And in “tell Us Something we Didn’t Already Know” news.
I didn’t really know what the Green Party was until a few years ago. I originally thought Green meant pro-environment but it really just stands for green cash money from Daddy Vlad.
Wasn't she cleared by the senate investigative committee for not taking funds from Russia?
I'm not sure if she was or wasn't, but depending on the Congress, they may have also "cleared" the issue of SA with Brett Kavenaugh. Congress isn't exactly a trustworthy primary source.
Currently the Democrats are in charge. If she was truly a Russian agent couldn't they easily start another investigation to bar her from running?
Yes.
But people here don’t want to address that because it disrupts their narrative.
The truth is, no matter what she did or didn’t do, the hostility would be the same because she’s not Harris.
They get upset at anyone who isn’t pledging their vote to Harris, and that’s the real reason behind all the hate here. In fact, look at your downvotes for asking a simple question. lmao
Is that any worse than the other parties who pay billions to daddy bibi for the privilege of sucking his cock? Honest question.
As much of a problem Israel is the fact of the matter is Putin and the Russian state as a whole is well infinitely bigger. A coalition could remove Israel in an afternoon, Russia not so much.
What coalition? Is genocide not considered serious enough to assemble this afternoon coalition?
Compared to what is gained by otherwise ignoring it? Genocide in the Levant doesnt quite register for such actions yet. I aint happy about it either, but a lot of the problem is that there are still enough Silent, Boomers, and Gen X in governments who think that even criticizing Israel makes them at best aligned with Nazis making them hesitant at best towards making Israel a fucken parking lot.
I severely doubt such kids gloves would be used with most other countries in the region, with the exception of places like the UAE, Dubai, and Saudi Arabia. But they have oil and may throw a hissy fit and will crash the world economy again. Seriously the worst thing about the end of colonialism is that the Arabian peninsula cant be colonized and the local authorities ignored.
The irony of complaining about genocide while at the exact same moment considering the possibility to "remove Israel".
The irony of complaining about genocide while at the exact same moment considering the possibility to "remove Nazi Germany".
Does that make it easier for you to see how what you're saying is silly?
The US killed more innocent civilians in 1 night of world war 2 then the total number of palestinians, militants and civilians combined, that Israel has killed in the entire 75 year history of it's existence.
And true irony is complaining about apartheid when there are more Arabs on the Israeli supreme court then there are Jews living free in all of Palestine.
Well I'm not a fan of the US government either and won't defend them. Don't you think the goddamn atom bomb being dropped on a city is an insanely high bar for what atrocities are acceptable lmao
But what a weird argument. Think about what you're saying for a minute:
The US killed more civilians with a nuke before. Therefore, Israel can kill as many innocent civilians and children as they want. Yikes dude. That's a bad argument and devoid of any real reason. You ok?
!Irony is complaining about apartheid when there are more Arabs on the Israeli supreme court then there are Jews living free in all of Palestine.
!<
I mean Israel is in Palestine... So do you not think the Jews in Israel are living free?
You're trying to justify genocide and apartheid. Really think about what side that puts you on.
I wasn't talking about the atom bomb. I was talking about how many innocent civilian deaths it took to “remove Nazi Germany”.
Let me ask you an honest question - do you believe Vladimir Putin when he claims that zionist ukraine is committing genocide in the donbass region, or are you aware that klepto-fascist dictators lie about that sort of thing?
No I don't...
What fascist dictator would be fabricating the genocide in Palestine in this hypothetical situation? How silly. If you look back at the links I sent you the one that showed the funding from Israel to US politicians. Do you think there's any incentive there to hide or aid genocide there? Do you think maybe Israel and the United States are the Bad actors in this scenario?
Would that help explain this? Or has this fictional fascist dictator somehow comprised all of these countries already?
You continue to defend apartheid and genocide. Think about what side that puts you on?
Yes.
Why?
If the green party even actually cared about the shit they purport to care about, they'd have been pro nuclear. That's all I needed to hear in order to know they were worth absolutely none of my attention.
They also be active more than one out of every four years. You NEVER hear a word about any of them between elections. They’re spoilers. Nothing more.
The veil is lifted finally.
What might have had some efficacy as an auxiliary party is if the organization promoted specific extant primary candidates, perhaps. To assist more progressive candidates in becoming the nominees for various electoral races. AND in local elections, not JUST the big one every four years like you said!
