He’s 100% on point… and then he says “vote democrat.”
The democrats under biden deported 2x the immigrants that trump did in his first term. They didn’t reverse a single thing that trump did. The concentration camps for kids on the border stayed there. The wall kept getting built. They had enough seats both houses to make Rode v Wade law but instead they let the SC ruling stand.
What makes him think that the democrats will roll back ice funding and stop shooting people in the streets? They’ve never done anything to roll back republican policy before. At best democrats maintain things as they are but more often than not they actually quietly expand those same policy decisions. Just go look at the deportations under each presidential administration. Every president is worse than the one before. Voting Democrat might make things look and feel less hostile to white people but it will not make anyone else more safe and it will not make anything better.
The Americans need better than what they have. But your statement basically says, that voting against the Nazis is ineffective.
Americans are in this mess because they didn’t vote against Nazis. If you can fix the system (which you guys absolutely should be doing) at the bare minimum vote against Nazis.
That is Alex’s point in the video.
So genocide joe isn’t a nazi? You can’t fix the system all it produces is genocidal freaks. Alex’s point is wrong because he still thinks he can vote his way out of fascism. The bare minimum is to violently resist fascism voting is not helping anything.
tbf it’s what people who don’t organize can do at the very least. If you can’t make things better, do harm reduction; there’s a concrete date on the next election, but not the revolution. The country will not enact any changes simply because of low voter turnaround.
It isn’t harm reduction. the democrats do the exact same shit. The republicans push the envelope and the democrats maintain the situation. that isn’t reducing shit. Stop carrying water for genocide supporters.
I see it more as entertaining the kidnapper in a hostage situation. You go hard no and they shoot the hostage or you buy some time. Guess what, you still can organize under democrat rule, with slightly less risk of gestapo kicking down your doors even if it’s not 0
Also in the end it’s still a message from someone who is making content on YouTube. If you are going any more left you would use some more decentralized method to distribute your videos.
At least the Democrats will build solar and wind turbines, rather than actively tear them down.
oh great so the bombs they drop on children in tents will contribute less to climate change!
What’s your gameplan here? Make things as horrible as possible as quickly as possible so that people are made to act out of desperation?
Capitalism creates it’s own innate contradictions, you should be doing whatever you can to build a revolutionary base, so that when things go to shit and they will, inevitably, people will have you to run towards. if you don’t have a revolutionary party they will run to Tucker Carlson.
You know very well yourself that there is no revolutionary party in USA. What do you possibly hope to achieve by accelerationism? I can understand why non-Americans would want for your country to just disappear, but come on that’s just reactionary logic. It’s also unrealistic and won’t happen.
I honestly have no clue what the heck is going to happen with the US, but if the only way you can see a revolution happening is by pushing people into the fire forcefully, then nothin good is going to happen.
How do you get acceleration from what I said? The game plan is to organize a revolutionary party. People are already in the fire telling them to get back in the frying pan is psychotic.
Trump didn’t win the election the Democrats lost it. All they had to do was promise to end the genocide and they would have won. Fuck the democrats. Why are you standing up for genocidiars?
Can’t you see they want you to be angry and go online to argue with people instead of being out there and helping your own people become independent? Because I believe if American people had a say in their country’s destiny I don’t think most of you want to do these horrible things the government is doing.
But you need to start supporting each other more to accomplish that. Let go of the barbed wires loaded with arsenic are dividing you. Radically support your country to make it stop what it’s doing.
Again I don’t see how voting democrat is supposed to make things better. The guy in the video’s only response to the bipartisan drive towards blatant fascism is to vote for the party the is slightly less open about it. If anything good is going to happen americans need to recognize that the democrats are the problem as much as the republicans are. They are a ratcheting mechanism. The republicans make things worse and the democrats fortify those gains into the new normal while the republicans prepare the next offensive. If we want to make ground we have to attack the defensive lines not just defend against the offensive side. We will never win if we keep supporting the enemies defensive forces like they are on our side.
I 100% agree that americans need to be supporting one another but the democrats are the enemy of the working class every bit as much as the republicans.
