Comments by "Dan A" (@DanA-nl5uo) on "Trump Babbles u0026 Lies About The Green New Deal In Hilarious Speech" video.

@patrickbooth5091 your not listening. AOC and Bernie Sanders are saying we need to lead the world in developing the new technology because China is currently the leader in solar and EV development. If you want to protect the American workforce you need to embrace the green new deal solar already employs 200,000 Americans while coal only employs 50,000. Renewable energy is not only the future of technology it is the solution to job loss in this country there will be millions of new jobs in the new energy economy.
8
@brian2440 you are overlooking the fact the nuclear power is the single most expensive form of power generation. That means it is the most expensive solution. You complain about the cost of renewable energy but solar and offshore wind are the cheapest from of new energy generation and solar is very close to being cheaper the running existing coal power plants. Solar would be cheaper than running existing coal if we simply remove the trump tariffs. But trump would rather have a tariff war with China and bankrupt our farmers.
3
@brian2440 the designers of the Westinghouse reactor told us a meltdown was also all but impossible. That didn't seem to work out so well for Fukushima. Your new design has never been successful put into production and will cost insane amounts of money to make practical. But by all means feel free to approach Jeff Bezos and raise 100% of the funding in the private sector. I mean Jeff Bezos explained be can't think of a way to spend his wealth short of going to Mars so I am sure he will be happy to invest in your dreams.
3
Nuclear power is the single most expensive form of new energy. It also doesn't match up well with renewable energy as it doesn't ramp up or down fast. We are way ahead to spend our money on wind solar hydro and storage. Nuclear power always losses on the economic alone. That is before you get into the waste disposal and other risks. The only people who want nuclear power are looking for a way to make weapons grade materials or they are paid by the industry.
3
@patrickbooth5091 no one who understands the green new deal is saying ending air travel we can make synthetic jet fuel. We just need to be carbon neutral. No one is saying support people unwilling to work we are saying provide equality of opportunity not equality of outcome. The jobs guarentee is a guarantee that the forgotten man will never be forgotten again the same thing trump campaigned on but has not followed up on with policy. But having a job by definition means the people are working not refusing to work. Or do you not understand that having a job is the definition of working? As to nuclear sorry but it is a waste of money.
2
@patrickbooth5091 You clearly have not read the text of the green new deal so here it is. https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/08/heres-the-full-text-of-congress-green-new-deal-resolution-introduced-by-rep-alexandra-ocasio-cortez/ As to high speed rail it is a proven solution to transportation. In Europe China and Japan. They measure the delays in Japan and China in seconds under one minute. We measure the traffic jams in our cities in hours we could learn a lot by studying how the rest of the world solves the problem of transportation.
1
@brian2440 no doubt your argument has nothing to do with cost because your argument is for the most expensive solution. I am well aware of the challenges in switching to 100% renewable. It is ironic that someone pushing nuclear power complains about the cost of storage as the only reason we developed pumped hydro storage is to deal with the inflexibility of nuclear power.
1
@brian2440 Pumped storage historically has been used to balance load on a system, enabling large nuclear or thermal generating sources to operate at peak efficiencies. http://energystorage.org/energy-storage/technologies/pumped-hydroelectric-storage Your ignorance is showing.
1
@brian2440 sure the technology was developed in the 30s the dams where actually built in the 60s and 70s when the nuclear power plants where developed. You seem to lack a understanding of history.
1
@brian2440 wow it was really convenient that we had the pumped storage infrastructure already in place when we needed it to deal with the inflexibility of nuclear power plants.
1
Trump wants to be the Republican running against policy with over 80% support. Great I will take 80% of the voting public in any free election process.
1
@fluidthought42 the reactors you are talking about have never been successful built. There is one attempt in Russia which was closed down after running up massive debt. The dream of cheap nuclear power has been replaced with the reality of cheap solar and wind which doesn't leave radioactive waste for centuries to come. In the future nuclear technology will be looked back on as the mistake which almost killed the planet.
1
@eriklakeland3857 I am sure your costs don't include the decommissioning cost and the cost of storing the nuclear waste for centuries to come how do you even calculate the future cost of waste storage it will continue longer then any monetary system in history has lasted. I know that is true because the nuclear waste we have already made will be toxic and deadly for longer then human civilization has lasted. The Yankee Nuclear Power Station in Rowe, Massachusetts, took 15 years to decommission—or five times longer than was needed to build it. And decommissioning the plant—constructed early in the 1960s for $39 million—cost $608 million.Apr 28, 2014 The rising cost of decommissioning a nuclear power plant - Bulletin of ... Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists › 2014/04
1
@eriklakeland3857 funny but they always have funding shortfalls regardless of how old the plant is when it is retired. Show me just one example of s nuclear power plant which was decommissioned under budget.
1