The Political Discussion Thread

[Coco Pops]

So why don't we have nuclear powered cars?

They did explore this idea in the 1950s and things like Thorium are around so is it a cost / practicality issue? Sure there is an issue with waste but since such a car would run for 10 years or more on one fuel source the waste issue seems kind of weak IMHO..

[Gatefan1976]

The overarching issue is that several times, the government has rendered the fuel supply harmful to a lot of hardware already in service.

That hardware was harmful to PEOPLE!!
That hardware was OUTDATED!!
I'm sorry, but I am not going to cry a river over weather you can still have your "kewl classic car/boat/engine" to the detriment of the health of other people.

They did not phase it out over a 20 or some odd year period to let the existing equipment run out its useful lifespan anyway. They just told anyone who had such existing equipment that it sucks to be you.

They started in 1970, began full scale changes in 1975 and it was not until 1993 that the last manufacture of lead replacement additives stopped mass producing it, so YES they did phase it out over time, and if 23 years is not long enough for you, well yeah, sucks to be you. This is in America mind you, other places did it far, far quicker.

So I'm not going to be all that surprised if some left wing idiot gets into government and wants to ban gasoline, regardless of whether there is an acceptable replacement available. The govt. has a demonstrated track record of telling people that their hardware is now obsolete.

And I will continue to not be surprised that right wing idiots simply don't know what they are talking about, and could not be bothered to educate themselves on the issues they claim to care about.
I guess that's why the notion of fact checking is considered "unfair" in some right wing circles. (don't believe me, fact check me)

[Gatefan1976]

So why don't we have nuclear powered cars?

They did explore this idea in the 1950s and things like Thorium are around so is it a cost / practicality issue? Sure there is an issue with waste but since such a car would run for 10 years or more on one fuel source the waste issue seems kind of weak IMHO..

Unfortunately the Thorium car is bust dude, at least for now as we lack the tech to make it safe. As for waste, As much as I am for energy advancements, there is no point making the quick fix mistake again, doing more damage in the long term than any short term gains.

[Coco Pops]

Unfortunately the Thorium car is bust dude, at least for now as we lack the tech to make it safe. As for waste, As much as I am for energy advancements, there is no point making the quick fix mistake again, doing more damage in the long term than any short term gains.

Oh bummer. I read some stuff last year hyping the benefits of thorium reactors.

[Gatefan1976]

Oh bummer. I read some stuff last year hyping the benefits of thorium reactors.

They are -great- dude, don't get me wrong, we just need to do more work on making them safe, and dealing with the side effects of their use and waste products.
Like I said, I don't want a repeat of stuff like lead in fuel, or refridgeration gasses where we find the "magic bullet" on the cheap and don't bother to fully research the side effects.

[thekillman]

Oh bummer. I read some stuff last year hyping the benefits of thorium reactors.

Thorium at least in theory should fuse just as well as Uranium with similar energy gains, and it's more common. Furthermore, thorium can not actively fuse. That is, Uranium produces more neutrons per collision than is used up. Thorium however produces fewer. So, if the neutron source is shut down (due to whatever reason), the reaction will immediately die down.

A thorium reactor is thus incapable of melting down, literally. The downside is that it thus needs active neutron bombardment to fuse. Given the problematic image of nuclear power, Thorium could be the method to bring nuclear power back into a more positive light.

The answer to "if it's that good, why did nobody think of this earlier?" is that Thorium doesn't produce plutonium, so it's useless for nuke production, and that was a big deal 30-50 years ago when most of these reactors were built.

So why don't we have nuclear powered cars?

We can barely get people to tolerate nuclear powerplants with meters of concrete to protect the reactors. Unless there's some huge turnaround in the public opinion on nuclear energy, there's no way in hell we'll ever get nuclear cars.

The other part of the equation is that nuclear powered cars would have maintenance problems (every car shop would need to be trained in the handling of nuclear material), the radiation would be difficult to shield without huge weight penalties, and again handling nuclear material would impose significant costs across the board. (transport, refuelling, handling, crash cleanups, repair and replacement in general and not ****ing up delicate machinery)

They are -great- dude, don't get me wrong, we just need to do more work on making them safe, and dealing with the side effects of their use and waste products.
Like I said, I don't want a repeat of stuff like lead in fuel, or refridgeration gasses where we find the "magic bullet" on the cheap and don't bother to fully research the side effects.

