461–470 of 585 posts
Next step is invade Venezuela and pump as much oil as possible
The theory that the US government does those wars to keep oil prices high fits the timing way better than the opposite. I still thinks it's missing important details, but the US making wars to get more oil doesn't fit reality at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t even know liberals that watch CNN. It’s already irrelevant.
If it was truly irrelevant, then there wouldn't be billions being thrown at it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that modern car engines are vastly improved over their 1970’s carburettor fed, catalytic convertered, counterparts.
Go and run your car in garage lol. I swear HN is infested with bots now.
It isn’t going to kill me via the route you suggest: by giving kids cancer.
It’s Christmas very shortly, try not to be this much of a cunt around you’re family.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The theory that the US government does those wars to keep oil prices high fits the timing way better than the opposite. I still thinks it's missing important details, but the US making wars to get more oil doesn't fit reality at all.
Venezuelan oil is more about US refineries that can only use very heavy oil, and US wells for such oil running out. Those refineries decided it is cheaper to bribe Trump than to invest into converting their factories. They are using US tax payer dolars (in a war with Venezuela) to avoid having to invest into their own conpanies.
Again, I don't think the explanation is linked to oil prices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct operation of a coal plant has global impact, and therefore coal should be phased out entirely. Absent that, when a coal plant goes badly wrong, the damage is small enough and localised enough to be affordable. When a nuclear plant goes wrong, the upper bound for error includes both Chrenobyl and also "unknown parties stole the radioisotopes" followed by terrorists repeating the Goiânia accident somewhere. Mak…
In the entire history of civil nuclear power "unknown parties stole the radioisotopes" has never happened. The Goiânia accident caused four deaths. The Chrenobyl reactors weren’t even housed in containment buildings, they were housed in what’s best described as a shed. Got any real complaints?
And why was that allowed? Because of quality regulation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Result first (kill anything not carbon-based), find rationale later. Same applies to how this admin forced layoffs at the green energy (hydro + nuclear) behemoth BPA [1] (which was funded entirely by ratepayers, not the federal government) then claimed an energy emergency to keep open coal plants serving the same geographies, coal plants that were already uneconomical and planned for shut down (or re-tooling to gas i…
>in service of one outcome - kill renewable energy. Also killing all humans, what idiots.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With something as serious as a nuclear reactor, I am OK with over regulation.
Over regulation of nuclear energy in the US made it so expensive we didn't replace all fossil fuels with it.
It's a heavy capex business with very small marginal returns, that takes planning on the order of decades.
AKA, a US company's worst nightmare. Investors don't like that shit, they like half-baked software that code monkeys can pump out.
The US doesn't want to piss off all the USO's zipping around underwater.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the entire history of civil nuclear power "unknown parties stole the radioisotopes" has never happened. The Goiânia accident caused four deaths. The Chrenobyl reactors weren’t even housed in containment buildings, they were housed in what’s best described as a shed. Got any real complaints?
> The Chrenobyl reactors weren’t even housed in containment buildings, they were housed in what’s best described as a shed. And why was that allowed? Because of quality regulation?
Others I guess the answer to your question is: fuckwit communists were running the place at the time.