Universal Love TRTT Part 8: Random thoughts also sack Hinkley

[Kiss from a Rozee]

Why do you think he moved to Sydney

He followed his girlfriend there, who had previously refused to pay rent - while earning 10k a week when she chose to work - because she “didn’t choose the place”.

He is definitely primed for redpilling.

... or very real.

Oh he’s very real, though I hope never to talk to him again.

 

[NoddyHolder]

2019 The Status Quo election. Bugger all has changed in an overall picture.

Most independents holding on to their seats, government won seat off an independent and another lost to an independent. Government wins 4 seats and loses 1, maybe 1 more changes hand. Two party preferred votes changes by less than half a percent over the whole country.

Just gotta find the right Status Quo song now. Although Shorten, Abbott and few others get Down, Down.

Whatever You Want

 

[noffle]

Besides which, the ‘cost’ argument is frustrating given how many billions have been poured into wind, solar, batteries and neon lobsters to barely touch the sides of the problem at hand.

How much did Elon Musk’s boondoggle cost for three quarters of a breath of power in the event a purple unicorn sneezed in the direction of Largs?

How’s Germany’s world leading™ Energiewende going, as they fire up filthy lignite power stations to make good the shortfall from Helen Lovejoying perfectly good existing nuclear plants and are missing their trumpeted emissions targets.

If only we could convert related backslapping and cufflinked handshaking into energy.

The big battery cost $90m and has provided stability to the grid, saved us from load-shedding in August of last year, and made back a third of its cost in its first year. It was never about how much power it could hold, it is meant to work together with renewables and I'm not sure what you're criticising.

The big difference between renewables and nuclear is that you can spend $200m on a solar energy project and have it up and running within a year generating revenue. You have a whole industry full of different renewable energy companies building different projects and competing with eachother. A nuclear plant would cost ~100 times more, take ~10 times longer and it's probably not going to be cheaper than renewables anyway. And that's just one plant – you guys are talking about making Australia largely nuclear based. That's an insane amount of risky investment required – who is going to fund these projects when they're probably going to be undercut by renewables anyway? Being pro-nuclear because you're anti-hysteria is fine and contrarian but it doesn't make sense economically, let alone the fact that a lot of the hysteria in countries like Germany is probably justified post-Fukushima.

 

[Kiss from a Rozee]

There is a degree of hypocrisy if you say its alright to kill an unborn child, yet its not ok to kill someone who has gone and murdered 70 people in Norway, because we have to be compassionate in a civilized world. He deserves the death penalty.

I take the attitude that both, are acceptable in limited circumstances.

Abortion isn’t an unborn child it’s most of the time a heavier period.

When it is a late term abortion it’s almost always because birth is a huge health risk to the mother (often potentially fatal) and likely to be a miscarriage anyway.

The hypocrisy is that an “unborn child” is worth more than the life of the mother, let alone their right to not give birth if they don’t want to.

That said, anti-abortion and anti-birth control movements are in a huge way a form of population control. Often a white nationalist form.

Think about it, the US right wing is focused on reducing immigration while reducing women’s rights to not give birth. It’s not very difficult to connect the dots on that one.

I do believe it mostly comes down to people who hate poor people and minorities trying to salvage their morality by defending the most innocent human possible - the unborn child. When someone wants refugees gunned down at the border, and arab countries nuked out of existence its hard to take their “pro-life” stance all that serious.

 

[Rexie J]

Curettes were very popular in the 1960's, not so much theses days.

 

[Forzaport]

Right on cue Bill Gates tweets his 2cents (read the blog link):

 

[tribey]

The big battery cost $90m and has provided stability to the grid, saved us from load-shedding in August of last year, and made back a third of its cost in its first year. It was never about how much power it could hold, it is meant to work together with renewables and I'm not sure what you're criticising.

‘Stabilised the grid’ is ambitious. It takes up the slack in (very) short bursts, but it won’t prevent a catastrophic failure of the network which it was built in response to.