We've seen this work (to our detriment) with the 'tea party' -_- all i'm saying is, it pisses me off that we leave that kind of weaponry on the table when these fucking chud scum manage to pull it off.
You NEVER hear a word about any of them between elections.
Sure we do. In fact, my town voted Green into office.
Shane Robinson - Maryland, House, District 39 (2011-2019)
Henry Bear - Maine, House, District 144 (2013-2019)
Ralph Chapman - Maine, House, District 133 (2010-2019)
Fred Smith - Arkansas, House, District 50 (2011-2015)
Richard Carroll - Arkansas, House, District 39 (2009-2011)
John Eder - Maine, House, District 118 (2003-2007)
Matt Ahearn - New Jersey, General Assembly, District 38 (2002-2004)
Audie Bock - California, State Assembly, District 16 (1999-2000)
Current Green Party Mayors
Peter Schwartzman - Galesburg, Illinois (2021-2025)
Bruce Delgado - Marina, California (2008-2024)
Emmanuel Estrada - Baldwin Park, California (2020-2024)
Former Green Party Mayors
John Reed - Fairfax, California
Mike Feinstein - Santa Monica, California
David Doonan - Greenwich, New York
Kelley Wearvering - Cordova, Alaska
Robb Davis - Davis, California
Peter Gleichman - Ward, Colorado
Jim Sullivan - Victory, New York
Jason West - New Paltz, New York
Current Green Party City & County Council Members
Sylvia R. Chavez - Calipatria, California
David Conley - Douglas County, Wisconsin
Josiah Dean - Dufur, Oregon
Becky Elder - Manitou Springs, Colorado
Bob Gifford - Portage County, Wisconsin
Renée Goddard - Fairfax, California
David Grover - Trinidad, California
Damon Jespersen - Newbury, Massachusetts
John Keener - Pacifica, California
Rebecca Kemble - Madison, Wisconsin
Paul Pitino - Arcata, California
Marsha A. Rummel - Madison, Wisconsin
George P. Steeves - Southbridge, Massachusetts
Anna Trevorrow - Portland, Maine
Daniel Welsh - Lewisboro, New York
Heidi Weigleitner - Dane County, Wisconsin
Stephen Zollman - Sebastopol, California
Former Green Party City & County Council Members
Peter Schwartzman - Galesburg, Illinois
George Altgelt - Laredo, Texas
Michael Beilstein - Corvallis, Oregon
Bruce Delgado - Marina, California
Jessica Bradshaw - Carbondale, Illinois
Michael Cornell - River Hill Village
Jennifer Dotson - Ithaca, New York
Kathleen Fitzpatrick - Mosier, Oregon
Gail Garrett - Mount Washington, Massachusetts
Matt Gonzalez - San Francisco, California
Cam Gordon - Minneapolis, Minnesota
Art Goodtimes - San Miguel County, Colorado
Daniel Hamburg - Mendocino County, California
Michelle Haynes - Norwood, Colorado
Gary Hull - Sharpsburg, Maryland
Tanya Ishikawa - Federal Heights, Colorado
Brian Kehoe - Catskill, New York
Jason Kirkpatrick - Arcata, California
Mary Jo Long - Afton, New York
Tom Mair - Grand Traverse County, Michigan
Sarah Marsh - Fayetteville, Arkansas
Merrily Mazza - Lafayette, Colorado
Gayle McLaughlin - Richmond, California
Ross Mirkarimi - San Francisco, California
Leland Pan - Dane County, Wisconsin
Dona Spring - Berkeley, California
Chuck Turner - Boston, Massachusetts
Other Green Party Local Officials (Current)
Michael Clary - Coos County, Oregon
Jennifer Baker - Napa Valley College, California
Matthew Clark - San Mateo County
Billy Gene Collins - Waterford, Connecticut
Carl D'Amato - Waterford, Connecticut
Daphne Dixon - Fairfield, Connecticut
Matt Donahue - Benton County, Oregon
Maureen Doyle - Southbridge, Massachusetts
Andrew Frascarelli - Waterford, Connecticut
Frank Gatti - Amherst, Massachusetts
Michael Paul Hansen - Humboldt County, California
Jane Jarlsberg - San Bernardino County, California
Joshua Steele Kelly - Waterford, Connecticut
Vincent O'Connor - Amherst, Massachusetts
Sharron Parra - Hyampom, California
Vahe Peroomian - Glendale Community College, California
John Powell - Montecito, California
Colleen Ann Reidy - Thompsonville, Connecticut
Rebecca Rotzler - New Paltz, New York
Leif Smith - Redding, Connecticut
Darcy Van Ness - Waterford, Connecticut
Baird Welch-Collins - Waterford, Connecticut
Randy Marx - Fair Oaks Water District, Sacramento County, California
Fred McCann - Portland Water District, Portland, Maine
Garrett Erven - Red Wing, Minnesota
Other Green Party Local Officials (Former)
John Amarilios - New Canaan, Connecticut
