That's what molten salt reactors are good at, burning up expended nuclear fuel.Have any studies been done on recycling nuclear waste? Re enriching it so that we can reuse it in reactors?
There is reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, but most countries banned it due to pressure from anti-nuke greens.Have any studies been done on recycling nuclear waste? Re enriching it so that we can reuse it in reactors?
Well, what was once banned can be un-banned.There is reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, but most countries banned it due to pressure from anti-nuke greens.
Yet more reason for me to absolutely despise the man. Seriously, Obama was a far worse president than either his predecessor, or his successor; the only thing he had going for him was his charisma, which itself was blown out of proportion by a mainstream media hellbent on propping him up like some kind of messiah. I swear; if there is any justice left in the world, history is not going to remember the man with anywhere near the reverence his worshipers would like to believe it will, if it remembers him at all beyond him being the first black US president.Nuclear power has been too vilified for it to happen. In USA for example, you can't even store the spent fuel properly, because Obama forbade the use of the new, purpose built, nuclear refuse depot.
And as i said before, things can change.Nuclear power has been too vilified for it to happen. In USA for example, you can't even store the spent fuel properly, because Obama forbade the use of the new, purpose built, nuclear refuse depot.
His legacy is already sealed with the loss of Ukraine's Crimea, not closing Guantamano Bay, involving himself with more silly wars in Libya and Syria followed by the conequences of pulling out of Iraq when the Daesh horde rose.Yet more reason for me to absolutely despise the man. Seriously, Obama was a far worse president than either his predecessor, or his successor; the only thing he had going for him was his charisma, which itself was blown out of proportion by a mainstream media hellbent on propping him up like some kind of messiah. I swear; if there is any justice left in the world, history is not going to remember the man with anywhere near the reverence his worshipers would like to believe it will, if it remembers him at all beyond him being the first black US president.
Well it seems the younger GOP members are not interested in denying there are issues to address and want to try to get the GOP into as much of the driver seat as possible on the subject.
You seemed to have missed the part where younger GOP members disagree with your stance, want to be active and engaged on this issue, and are trying to reach back to the GOP that created the Nat'l Parks and the EPA so that the Right can actually curb the dumbest rad-green ideas.The problem is that doing a light, trimmed down version of what greens demanded does not constitute "getting into the driver seat", it's just something that will make no one happy.
No one cares about what young GOP members think, do they proportionally represent GOP voters? The article you've linked suggests that... not so much.You seemed to have missed the part where younger GOP members disagree with your stance,
That makes it sound like if they should join Sierra Club or Greenpeace to get their environmental activist bug out of the system (where they would indeed serve to curb the dumbest rad-green ideas, that's where these ideas rule after all), not GOP, where their job is to represent the interest of the country and their voters, and where dumbest rad-green ideas were already considered something between a joke and act of treason.want to be active and engaged on this issue, and are trying to reach back to the GOP that created the Nat'l Parks and the EPA so that the Right can actually curb the dumbest rad-green ideas.
And here you happen to take the aim at the core issue of the problem but forget to take the shot.Just being cynical and doubtful about environmental issues gets us nowhere, and the youth are not going to let the mindset of the old/establishment GOP dictate future GOP environmental views/policies/demands.
And thank you for a wonderful example of why the GOP has failed so badly in the culture war.No one cares about what young GOP members think, do they proportionally represent GOP voters? The article you've linked suggests that... not so much.
That makes it sound like if they should join Sierra Club or Greenpeace to get their environmental activist bug out of the system (where they would indeed serve to curb the dumbest rad-green ideas, that's where these ideas rule after all), not GOP, where their job is to represent the interest of the country and their voters, and where dumbest rad-green ideas were already considered something between a joke and act of treason.
And here you aim at the core issue of the problem but forget to take the shot.
Too much promotion of extreme green ideas in schools, media, and other means of influencing young people who have no way to know better.
This is where GOP should pick this fight, not trying to compromise with these ideas.
