Trump - Biden Debate Part Deaux...

How many transport ships exist and how fast do we need to build them? Ask yourself why we only have nuclear engines on aircraft carriers or nuclear submarines.

Don't you people also love to hate on how much of the US federal budget is spent on national defense?

Gotcha, you want the USFG to subsidize the shipping industry to replace their ships with nuclear engines instead. Good job! It's still a shitty plan but you got there!

Now tell me how you're going to replace tires, feed Vegas/Atlanta, and produce food for these huge metropolitan areas. You're still targeting 2050 to be carbon neutral?

If you don't want to do any of this -- I don't even know why you started. Perhaps you're the one b****ing because you don't have an answer. That's fine, nobody has answers to these questions. But it does show your emotional quality is garbage.

 

and Submarines.....

 

Biden is aiming for Carbon Neutral. Natural Gas is hydrocarbons, fossil fuels.

Electricity is only energy from another source of energy. You know where most of it comes from in the USA, this is google-able.

I'll agree that it's not new. You're not answering any of the questions.

 

Yes. All for national defense. Which are expensive af.

 

Why I don’t disagree with your point of fossil fuels being replaceable. However it will not be nuclear tech as it is expensive to maintain ships with nuclear tech. Also, once a ship is decommissioned, storage becomes a issue for the reactor. Ships and submarines with reactors still have lifelines.

 

Within 15 years, technology like solid state batteries will be further along in development that will allow for energy storage solutions for renewables that will allow them to sustain base loads for large metropolitan areas.

Hence why the gradual process. It's to allow for research and development that will make other sources viable. No one is saying they are viable today, hence the transition phase.

And massive government subsidies are needed because the vast majority of Oil and gas companies are publicly traded which means there is little insentive for them to invest in something that is 10-20 years away from being profitable due to the nature of how people invest in publicly traded companies(they are all short term investments were people want a return on investment as soon as possible).

A common misconception of renewables is that they don't produce enough energy. The reality is that they do. It's just we don't have long term energy storage solutions for these renewables. We can't currently do that with lithium ion batteries due to degradation.

 

We are assuming innovation and economies of scale. We are assuming a transitional time frame. We are advocating a new path recognizing future needs. Just a frame of reference difference. If you haven't been laid off yet, it won't be Biden that causes it. More likely it will be the price war between Russia and Saudi.

This Tiny Nuclear Reactor Will Change Energy—and Now It's Officially Safe
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a33896110/tiny-nuclear-reactor-government-approval/

 

3 billion dollars.

 

To an earlier post here... about... Nuclear Transport ships....

what will happen when one of those sinks? Oh hey what about piracy and terrorists getting a hold of those?

Also why are the leftists here soo ******* extreme on everything. DO AWAY WITH FOSSIL FUEL. NUCLEAR TRANSPORTS!

Calm the F down. You can slowly invest in renewables as the tech grows, but to suggest we do away with fossil fuels would screw the economy and is impossible. There are so many complexities but people want to take these stupid positions.

 

economies of scale

What did you pay for your first flat screen
what would it cost now?

like that

To illustrate the effect of rising fuel costs, consider the following example of a large modern container vessel used in Trans-Pacific trade, with an actual, maximum container capacity of 7,750 TEUs (twenty foot equivalents) or 3,875 FEUs (forty foot equivalents.) With the cost of bunker fuel at $552 per ton, and with fuel consumption of 217 tons per day, a single 28-day round trip voyage for this one vessel would produce a fuel bill of $3,353,952. This number could be greater for a number of reasons, such as if the voyage were more than 14 days long, or if the vessel were smaller and less fuel-efficient per container, or if scheduling delays required the vessel to speed up to stay on-schedule.

 

How 16 ships create as much pollution as all the cars in the world
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html

 

Subsidies will solve all. That's an ex machina. And unfortunately that's how it will happen, and I'm not even going to start thinking about where that budget will be allocated.

Biden will strike down O&G anyway, though. This point will continuously remain. Also subsidies.

 

Yup. Nobody cares where the food comes from, they just stuff it into their mouths.

 

I'd agree the tech is promising. I'm very skeptical of them saying it can't melt down, and I don't have the time right now to read through how they're guaranteeing this.

But economies of scale is very stretched for energy. I get it, it's an analogy that applies, but it's stretched. It's even more stretched due to the disasters prior for nuclear energy.

 

Greta cares.

 

So no nuance. Tax money allows you to instantly transmit your shitty takes over thousands of miles because tax money is what got us the TCP/ip packet switching protocol that is the backbone of the modern internet.

Once battery storage solutions become more viable such as solid state batteries, renewables will sky rocket as then they would be able to sustain base loads in cities. We need investment in this tech before some foreign company or government refines it first or else they will have all the leverage in our energy demands.

 

Not a shitty take. I'm just not even going to bother with your stubborn ass who thinks Harden should move his feet.

 

Got it. So you really have nothing here. K.

 

Nope! I told you. I'm just not going to bother with YOU. Because your logic stems from doing nothing but subsidies.

I already said it's an ex machina, you ignored it, just like how you ignored "move your feet" is a line from a dad at a JV game.

 

Well seeing as we already have signifcant investments in technology that is promising such as solid state batteries, yes subsidies are pretty much the final push to eventually make them viable. This isn't some magic pipe dream of hoping for nuclear fusion in the near term. Oil and gas companies aren't going to invest in these technologies nearly as much as they should because that's not how they will maximize profits for the short term which is the primary goal of publicly traded companies. So if they don't have the incentive, the American voter should. Because at least when people vote, they care more about long term interests than when they buy stock shares.

Subsidies and investing in these upcoming technologies is paramount to energy independence also. Because you have to keep in mind how many other countries are trying to create the future of energy storage.