Korie Blyveis - Newberg Township, Michigan
Hector Lopez - New Canaan, Connecticut
Kim O'Connor - Hillsborough County, Florida
Jill Stein - Lexington, Massachusetts
Raymond C. Meyer - Lucas County Health Center, Iowa
Amy Martenson - Napa Valley College, California
MK Merelice - Brookline, Massachusetts
Anna Trevorrow - Portland, Maine
So… you’re evidence is local elections? Tell us you’re not paying attention to the topic of discussion without telling us you’re not paying attention to the topic of discussion.
What did Stein or West do?
Well it was said we never hear about them between elections. Stein doesn't just stop being part of the Green Party between elections. It just doesn't make the news. Big difference.
And I don't like West, so I have no comments or ideas about what he does or doesn't do.
Ahh. So you support the Russian shill only. Fair enough. It was said we never hear from PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES between elections.
Try and keep up.
But the comment didn't say "PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES between elections." It said "they" and that could be a lot of people. And I was under the impression it mean "they" as in "the Green Party."
And many some third party presidential candidate are active between elections. They just don't make the news because news orgs don't see it as a story unless it's an election year.
I’m not entertaining your trollish attempts to keep this discussion going. Anyone reading this would have extrapolated the intended topic.
We’re done here. You’ve nothing to say that’s relevant to the actual topic and you’re only derailing it further but pushing this.
You’ve been called out. Yet again.
Have a nice day! Was nice talking to you :)
Actually, friend, you've been called out. Yet again. But hey, talk to ya later and please have the day you deserve. Thanks! :)
"Green" and "pro nuclear" go together like peas and carrots. Unless one flunked elementary school science class.
Nah nuclear is relatively easy to deal with the waste, ublike say oil. Plus ignoring it is a legit method of dealing with the problem, worst case ya dump it in Wyoming nobody lives in Wyoming.
You may have misread the comment you're responding to. Peas and carrots go together
Honestly though! Look at the region around Pripyat; that place is thriving.
Alternatively we could stash it in death valley where literally nothing lives, not even animals.
Stash, not drop: As nuclear technology progresses, we'll get more efficient at using it as fuel and eventually the waste of today can become supplemental fuel of tomorrow, used much more thoroughly, and only be radioactive for a few hundred years instead of thousands.
They aren't? Damn shame
Nuclear energy is the most expensive type of energy, you could have way more wind and solar energy (stored in batteries or hydrogen) for the same investment. And without waste that keeps radiating for the next millenia.
Neither storage "solution" is currently adequate for fossil fuel replacement and may never be for high-density populations. Nuclear is less impactful than burning hydrocarbons or damming rivers and fearmongering about radioactive waste products isn't helpful because, again, every nuclear accident or leak to date has been less harmful than normal exhaust from coal-burning plants and riparian habitat destruction.
If we had kept investing in an actual energy solution we would have gen-IV reactors already and the waste concerns would be even lower.
Nuclear is expensive because we've made it expensive. The most expensive part is bureaucracy. Running nuclear plants is cheap. Even still, the price of nuclear around the world is competitive. If you scroll down to the regional studies, nuclear looks even better. In every place except the US that has nuclear, nuclear is the second cheapest, with large-scale PV the only one higher (which doesn't price in solutions to provide baseline power, which nuclear has built in). The US has (purposefully) made nuclear appear expensive because laws have been paid for by dirty oil companies.
Nuclear is also one of the safest and cleanest energy sources. If you include negative externalities into the cost (which is never done but should be) nuclear is amazing.