Well the problematic image of nuclear power has killed a lot of development in this area. Now that we'll need a reliable power alternative to offset the variable power of solar panels and windmills, nuclear power is an ideal candidate.

Furthermore, fusion-fission hybrid reactors could be the solution to the waste problem, since the intense neutron bombardment from the fusion torus completely destroys any heavy atom. (and pretty much all light atoms are lightly radioactive or not at all)

[Annoyed]

And I will continue to not be surprised that right wing idiots simply don't know what they are talking about, and could not be bothered to educate themselves on the issues they claim to care about.
I guess that's why the notion of fact checking is considered "unfair" in some right wing circles. (don't believe me, fact check me)

And I will continue to expect that those on the left continue to base their decisions upon how they wish the world was, rather than how it is.

Here's another idea for you to ponder. The 1960's was the heyday of "muscle cars" in the US. Very large, high horsepower engines in small, light bodies that were priced affordably.
Automotive insurance businesses, (moneyed interests) as well as government agencies were staunchly opposed to this trend. They had legitimate points; in the hands of a moron, these cars could be deadly, but it's not (or should not be) the government's place to dictate what type of car people should be able to drive, so they were legally constrained from legislating against them directly. So how to go about taking them off the highways anyway, without legal authority to do so directly?

How about technical emissions requirements that substantially detuned these engines, reducing their power output considerably? How about 5 mph bumper requirements, along with side impact protection as well as a host of other requirements which added weight and reduced power?

Isn't it funny that all of this came about at the exact same time that government & big money interests wanted to get rid of muscle cars?
Yes, I know, I can't prove any of this. But when it comes to government, I don't believe in coincidences.

[Falcon Horus]

Not to worry, Trump wants to bring back coal.

[jelgate]

Trump wants to do a lot of things that are never going to happen

[Annoyed]

This is true. Some of his ideas are just plain nuts. Such as want to allow Japan to build nuclear weapons.
But he's still way, way better than Clinton.
And he might just remake the Republican party into something which stands for the rank and file right of center voter, rather than the business interests which hold the party's leash as it stands now.

[aretood2]

Trump wants to do a lot of things that are never going to happen

Does he understand the separation of powers? Better yet, does his flock understand the separation of powers? BTW, any of you who were born in the 60's in the USA or are citizens of the USA, I hold you personally responsible for this sham of an election year. I hope you're all pleased with yourselves.

[thekillman]

And he might just remake the Republican party into something which stands for the rank and file right of center voter, rather than the business interests which hold the party's leash as it stands now.

I wouldn't trust a businessman to change that.

Regarding hillary clinton, i'm honestly surprised someone under such investigations can run for president (and successfully even!)

[Annoyed]

I wouldn't trust a businessman to change that.

Regarding hillary clinton, i'm honestly surprised someone under such investigations can run for president (and successfully even!)

You might think that, and I can understand why. But the plain fact is that the left doesn't really care about the integrity of their standard-bearers, as long as they promise to keep the free goodies flowing.
If you recall, Bill Clinton successful ran for re-election at the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. And if a Republican President had pulled half the shenanigans that the LSoS has pulled, nearly every media outlet and pundit in the country would have been wanting his head on a spike, let alone impeachment.

[Annoyed]

Does he understand the separation of powers? Better yet, does his flock understand the separation of powers? BTW, any of you who were born in the 60's in the USA or are citizens of the USA, I hold you personally responsible for this sham of an election year. I hope you're all pleased with yourselves.

I certainly will be if he wins.

If he does win by more than a few percentage points, he will have a legitimate claim to a "mandate from the people" considering the overwhelming strength of support from the voters in the primaries so far.
If that happens, he will likely have a Republican congress (House & Senate) who will go along with him; they might not want to oppose such a mandate.

[jelgate]

Does he understand the separation of powers? Better yet, does his flock understand the separation of powers? BTW, any of you who were born in the 60's in the USA or are citizens of the USA, I hold you personally responsible for this sham of an election year. I hope you're all pleased with yourselves.

All Trump understands are his one-liner insults