitor? Do you use your economic and political clout to sow doubt in the public regarding your new competitor via media, think tanks, seemingly independent "foundations", biased scientific research funded via third parties etc? Is the market ever really left to "decide"?

This is where we are with energy technologies. There is no natural "the market will decide" mechanism going on.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
He doesn't agree that government solutions are ineffectual and immoral. He states that the American conservative belief is that the only solutions being proposed by "the left" involve big government intervention and that those interventions are ineffectual. Neither of those beliefs stand up to scrutiny. As he shows with the Australian carbon pricing example.

Things are never as black and white as left and right dogma would have people believe. The libertarian principle of "let the market decide" never seems to bother to address how subtle governmental interventions gained through powerful lobbying bodies have benefitted certain sectors and deliberately and covertly stifled others. Market forces can't "decide" when aspects of that market are manipulated.

For example. You run a company that has existed for 100 years and is worth 10's of billions of dollars. Over the years your company has spent considerable money lobbying politicians to enact policies which benefit your company. Whether that be tax breaks, removal of regulatory instruments etc.
In the last few years a new company has started up with a technology that has the potential to massively out-compete your own providing that company can get access to the raw materials it needs to scale up. Does your company let theirs continue and thus let the consumers and the market decide? Or does it spend money lobbying politicians to enact legislation that will restrict your competitor from accessing the materials it needs? Does your company use its resources to buy up the same raw materials your competitor requires in order to manipulate the price of the resources? Does your company attempt to drive stock prices of companies to hinder your competitor? Do you use your economic and political clout to sow doubt in the public regarding your new competitor via media, think tanks, seemingly independent "foundations", biased scientific research funded via third parties etc? Is the market ever really left to "decide"?

This is where we are with energy technologies. There is no natural "the market will decide" mechanism going on.


Do you get that the big businesses that get tax breaks are seen as extensions of the state, from the libertarian perspective ?

This means when a libertarian says let the market decide, he means a truly free market untouched by companies in bed with the state or the state itself.

You have this weird habit of making libertarian points, then right at the end swerve off.

I also mentioned in a thread today how, due to state interference, wealth, over the lockdown, went from the lower and middle class to the upper via state welfare given to the billionaires.

In the video you sent it kept saying how wonderful it was that the top companies profitted from going green, but small businesses that couldn't afford the conversion floundered. That's awful from my pov and judging from your comment you'd agree with that, no ?


Also, I love arguing with you and I hope I'm holding up on my end of things



P.s. do you really think libertarianism doesn't comment on protectionism, interventionism, subsidizing, sanctions, etc. ?

I'm libertarian and that's all I talk about

Also, what do you think the market is ?

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Yes there is. You can utilise spent fuel waste from traditional reactor technologies in molten salt reactors and reduce it's radioactivity from lasting for tens of thousands of years down to decades. Current uranium and plutonium reactors use between 0.5% and 0.8% of the energy in the fuel before they are considered "spent". Molten salt reactors use upwards of 95% of the energy.

Why isn't this done then? I suspect cost?

Why are the materials considered spent after less than 1% of usage?

Originally posted by Robtard
Why isn't this done then? I suspect cost?

Why are the materials considered spent after less than 1% of usage?

Propaganda based on Chernobyl, 3 mile island, and Fukushima.
This plus the public's scientific ignorance, combined with it's credulity towards experts = abstaining from using one of the richest, cleanest burning energy sources on the planet.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
I don't deny those things are deleterious. I am claiming that a company, who did something harmful, can only continue to exist via being subsidized by the state, because the state is force incarnate. And obviously a state can do anything with total imputiny because, again, they have the guns.

In response to how long it took to fix those problems, that's because the state monopolized environmental catastrophe response also the EPA, this people are disincentivized to create private entities to compete with the state, who has infinite funds. Additionally, due to the state being bloated with bureaucracy it doesn't have response time like a private entity would.