Yes, AND, Nuclear is also cheaper in cost of human lives per gigawatt hour!
EVEN SOLAR AND WIND KILL MORE PEOPLE PER GIGAWATT HOUR THAN NUCLEAR.
(Hydro admittedly kills less people per GWh than nuclear, though - but not every place has that option.)
Hydro causes a whole host of other issues though. It requires changing the environment in a very direct way. There are methods to reduce the issues, like fish ladders and things like that, but it's an immediate shift of an area from a running river to essentially a lake with a waterfall.
And in order for hydro's effects to be most easy to curtail, you need very specific terrain topology - such as where I live, in the Springfield area of Massachusetts, there's a hydroelectric dam on the Connecticut River in South Hadley/Holyoke (the two sides of the river at that section):
The dam was built where there were natural falls. So the dam leveraged the fact that the change in water elevation was natural and already extant prior to the dam's existence. They've had a fish elevator system for longer than I've been alive, too. Rather than changing how the hydrological system worked in the area, the dam stabilized it upstream such that the water level up the Connecticut River from there is more consistent than it used to be before - whenever there's more water than usual, the dam can increase spill rate.
The city of chicopee, across the river from holyoke and just north of springfield, also has a hydroelectric dam, also built where there were natural falls. This region is pretty good for stuff like that, and our electrical supply is much hardier as a result!
Nah, even the wikipage shows double the price compared to solar or wind. Which isn't surprising when you look at the basic technology of each energy type. And they all have to deal with a lot of bureaucracy.
Stop lying. No it doesn't. Unless you can't read the graph, it's very similarly priced to the rest. Solar is significantly more expensive at low capacity but cheaper at high capacity. It's approximately equal to coal and wind, depending on capacity. Nuclear can be cheaper than even the cheapest offshore wind.
The graph showing nuclear getting more expensive at higher capacity does show something interesting though. I can't say what causes that, but I assume larger plants have more bureaucracy to deal with, which artificially increases their cost. (Edit: I even read it wrong I think. It shows as more are installed they got more expensive, which implies a temporal relation. More laws restricting nuclear make it more expensive, which is not surprising. Nuclear would be very cheap if it stayed at the same cost as the minimum was.) It may be something else. It's hard to say. Nuclear is basically right on the middle of the cost axis though.
Posting an extra comment to say nuclear waste is not an issue either. Here's two good videos on the topic that show through example how much it isn't an issue.
Additional comment against nuclear: water cooling, which is a real problem in a warming climate. Rivers will dry up or flood. And near the coast with rising sea levels is also difficult, using salt water. Besides, there are plenty of sustainable alternatives with a cheaper price tag, so why bother?
Energy is energy. It doesn't matter what it comes from. It comes from an exchange of entropy. It all must create heat. Arguably solar only takes the heat that would be hitting the earth anyway, but it creates more electricity the more it absorbs, so having a lower albedo is better, which will be higher than what the ground would have been.
Also, yeah obviously some places aren't ideal for a nuclear plant. That's not an argument against it. That true for literally every energy source. You can't build a solar plant in the shade. You can't build a wind farm where there isn't wind. Etc.
Which ones are sustainable and cheaper? They cost similar amounts per twh, and most cause more deaths. Nuclear creates, by far, the least pollution, including wind, solar, and hydro. Wind and solar also require something to provide baseline power, which is probably batteries. That requires mining lithium, which is very limited, or using some other battery technology which also have issue.
Nuclear is baseline power, clean, sustainable, cheap, and safe. The waste is easy to deal with and only exists in small amounts, most of which will be neutral in a very short period. The only reason not to like it is because we've passed laws to make it expensive and take a long time to build, but that's artifical and promoted by dirty energy. The whole anti-nuke movement is paid for by dirty energy, which should tell you something.
Jill Stein Is Killingkilled the Green Party
Jill Stein is the latest in an interminable line of Green Party fucknuts "killing" the Green Party.
if you're telling me that there's a compromised candidate who isn't pursuing the stated goals of their party or the best interests of their voter base, I- I- I-'d I'd have to cock an eye at you and wonder what your agenda was fella
pure nonsense, imagine
just glad my party isn't one of those, whichever one that's convenient for the reader
Given the ridiculous amount of money being poured into anti green sentiment and lawsuits by the Dems, it seems like they're threatened.