My point exactly. They are losing the culture war around the subject, not the pragmatic argument around the matter of the subject - as in what environmental policy serves the national interest best. The problem is that cultural institutions indoctrinate young people to consider the green ideological compliance of this policy over national interests.And thank you for a wonderful example of why the GOP has failed so badly in the culture war.
If you don't make a convincing argument why the GOP should compromise with the main green narrative about climate change, then of course i won't be convinced. I think said narrative is highly politicized, and inherently designed to put pragmatic interests of developed western countries last. While i want them to be put first.I've come to realize that people like you are why it took so long for a GOP form this new climate caucus, and that there is no point debating this issue with you, because you will never admit the GOP needs the change that this caucus represents.
See, that's the thing, I have tried multiple times to convince you in this thread and others, using multiple sources ces and angles of argument, and none except concerns about forest fires has done anything to convince you.My point exactly. They are losing the culture war around the subject, not the pragmatic argument around the matter of the subject - as in what environmental policy serves the national interest best. The problem is that cultural institutions indoctrinate young people to consider the green ideological compliance of this policy over national interests.
Or in other words, the real problem is in dominance of media/education around environmental policy, not the policy itself.
If you don't make a convincing argument why the GOP should compromise with the main green narrative about climate change, then of course i won't be convinced. I think said narrative is highly politicized, and inherently designed to put pragmatic interests of developed western countries last. While i want them to be put first.
Well then contrary to what you said it is not impossible, just very hard. Or your arguments are lacking.See, that's the thing, I have tried multiple times to convince you in this thread and others, using multiple sources ces and angles of argument, and none except concerns about forest fires has done anything to convince you.
Because the truth is, you don't want to be convinced, you just want the GOP to ignore and stonewall nearly any environmental legislation.
Yes, that's what i was saying, take a step back and look at it from a distance - what's the deal with sudden rise of "environmentally minded young people"? Where did they come from, why weren't young people like this before, why does this new generation of young people want such things?However, thanks to this new caucus, it's now obvious that environmentally minded young people are becoming a force in the GOP.
Makes me wonder if they would agree with Roosevelt also on things that would be outrageous by today's democrat and RINO standards.They seem to want a more Roosevelt, less Reagan, GOP, which is a very good thing for the future of the GOP.
The problem is that doing a light, trimmed down version of what greens demanded does not constitute "getting into the driver seat", it's just something that will make no one happy.
I agree that nuclear is the most environmentally friendly form of energy production, something the rad-greens and oil companies HATE.Yeah, the issue with these things is that so much of it isn't presenting conservative or right-wing environmentalist positions, it's just trying to get Strange New Respect by conceding positions, and trying to become an authority on which positions to concede. There's little in the way of genuinely novel or even infrequently considered ideas. It's just going through what the left wants, and then picking stuff to concede on. That's not a winning strategy, even with environmentally minded people - because if they like democrat policy, why get the diet version?
Also, a lot of it feels super astroturfed and in bed with the most dead-end establishment GOP types.
A successful right-wing environmentalist movement has to be distinct and in active opposition to left-wing environmentalism, and ideally *actively toxic* to the left and the establishment.
For instance, I think it might be interesting to propose a restructuring of federal land, reducing federal land in the West (where there's far too much, Nevada is more than 80% federal land) and increasing it in the East (where there's comparatively little).
Nuclear, and in particular Yucca mountain is also a good place to start here. IFLS types are typically pretty pro-nuclear, but there's plenty of the dem coalition and particularly their old guard which is reflexively anti-nuclear, and Yucca mountain specifically is a massive F you to reid and anyone who owes reid any favors, so they basically have to fight it. Which is what we should want.
However, Yucca Mountain...that's an issue with both Reid and a...mislocated fault in the mountain which seriously reduces it's effectiveness as a nuclear storage depot.
However if we get molten-salt/thorium reactors going, we can just 'burn' the nuclear waste from other reactors in those, instead of needing a storage facility like Yucca.