The big difference between renewables and nuclear is that you can spend $200m on a solar energy project and have it up and running within a year generating revenue. You have a whole industry full of different renewable energy companies building different projects and competing with eachother. A nuclear plant would cost ~100 times more, take ~10 times longer and it's probably not going to be cheaper than renewables anyway. And that's just one plant – you guys are talking about making Australia largely nuclear based. That's an insane amount of risky investment required – who is going to fund these projects when they're probably going to be undercut by renewables anyway? Being pro-nuclear because you're anti-hysteria is fine and contrarian but it doesn't make sense economically,

The ‘economic’ argument for renewables only makes sense insomuch as we’ve blown 30+ years wringing our hands on a perfectly viable option while pumping hundreds of millions of tons of greenhouse gases and associated pollutants (coal ash is radioactive but who cares lol) into the atmosphere and oceans.

Not to mention the artificial leg up given to renewables that still rely on costly solutions and the status quo of fossil fuel when the wind’s not blowing and the sun’s not shining.

let alone the fact that a lot of the hysteria in countries like Germany is probably justified post-Fukushima.

Not a lot of catastrophic earthquakes followed by freak tsunamis hitting Europe any time soon.

More people are killed extracting coal in China in a given week than ever died at Chernobyl (not to mention the hundreds of thousands who die each year due to poor air quality), but eh, actual deaths are far more palatable than ‘potential cancers’.

 

[tribey]

Right on cue Bill Gates tweets his 2cents (read the blog link):

Ergo, 100% emission free should be the goal, not 100% renewables.

 

[Eddie Dingle]

Billy Sortens last two very poor campaigns were both scare campaigns.

Mediscare and then, kill the rich.

Failed at both the useless campaigner.

 

[Kiss from a Rozee]

Billy Sortens last two very poor campaigns were both scare campaigns.

Mediscare and then, kill the rich.

Failed at both the useless campaigner.

I dunno that they were scare campaigns but they were definitely very negative and visionless.

 

[tribey]

Because as we've all just been painfully reminded of, scare campaigns work. The first major political party to come out in support of nuclear will have Chernobyl imagery filled attack ads against them plastered all over TV within the week.

Ever seen the final season of The West Wing?

Here’s one. Why would he be grinning tho

 

[Eddie Dingle]

I dunno that they were scare campaigns but they were definitely very negative and visionless.

Telling people Medicare was going to be changed/shut down is a scare campaign.

I actually don’t think he knew what he was trying to scare people from apart from himself this time.

 

[Grave Danger]

Because as we've all just been painfully reminded of, scare campaigns work. The first major political party to come out in support of nuclear will have Chernobyl imagery filled attack ads against them plastered all over TV within the week.

Ever seen the final season of The West Wing?

Yellow birthday cake, if you will.

 

[Eddie Dingle]

View attachment 677462

Here’s one. Why would he be grinning tho

Because he knows people are stupid

 

[edgie]

Just quietly I'm looking forward to the GoT outrage instead of politics in this thread.

Seems like GoT is becoming the Mass Effect of TV shows.

 

[Schulzenfest]

Billy Sortens last two very poor campaigns were both scare campaigns.

Mediscare and then, kill the rich.

Failed at both the useless campaigner.

Nah. 2016 was a scare campaign from Labor against a nonexistent 'Mediscare', 2019 was a scare campaign from the Libs against misrepresented and/or nonexistent taxes. Labor did better in 2016 than anyone was expecting, the Libs did better in 2019 than anyone was expecting. Whatever side of politics you're on, that's deeply depressing. Policy doesn't win elections, making up bullshit about the other side wins elections.

 

[edgie]

Liberal's scare campaign of people maybe not having as much financial worth and assets as they did previously certainly worked, even on those with nothing to lose. Getting the people to vote against their best interests is both remarkable and also unremarkable - people are, after all, not bright in large groups.

That's why Mediscare didn't work.

Those well off enough didn't care, they have private health, but everybody cares about not getting quite as much money as they have in the past.

All those who gain power are afraid to lose it.

 

[bomberclifford]

View attachment 677462

Here’s one. Why would he be grinning tho

He looks like someone who pronounces it new-KEW-lar

 

[Garibaldi Red]

2019 The Status Quo election. Bugger all has changed in an overall picture.

Most independents holding on to their seats, government won seat off an independent and another lost to an independent. Government wins 4 seats and loses 1, maybe 1 more changes hand. Two party preferred votes changes by less than half a percent over the whole country.