Maybe we can have a somewhat left wing party when Dems lose again and can't blame the greens or Bernie bros or other scape goats for their own failure to represent popular policies.
Threatened by Russian shills and spoiler campaigns by useless candidates that talk a lot and say nothing?
Yeah.
That’s a lot to be treated by. Especially when democrat hangs in the balance. Your lady is busted bro. The truth is out.
Popular policies like investing into green energy, capping prescription drug prices, appropriately regulating business, helping students with the price of college, raising taxes on the wealthy and helping first time homebuyers get a house?
Sure, trump did two of those, Biden has done one but promised more, and those don't touch the problems Americans actually have, like affording rent and groceries while dealing with record inflation and failing economy for all but the wealthiest. If Dems kept half their promises they'd still be 80s Republicans, but at least people wouldn't be becoming homeless at the fastest rate in US history.
Really? Which two did Trump do?
Arguably Biden has done more than two of those things. At least, not for the lack of trying.
Or maybe we will just get neo-fascism and the violent persecution of left wing america.
That's going to happen regardless if you keep electing liberals while thinking left wing policies are too unpopular to pass. Hitler was appointed by a liberal.
Ever hear the term beefsteak nazi?
in his 1936 book Hitler: A Biography, remarking that in the Sturmabteilung (Brownshirts, SA) ranks there were "large numbers of Communists and Social Democrats" and that "many of the storm troops were called 'beefsteaks' – brown outside and red within".
See also : Alexander dugan's red-brown-green alliance of industrial union-focused leftists (red), ecologically-minded agrarians (green), and the far right (brown) which saw the russian hard left communist party merge with russia's hard right neo-nazi party.
Yep. Funny how Democrats are just as desperate as the Republicans (who always try to get rid of Libertarians) to make sure we have fewer choices to vote for.
I didn’t really know what the Green Party was until a few years ago. I originally thought Green meant pro-environment but it really just stands for green cash money from Daddy Vlad.
Wasn't she cleared by the senate investigative committee for not taking funds from Russia?
I'm not sure if she was or wasn't, but depending on the Congress, they may have also "cleared" the issue of SA with Brett Kavenaugh. Congress isn't exactly a trustworthy primary source.
Currently the Democrats are in charge. If she was truly a Russian agent couldn't they easily start another investigation to bar her from running?
Yes.
But people here don’t want to address that because it disrupts their narrative.
The truth is, no matter what she did or didn’t do, the hostility would be the same because she’s not Harris.
They get upset at anyone who isn’t pledging their vote to Harris, and that’s the real reason behind all the hate here. In fact, look at your downvotes for asking a simple question. lmao
Is that any worse than the other parties who pay billions to daddy bibi for the privilege of sucking his cock? Honest question.
As much of a problem Israel is the fact of the matter is Putin and the Russian state as a whole is well infinitely bigger. A coalition could remove Israel in an afternoon, Russia not so much.
What coalition? Is genocide not considered serious enough to assemble this afternoon coalition?
Compared to what is gained by otherwise ignoring it? Genocide in the Levant doesnt quite register for such actions yet. I aint happy about it either, but a lot of the problem is that there are still enough Silent, Boomers, and Gen X in governments who think that even criticizing Israel makes them at best aligned with Nazis making them hesitant at best towards making Israel a fucken parking lot.
I severely doubt such kids gloves would be used with most other countries in the region, with the exception of places like the UAE, Dubai, and Saudi Arabia. But they have oil and may throw a hissy fit and will crash the world economy again. Seriously the worst thing about the end of colonialism is that the Arabian peninsula cant be colonized and the local authorities ignored.
The irony of complaining about genocide while at the exact same moment considering the possibility to "remove Israel".
The irony of complaining about genocide while at the exact same moment considering the possibility to "remove Nazi Germany".
Does that make it easier for you to see how what you're saying is silly?
Israel is an apartheid regime that's doing genocide... There were Jews in Palestine before Israel. Hating Israel and wanting it gone is not the same as wanting to kill and remove and entire people group. Killing an entire people group is what Israel stands for.
Also how crazy is it that the usa allows Israel to lobby it's politicians with this much money.
The US killed more innocent civilians in 1 night of world war 2 then the total number of palestinians, militants and civilians combined, that Israel has killed in the entire 75 year history of it's existence.