In a free market a company that does something deleterious would have to accept responsibility and fix it, otherwise they would shit down because there would be no state to bail it out and they would have to exist solely on merit/reputation.

We've had this discussion before. It simply isn't true that in a free market, companies that conduct deleterious acts would have to accept responsibility and fix it. Even in the modern age where you have access to information on how companies conduct themselves across the globe large corporations, in the absence of a functioning state, act with impunity and would never alter their behaviours if not forced to do so.

Oil companies shipping millions of barrels out of Iraq without paying any tax on it because the iraqi government is too weak and ineffectual to do anything about it. In fact its even worse than that because those same oil companies force the Iraq government to use its meagre resources to spend money creating a military force whose sole purpose is to guard the oil pipelines those companies use to remove the oil from the country tax free.

Or take Africa. Collectively the most resource rich continent on the planet being absolutely raped of its resources by predatory corporations because almost none of its governments have the power to prevent it. The situation is actually worse now than during colonialism. Back then, European countries extracted $4 from Africa for every $1 they invested in Africa. Now they extract $20 for every $1 spent. Here's a specific example of what I mean.

25G4BcioPjE

The problem is connection and consequence. How many consumers even know how massive technology corporations like Apple and Samsung obtain the materials they need for manufacturing? Even if the local effects in Africa of Cobalt mining were widely known around the world how many people would care enough about it to give up their cell phones in order to force those companies into more ethical practices?

How often have we seen the same pattern? Diamond mining, deforestation to grow palm oil plantations, factory farming and battery hens. Everyone knows about the unethical and locally damaging practices but no one's giving up their jewellery, cosmetics and cheap food to do anything about it because the average consumer doesn't equate those things when doing their weekly shop. In a globalised world reputation isn't linked to conduct but end user experience.

The exact same problem in reverse exists at the end of life of a product. The consumer thinks they're being responsible citizens by recycling their old technology but their actions are so far removed from the actual practices of recycling that it equates to the same ultimate thing...

Out of sight, out of mind

Here's Joe Scott again with the example

QTU1F865JJo

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Propaganda based on Chernobyl, 3 mile island, and Fukushima.
This plus the public's scientific ignorance, combined with it's credulity towards experts = abstaining from using one of the richest, cleanest burning energy sources on the planet. if true, that is gross exploitation of the public's ignorance and it makes me hate the main stream media even more

Originally posted by Robtard
Why isn't this done then? I suspect cost?

Why are the materials considered spent after less than 1% of usage?

What ilikecomics said with a splash of special interest lobbying thrown in.

For decades 1 company had an effective monopoly on providing fuel assemblies to almost all traditional reactors. Westinghouse.

Ironically, Fukushima may have been a double edged sword. While it has contributed to the public doubts about the safety of nuclear technology. Something that fossil fuel companies have been extremely quick to pounce on. It's also weakened the iron grip of traditional reactor technology. Reactors are being shut down around the world because of Fukushima and plummeting demand for fuel nearly bankrupted westinghouse and its parent company Toshiba. This has had the secondary effect of opening up a gap in the market to alternate nuclear technologies. The problem is those companies don't have the resources to effectively lobby their potential. That's why development is so slow. The propaganda machine being brought to bear against them from fossil fuel companies is extremely difficult to overcome. They try and succeed in convincing the public and politicians that all nuclear technology should be lumped together and are all equally dangerous.

There's a lot of factors at play though. Fossil fuel companies aren't quick to tell people that burning coal has released vastly more radioactive pollution into the atmosphere than all the nuclear accidents combined simply by virtue of the fact that coal has radioactive nucleides in it.

Thorium isn't new nuclear technology. It was developed at the same time as Uranium and Plutonium reactor technologies in the 1950s. They were favoured over thorium and thus funded by government because of 1 fundamental difference. They could create isotopes for use in nuclear weapons where as thorium technology could not.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
What ilikecomics said with a splash of special interest lobbying thrown in.