I’m telling you that you should be using any power you have, to build your own power, and eventually you’d be able to overthrow your current one. As long as you can avoid becoming a monster yourself in the process.
But it’s like you’ve been conditioned to act like a spring board to escape this simple truth and I don’t blame you for it.
Like we’re dealing with real life here, not star wars, in the movies the rebels get help from some mysterious benevolent force, that help is never coming if you’re counting on that. USSR tried to be that, for that it was killed.
If you decide to stay at home and argue with people on Lemmy during the midterms, you’ll get both.
You will get both even if you vote in the midterms.
When the Dems had the presidency and majority in both houses they told you they couldn’t legislate abortion protections because of “the parliamentarian.” Even when they have the power to do the smallest thing to make america better for people they don’t.
Biden passed the inflation reduction act, which included massive subsidies for renewable energy.
Trump revoked permission for an offshore windfarm that was 90% complete as retaliation against Denmark for not selling Greenland.
Massive subsidies for billionaires to make renewable electricity? As the video points out renewables are proven to be cheaper than fossil fuel energy. There is no need to subsidize a competitive product. All biden did was steal money that belonged to the taxpayers and give it to his friends that were building renewables. That is not a win.
Trump canceled a wind farm as pressure for imperialist expansion with no regard for the effects of climate change. Biden used climate change as cover to steal money for his friends. They both suck.
They both covered in the blood of children. THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS YOU DON"T HAVE TO SUPPORT MURDERERS AND THIEVES. How fucking stupid do you have to be to not get this?
Oh shut up.
Putting aside whether your conspiracy theories are even true or not, more money for renewables is better than axing wind farms to pave the way for coal. Have you ever considered that maybe if Biden has friends who make money off renewable then maybe he has a vested interest in renewables succeeding. Meanwhile Trump is taking the money from renewables and setting it on fire just to “spite the libs”.
It’s abundantly clear that one president has the economic common sense to invest in renewable electricity, the other has the economic common sense of bloody Erdogan.
He lives in Illinois, the state with over 50% of it’s electricity provided by Nuclear Energy. I really wish people who are all about renewable energy would acknowledge the extremely important role nuclear power should hold even in the future. He mentions nuclear as an aside, but there really should be a wider push amongst environmentalists for emissions free nuclear reactors.
Don’t worry.
By the end of the video, he definitely goes nuclear.
Nuclear is a lot of things, but one thing it is not is profitable. No country, not Russia, China, Japan, France etc has ever made it profitable. It is always subsidized.
Profitability means nothing for a common good. Nuclear has many unique characteristics that make it a better choice, especially in colder environments. People need energy.
People also need to use energy more efficiently, not just increasing it’s usage mindlessly.
Water purification is not profitable either.
So? If you charged per ton of CO2 that was produced with fossil fuels and also didn’t subsidize their extraction they wouldn’t be profitable either? Neither would Air Travel. So what’s your point?
Point is we don’t have a way to safely store nuclear waste. Just research it a bit deeper.
Additionally there is just no reason to use nuclear, when we have enough renewables and our disposal.
Allow existing nuclear to keep operating? Yes
Allow new nuclear to be built, assuming the constructors fully finance and assume the risk of the project themselves? Also yes
Subsidize nuclear over renewables? No
Allow nuclear to be used as a wedge for the fossil fuel propaganda machine to keep their emissions going, since building nuclear takes decades and costs far more than renewables, displacing potential investment in renewables? Not a chance in hell
I have nothing ideological against nuclear, but it is way overdue that nuclear boosters face the music and acknowledge what role the technology is having in the political landscape at the moment.
building nuclear takes decades
regulatory: 3-5 years
site prep and build: 3-5 years
stocking, staffing, startup: 1-2 years
If we rush the regulatory, it’s then 4-7 years; or not even one decade.
I’m not saying it’s overnight, but it’s not ‘decades’.
SMRs take a few years, and a fraction of the price, which is why China is building them and already has one on line.
Where’s a real world example of a nuclear plant being built in just 4 years? In the US it’s more like 10 years, at least.
No one’s building them because they’re barely profitable even after they’re up and running for many years.