And true irony is complaining about apartheid when there are more Arabs on the Israeli supreme court then there are Jews living free in all of Palestine.
Well I'm not a fan of the US government either and won't defend them. Don't you think the goddamn atom bomb being dropped on a city is an insanely high bar for what atrocities are acceptable lmao
But what a weird argument. Think about what you're saying for a minute: The US killed more civilians with a nuke before. Therefore, Israel can kill as many innocent civilians and children as they want. Yikes dude. That's a bad argument and devoid of any real reason. You ok?
I mean Israel is in Palestine... So do you not think the Jews in Israel are living free?
You're trying to justify genocide and apartheid. Really think about what side that puts you on.
I wasn't talking about the atom bomb. I was talking about how many innocent civilian deaths it took to “remove Nazi Germany”.
Let me ask you an honest question - do you believe Vladimir Putin when he claims that zionist ukraine is committing genocide in the donbass region, or are you aware that klepto-fascist dictators lie about that sort of thing?
No I don't...
What fascist dictator would be fabricating the genocide in Palestine in this hypothetical situation? How silly. If you look back at the links I sent you the one that showed the funding from Israel to US politicians. Do you think there's any incentive there to hide or aid genocide there? Do you think maybe Israel and the United States are the Bad actors in this scenario?
Would that help explain this? Or has this fictional fascist dictator somehow comprised all of these countries already?
You continue to defend apartheid and genocide. Think about what side that puts you on?
Yes.
Why?
If the green party even actually cared about the shit they purport to care about, they'd have been pro nuclear. That's all I needed to hear in order to know they were worth absolutely none of my attention.
They also be active more than one out of every four years. You NEVER hear a word about any of them between elections. They’re spoilers. Nothing more.
The veil is lifted finally.
What might have had some efficacy as an auxiliary party is if the organization promoted specific extant primary candidates, perhaps. To assist more progressive candidates in becoming the nominees for various electoral races. AND in local elections, not JUST the big one every four years like you said!
We've seen this work (to our detriment) with the 'tea party' -_- all i'm saying is, it pisses me off that we leave that kind of weaponry on the table when these fucking chud scum manage to pull it off.
Sure we do. In fact, my town voted Green into office.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Green_politicians_who_have_held_office_in_the_United_States (thanks to @SyntaxTerror@feddit.org for the info)
State-Level Green Party Officials (Former)
Current Green Party Mayors
Former Green Party Mayors
Current Green Party City & County Council Members
Former Green Party City & County Council Members
Other Green Party Local Officials (Current)
Other Green Party Local Officials (Former)
So… you’re evidence is local elections? Tell us you’re not paying attention to the topic of discussion without telling us you’re not paying attention to the topic of discussion.
What did Stein or West do?
Well it was said we never hear about them between elections. Stein doesn't just stop being part of the Green Party between elections. It just doesn't make the news. Big difference.
And I don't like West, so I have no comments or ideas about what he does or doesn't do.
Ahh. So you support the Russian shill only. Fair enough. It was said we never hear from PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES between elections.
Try and keep up.
But the comment didn't say "PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES between elections." It said "they" and that could be a lot of people. And I was under the impression it mean "they" as in "the Green Party."
And many some third party presidential candidate are active between elections. They just don't make the news because news orgs don't see it as a story unless it's an election year.
I’m not entertaining your trollish attempts to keep this discussion going. Anyone reading this would have extrapolated the intended topic.
We’re done here. You’ve nothing to say that’s relevant to the actual topic and you’re only derailing it further but pushing this.
You’ve been called out. Yet again.
Have a nice day! Was nice talking to you :)
Actually, friend, you've been called out. Yet again. But hey, talk to ya later and please have the day you deserve. Thanks! :)
"Green" and "pro nuclear" go together like peas and carrots. Unless one flunked elementary school science class.
Nah nuclear is relatively easy to deal with the waste, ublike say oil. Plus ignoring it is a legit method of dealing with the problem, worst case ya dump it in Wyoming nobody lives in Wyoming.
You may have misread the comment you're responding to. Peas and carrots go together
Honestly though! Look at the region around Pripyat; that place is thriving.
Alternatively we could stash it in death valley where literally nothing lives, not even animals.
