Politics

[Tobbeh99]

Y, as an update to this. I read some article, claiming that it is possible to replace nuclear power with sun power (at least here in Sweden). And have the same result in energy production. I don't know if it's true, maybe, maybe not. I also asked in a environmentalist facebook-group what they thought about it (and also if they thought that coal, gas and nuclear energy had any benefits whatsoever, or if they just plain out sucked). And I got some interesting answers. A lot of people were quite into the gen-4 nuclear reactors and thorium reactors. Some people mentioned the cons with water and wind on the fauna. And, which I didn't think about, that sun energy demands precious metals in order to be built. So y, interesting topic. I think that the renewable energy sources are far better, but nuclear energy being the best non-renewable energy as it has less impact and also seem to get better and safer with time. Coal is completely of the table.

[Trasdegi]

My opinion: in the future, we'll replace the old fission nuclear power with new fusion nuclear power. One of the big problem with fission: what do you do with waste that will be radioactive for the next millions years? With nuclear fusion, you can inflate balloons with what the power plant produce.

[Tobbeh99]

I've heard that you can even use the waste in newer nuclear plants (don't know how true that is, haven't dug deep into it and I'm no expert). That does make it a lot better. But otherwise it's the classic "burrow it down really really deep, and it'll go away with time", which just sucks.

[Maelstrom]

Fusion reactors probably won't happen our lifetime without major breakthroughs. The tech is nowhere near where it needs to be. The fuel has to be artificially created, and then kept at near sun-like conditions and produce a net gain in energy. That last part won't be fixed for ages. Yeah, we can do fusion, but it's practically impossible to actually gain energy from it.

[Trainer Ave]

maybe currently but I would keep a lid on what i say will be impossible for the future. 50 years ago people would have said that it'd be impossible to talk on a phone without wires and carry your entire music collection in your pocket.

[Dudeman]

Hence the:

without major breakthroughs.

[PlayfulPiano]

My opinion: in the future, we'll replace the old fission nuclear power with new fusion nuclear power. One of the big problem with fission: what do you do with waste that will be radioactive for the next millions years? With nuclear fusion, you can inflate balloons with what the power plant produce.

In regards to fusion vs. fission, the biggest reason why we don't use fusion is that we cannot control the process once it starts. It'll have to use its fuel up completely before we can do any changes. With fission, we can control the reaction to the extent to stop it if something occurs, or regulate it if it is producing more than we can consume.

In regards to the waste from fission reactors, here's an interesting xkcd about that actually:
https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/

[Trasdegi]

In regards to fusion vs. fission, the biggest reason why we don't use fusion is that we cannot control the process once it starts. It'll have to use its fuel up completely before we can do any changes. With fission, we can control the reaction to the extent to stop it if something occurs, or regulate it if it is producing more than we can consume.

In regards to the waste from fission reactors, here's an interesting xkcd about that actually:
https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/

Wasn't it the exact opposite? The problem of fission is to control the reaction, if anything goes wrong the reaction can go out of control and the reactor will explode. With fusion, the problem is to maintain the reaction, if there's a problem, them the reaction will immediately stop, because it won't have the necessary conditions anymore. That's the problem: as of now, we don't know how to maintain a reaction for enough time to produce energy with it.

[PlayfulPiano]

Wasn't it the exact opposite? The problem of fusion is to control the reaction, if anything goes wrong the reaction can go out of control and the reactor will explode. With fusion, the problem is to maintain the reaction, if there's a problem, them the reaction will immediately stop, because it won't have the necessary conditions anymore. That's the problem: as of now, we don't know how to maintain a reaction for enough time to produce energy with it.

Uh.. you said fusion twice.

[Trasdegi]

Whoops, the first one is fission

[Tobbeh99]

What do you guys think of Trump's executive orders, or EOs in general? Apparently Trump has signed doubled the amount Obama did in his first 200 days (http://nordic.businessinsider.com/how-many-executive-orders-trump-signed-obama-clinton-bush-2017-8), and it did make a lot of news in his early presidency. It's kind of unique to me, because here in Sweden, there's no equivalent. The prime minister doesn't have that great power, he has to work with the government, can't give orders on his own. I don't live in the US, so it doesn't affect me and I doesn't have all that much to really say about it. But I do think it's better if policy proposals go through some congress or some other process form, as I think it gets more thought-out and worked-out that way, rather than if the president does a direct order.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_executive_actions_by_Donald_Trump

[FireArrow]

I just find it extremely annoying that one the main arguments the republican platform used against obama was him abusing his power with exectuitive orders. Then they republicans get a guy in office and force their agenda in the exact same way. Like every poltician is gonna pretend to be high and might but at least be tactful about it >->

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

Obama actually signed very few executive orders in comparison to other presidents. Hell, the republican saint Ronald Reagan (peace-be-upon-him and may he live forever) himself signed more executive orders than Obama did.

Obama did break the record with pardons/commutations though, mostly to non violent drug offenders (a LONG overdue measure). He even was pretty moderate on that; he took the time to individually read every case rather than a blanket release (which is good obviously) but he only worked with federal inmates. While obviously he can't release state inmates, he could've put some pressure on individual states where it was necessary to get out some state inmates (the kind of thing FDR and Lyndon Johnson would do).

[swimswamit]

I mean, Trump can barely get anything through Congress even though his own party controls it.. I don't really blame him for going around it. He's got to get something done.

[blueflower999]

Haven't a large percentage of Trump's executive orders just been undoing Obama's