Just gotta find the right Status Quo song now. Although Shorten, Abbott and few others get Down, Down.

I liked Noddys Whatever you Want but there is also


Again and Again (and again and again and again) or
Down the Dustpipe which mentions a $10 Bill (a lot of Shorten Haters refer to him as Dollar Bill) and then mentions "lotta lunatics, crazy ghostmen, baby don't like the shape of my nose" which could be somewhat a reflection of the dislike for Shorten.

 

[edgie]

It's largely irrelevant now anyway. Even if we voted today to allow nuclear power in Aus, it'd take 10 years to set up the regulatory arrangements and secure tender, and another 10 years to build the thing. By then supporting technologies for renewables, batteries in particular, will be more economical.

And I'm saying this as a big nuclear advocate. We needed to make the decision in the 90's - the fact that we'd be starting the industry from scratch costs us 10-15 years now.

You're bloody optimistic if you think no matter how economical and achievable it becomes Australia will have a reliance on renewables in 15 to 20 years.

 

[It Just Is]

Ergo, 100% emission free should be the goal, not 100% renewables.

This is perfect juncture for the scare campaign and carbon emissions discussions to merge.

You are talking about the same green left who are every bit as responsible for destroying the emissions trading scheme as Tony Abbott and his “great big tax on everything”. I wonder if they ever stop to think how issues like Adani would be framed today if they had got behind a policy for genuine environmental and economic reform when they had the chance, or are they too busy heckling people buying a steak for dinner.

 

[Arthur Dunger]

Sir Joh would be having a bit of a giggle.

 

[noffle]

‘Stabilised the grid’ is ambitious. It takes up the slack in (very) short bursts, but it won’t prevent a catastrophic failure of the network which it was built in response to.

Well to prevent a catastrophic failure it has only has to help power the grid for 5 minutes before the back-up generators kick in, and it has already prevented load shedding.

The ‘economic’ argument for renewables only makes sense insomuch as we’ve blown 30+ years wringing our hands on a perfectly viable option while pumping hundreds of millions of tons of greenhouse gases and associated pollutants (coal ash is radioactive but who cares lol) into the atmosphere and oceans.

Not to mention the artificial leg up given to renewables that still rely on costly solutions and the status quo of fossil fuel when the wind’s not blowing and the sun’s not shining.

Nuclear may well have been a viable option to reduce emissions 20-30+ years ago, but it would have required huge government subsidies in order to compete with coal. I agree that we have been slow on action, but people are talking about nuclear today and economically it just does not compete with renewables in Australia.

Not a lot of catastrophic earthquakes followed by freak tsunamis hitting Europe any time soon.

More people are killed extracting coal in China in a given week than ever died at Chernobyl (not to mention the hundreds of thousands who die each year due to poor air quality), but eh, actual deaths are far more palatable than ‘potential cancers’.

Ignoring the cancer deaths, the cleanup of the meltdown is going to cost something like $270bn. Meltdowns are bad. Most of the German reactors are of a similar vintage to Fukushima, and with a similar focus on safety and standards. While it's true that there are fewer events that could trigger a meltdown in Germany, they still exist – see the 1999 Blayais flood. To keep these older plants running they almost definitely would have needed to spend money on upgrading their safety and there was little public appetite for nuclear.

 

[Kiss from a Rozee]

This is perfect juncture for the scare campaign and carbon emissions discussions to merge.

You are talking about the same green left who are every bit as responsible for destroying the emissions trading scheme as Tony Abbott and his “great big tax on everything”. I wonder if they ever stop to think how issues like Adani would be framed today if they had got behind a policy for genuine environmental and economic reform when they had the chance, or are they too busy heckling people buying a steak for dinner.

I actually think history shows the Greens were right to oppose the carbon trading whatever that Labor were proposing.

It would have acheived * all.

 

[tribey]

Meltdowns are bad.

Everything else taken as comment, absolute worst case scenarios for everything are bad.

When you place the statistically minuscule risk of meltdown alongside the reality of climate change, coral bleaching, glacial and ice cap recession, air/oceanic pollution and everything betwixt and between, it sounds like an anti-vaxxer being okay with polio, measles and cervical cancer because of anaphylaxis.