Stash, not drop: As nuclear technology progresses, we'll get more efficient at using it as fuel and eventually the waste of today can become supplemental fuel of tomorrow, used much more thoroughly, and only be radioactive for a few hundred years instead of thousands.
They aren't? Damn shame
Nuclear energy is the most expensive type of energy, you could have way more wind and solar energy (stored in batteries or hydrogen) for the same investment. And without waste that keeps radiating for the next millenia.
Neither storage "solution" is currently adequate for fossil fuel replacement and may never be for high-density populations. Nuclear is less impactful than burning hydrocarbons or damming rivers and fearmongering about radioactive waste products isn't helpful because, again, every nuclear accident or leak to date has been less harmful than normal exhaust from coal-burning plants and riparian habitat destruction.
If we had kept investing in an actual energy solution we would have gen-IV reactors already and the waste concerns would be even lower.
Nuclear is expensive because we've made it expensive. The most expensive part is bureaucracy. Running nuclear plants is cheap. Even still, the price of nuclear around the world is competitive. If you scroll down to the regional studies, nuclear looks even better. In every place except the US that has nuclear, nuclear is the second cheapest, with large-scale PV the only one higher (which doesn't price in solutions to provide baseline power, which nuclear has built in). The US has (purposefully) made nuclear appear expensive because laws have been paid for by dirty oil companies.
Nuclear is also one of the safest and cleanest energy sources. If you include negative externalities into the cost (which is never done but should be) nuclear is amazing.
Yes, AND, Nuclear is also cheaper in cost of human lives per gigawatt hour!
EVEN SOLAR AND WIND KILL MORE PEOPLE PER GIGAWATT HOUR THAN NUCLEAR.
(Hydro admittedly kills less people per GWh than nuclear, though - but not every place has that option.)
Hydro causes a whole host of other issues though. It requires changing the environment in a very direct way. There are methods to reduce the issues, like fish ladders and things like that, but it's an immediate shift of an area from a running river to essentially a lake with a waterfall.
And in order for hydro's effects to be most easy to curtail, you need very specific terrain topology - such as where I live, in the Springfield area of Massachusetts, there's a hydroelectric dam on the Connecticut River in South Hadley/Holyoke (the two sides of the river at that section):
The dam was built where there were natural falls. So the dam leveraged the fact that the change in water elevation was natural and already extant prior to the dam's existence. They've had a fish elevator system for longer than I've been alive, too. Rather than changing how the hydrological system worked in the area, the dam stabilized it upstream such that the water level up the Connecticut River from there is more consistent than it used to be before - whenever there's more water than usual, the dam can increase spill rate.
The city of chicopee, across the river from holyoke and just north of springfield, also has a hydroelectric dam, also built where there were natural falls. This region is pretty good for stuff like that, and our electrical supply is much hardier as a result!
Nah, even the wikipage shows double the price compared to solar or wind. Which isn't surprising when you look at the basic technology of each energy type. And they all have to deal with a lot of bureaucracy.
Stop lying. No it doesn't. Unless you can't read the graph, it's very similarly priced to the rest. Solar is significantly more expensive at low capacity but cheaper at high capacity. It's approximately equal to coal and wind, depending on capacity. Nuclear can be cheaper than even the cheapest offshore wind.
The graph showing nuclear getting more expensive at higher capacity does show something interesting though. I can't say what causes that,
but I assume larger plants have more bureaucracy to deal with, which artificially increases their cost.(Edit: I even read it wrong I think. It shows as more are installed they got more expensive, which implies a temporal relation. More laws restricting nuclear make it more expensive, which is not surprising. Nuclear would be very cheap if it stayed at the same cost as the minimum was.) It may be something else. It's hard to say. Nuclear is basically right on the middle of the cost axis though.Posting an extra comment to say nuclear waste is not an issue either. Here's two good videos on the topic that show through example how much it isn't an issue.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k&pp=ygUXa3lsZSBoaWxsIG51Y2xlYXIgd2FzdGU%3D
https://youtube.com/watch?v=lhHHbgIy9jU&pp=ygUXa3lsZSBoaWxsIG51Y2xlYXIgd2FzdGU%3D
Additional comment against nuclear: water cooling, which is a real problem in a warming climate. Rivers will dry up or flood. And near the coast with rising sea levels is also difficult, using salt water. Besides, there are plenty of sustainable alternatives with a cheaper price tag, so why bother?