For decades 1 company had an effective monopoly on providing fuel assemblies to almost all traditional reactors. Westinghouse.

Ironically, Fukushima may have been a double edged sword. While it has contributed to the public doubts about the safety of nuclear technology. Something that fossil fuel companies have been extremely quick to pounce on. It's also weakened the iron grip of traditional reactor technology. Reactors are being shut down around the world because of Fukushima and plummeting demand for fuel nearly bankrupted westinghouse and its parent company Toshiba. This has had the secondary effect of opening up a gap in the market to alternate nuclear technologies. The problem is those companies don't have the resources to effectively lobby their potential. That's why development is so slow. The propaganda machine being brought to bear against them from fossil fuel companies is extremely difficult to overcome. They try and succeed in convincing the public and politicians that all nuclear technology should be lumped together and are all equally dangerous.

There's a lot of factors at play though. Fossil fuel companies aren't quick to tell people that burning coal has released vastly more radioactive pollution into the atmosphere than all the nuclear accidents combined simply by virtue of the fact that coal has radioactive nucleides in it.

Thorium isn't new nuclear technology. It was developed at the same time as Uranium and Plutonium reactor technologies in the 1950s. They were favoured over thorium and thus funded by government because of 1 fundamental difference. They could create isotopes for use in nuclear weapons where as thorium technology could not.

Well said, dude.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Yes there is. You can utilise spent fuel waste from traditional reactor technologies in molten salt reactors and reduce it's radioactivity from lasting for tens of thousands of years down to decades. Current uranium and plutonium reactors use between 0.5% and 0.8% of the energy in the fuel before they are considered "spent". Molten salt reactors use upwards of 95% of the energy.

These only reduce, not eliminate, waste.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Depleted uranium only exists because the state made it illegal to reuse, it's 99.9 percent recyclable

Depleted uranium is only a fraction of the waste.

Texas has added 36 more deaths to the official death toll from the February 2021 snow and ice storm, bringing the total to 246 in what was one of the worst natural disasters in the state's history.

The Department of State Health Services disclosed the new total in a report on the storm that was released Friday, and described as the "final report" in an analysis by the department's Disaster Mortality Surveillance Unit.

The deaths occurred between February 11th and June 4th. The figure includes people who were injured in the storm but did not die until later, and also people whose bodies were found after the storm, including during repairs of damaged homes.

I just re-read and came to the conclusion that I am fucķing brilliant at stuff.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
I just re-read and came to the conclusion that I am fucķing brilliant at stuff.


Agreed. You go girl.

Go where?

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Go where?

To Pornhub?

There always a crisis in big cities. Which could be polluted due to industries wastage and landfills where people throw their garbage. I got to know about World most polluted countries Where Texas also available. You can read the same here useful link.That refer to the future issue going to be big due to human burning coal and Cutting trees.

There's a lot of factors at play though. Fossil fuel companies aren't quick to tell people that burning coal has released vastly more radioactive pollution into the atmosphere than all the nuclear accidents combined simply by virtue of the fact that coal has radioactive nucleides in it.

Instead of freezing to death due to Texas' mismanagement of their power grid, people are going to die of heatstroke this time around.

Abbot needs to go.

Remember when Rick Perry set up a prayer to stop the drought? I guess prayers don't work...

They can just shoot their guns at the goddamn weather.

Iraqis tried that.

Iraq isn't real. The ultra deep state faked it in order to send are troops to re-education camps in CCHHHINA! and now they're all Obamatrons

Originally posted by Blakemore
Remember when Rick Perry set up a prayer to stop the drought? I guess prayers don't work...

Gonna pray that "Chinese hoax" away.

Originally posted by Blakemore
Remember when Rick Perry set up a prayer to stop the drought? I guess prayers don't work...

Republican officials do this so much, that I created a thread for it 15 years ago.