Energy is energy. It doesn't matter what it comes from. It comes from an exchange of entropy. It all must create heat. Arguably solar only takes the heat that would be hitting the earth anyway, but it creates more electricity the more it absorbs, so having a lower albedo is better, which will be higher than what the ground would have been.
Also, yeah obviously some places aren't ideal for a nuclear plant. That's not an argument against it. That true for literally every energy source. You can't build a solar plant in the shade. You can't build a wind farm where there isn't wind. Etc.
Which ones are sustainable and cheaper? They cost similar amounts per twh, and most cause more deaths. Nuclear creates, by far, the least pollution, including wind, solar, and hydro. Wind and solar also require something to provide baseline power, which is probably batteries. That requires mining lithium, which is very limited, or using some other battery technology which also have issue.
Nuclear is baseline power, clean, sustainable, cheap, and safe. The waste is easy to deal with and only exists in small amounts, most of which will be neutral in a very short period. The only reason not to like it is because we've passed laws to make it expensive and take a long time to build, but that's artifical and promoted by dirty energy. The whole anti-nuke movement is paid for by dirty energy, which should tell you something.
Jill Stein is the latest in an interminable line of Green Party fucknuts "killing" the Green Party.
Next.
Was there anything there to kill?
A bucket full of russian mob money.
anybody really care?
No we don't. The green party wasn't even that alive
Read the room bud.
So one might say:
She's killing it 🕶️
She’s reducing it, the first and best r
One might, but should one?
At least she's doing one good thing?
She was a major reason Trump won over Hillary, and she is still taking more votes from democrats than republicans.
Hillary was the reason Trump won over Hillary. lmao
I thought racism had a lot more to do with it. Plus the way that American votes are counted.
There were lots of things that went wrong. It definitely wasn't just because of a third party.
The electoral college and DNC hubris are the reasons Hillary lost.
Fair points!
That’s defiantly a way to look at it.
::: spoiler New Republic - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for New Republic:
::: spoiler Search topics on Ground.News https://newrepublic.com/article/186004/green-jill-stein-2024-election? ::: Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
if you're telling me that there's a compromised candidate who isn't pursuing the stated goals of their party or the best interests of their voter base, I- I- I-'d I'd have to cock an eye at you and wonder what your agenda was fella
pure nonsense, imagine
just glad my party isn't one of those, whichever one that's convenient for the reader
Given the ridiculous amount of money being poured into anti green sentiment and lawsuits by the Dems, it seems like they're threatened.
Maybe we can have a somewhat left wing party when Dems lose again and can't blame the greens or Bernie bros or other scape goats for their own failure to represent popular policies.
Threatened by Russian shills and spoiler campaigns by useless candidates that talk a lot and say nothing?
Yeah.
That’s a lot to be treated by. Especially when democrat hangs in the balance. Your lady is busted bro. The truth is out.
Go sit down somewhere.
Popular policies like investing into green energy, capping prescription drug prices, appropriately regulating business, helping students with the price of college, raising taxes on the wealthy and helping first time homebuyers get a house?
Sure, trump did two of those, Biden has done one but promised more, and those don't touch the problems Americans actually have, like affording rent and groceries while dealing with record inflation and failing economy for all but the wealthiest. If Dems kept half their promises they'd still be 80s Republicans, but at least people wouldn't be becoming homeless at the fastest rate in US history.
Really? Which two did Trump do?
Arguably Biden has done more than two of those things. At least, not for the lack of trying.
Or maybe we will just get neo-fascism and the violent persecution of left wing america.
That's going to happen regardless if you keep electing liberals while thinking left wing policies are too unpopular to pass. Hitler was appointed by a liberal.
Ever hear the term beefsteak nazi?
See also : Alexander dugan's red-brown-green alliance of industrial union-focused leftists (red), ecologically-minded agrarians (green), and the far right (brown) which saw the russian hard left communist party merge with russia's hard right neo-nazi party.
AKA : Red fascists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beefsteak_Nazi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red%E2%80%93green%E2%80%93brown_alliance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_fascism
Yep. Funny how Democrats are just as desperate as the Republicans (who always try to get rid of Libertarians) to make sure we have fewer choices to vote for.