Where’s a real world example of a nuclear plant being built in just 4 years?
39 months for Unit 6 of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant in Japan
Why is profitability a requirement for infrastructure? Is mass-transit profitable? Is air travel profitable? Are highways profitable? Are suburbs profitable? Why is that even a concern? Would coal or gas plants be profitable? Hell, are solar panels actually profitable? I’m not so sure.
Where’s a real world example of a nuclear plant being built in just 4 years?
Chinese SMR.
Ontario is building 4 SMRs, the first will be operational in 2028.
This thread is like US nuclear, 40 years behind.
Rushing regulatory for a construction project where failures are as severe as they can potentially be with nuclear is beyond deranged.
Getting to the timelines you’re mentioning would require a mature nuclear industry with standardized builds, something which would take more than a decade to develop, at a steep premium.
Again, I support any investor willing to go there to do so, but there’s a good reason none do - these things quite simply do not pencil out.
Subsidize nuclear over renewables? No
Allow nuclear to be used as a wedge for the fossil fuel propaganda machine to keep their emissions going, since building nuclear takes decades and costs far more than renewables, displacing potential investment in renewables? Not a chance in hell
You are literally doing what you claim to decry. Anti-nuclear means you are supporting fossil fuels. No one except people whose trigger word is “nuclear” thinks we should build fossil fuel power plants. The reality is that every time a nuclear powerplant is decommissioned it’s not replaced by wind/solar, its replaced by fossil fuel plants. If you don’t care about the environment at least be honest, since i really doubt you are being paid by the fossil fuel industry, no need to push their anti-nuclear propaganda.
I’m not anti-nuclear, as is beyond clear from the post I wrote.
I even spelled out in my post that we should keep the ones that exist running.
But you realize that if you don’t build new nuclear plants, you are going to get fossil fuel plants instead right?
Look at this: https://cleanenergy.illinois.gov/tracking-illinois-progress/electricity-generation-mix.html
Since the 90’s almost every state has increased their fossil fuel based generation even as they have increased solar and wind deployment. Only Illinois kept their fossil fuel generation static while also increasing nuclear generation by 25Million MWhrs (in addition to an extra 30Million MWhrs of mostly wind) But even within their static fossil fuel generation, they still built A LOT of new fossil fuel plants in the form of natural gas plants. Imagine if they had replaced those coal fired-plants with nuclear while also continuing to build out their wind power? The states fossil fuel burn rate for electricity would be <15% as opposed to the 30% it is today and will be in the future. And of course if they had built like 10 new 4GW plants in the 90’s then all the surrounding states wouldn’t be building fossil fuel plants as they wouldn’t need them. They would be free to focus on just Wind/Solar while letting nuclear be their base load.
We do not live in a world where Solar/Wind can replace fossil fuels, only nuclear can actually do that.
Not my state, we decommissioned our coal plants and are probably going to be 100% renewable by 2030
We do not live in a world where Solar/Wind can replace fossil fuels, only nuclear can actually do that.
Care to expand on this?
The grid needs consistent power. We can power the grid by solar and wind only , but don’t expect 120V when you plug into the wall socket.
but don’t expect 120V when you plug into the wall socket.
Why is that?
We are constantly expanding the amount of energy we use. Right now we build lots of solar/wind, but also still build a magnitude more fossil fuel power plants (by generation capacity). Since we are still building power plants, in addition to solar/wind it’s obvious that solar wind cannot replace the need for power plants, otherwise we wouldn’t be building power plants at all. So if we do need to build power plants, the only comparable non-fossil fuel option would be nuclear reactors.
Is there some kind of upper limit on how much wind/solar/storage we can build out that I’m unaware of?
Since the 90’s almost every state has increased their fossil fuel based generation even as they have increased solar and wind deployment. Only Illinois kept their fossil fuel generation static while also increasing nuclear generation by 25Million MWhrs (in addition to an extra 30Million MWhrs of mostly wind) But even within their static fossil fuel generation, they still built A LOT of new fossil fuel plants in the form of natural gas plants. Imagine if they had replaced those coal fired-plants with nuclear while also continuing to build out their wind power? The states fossil fuel burn rate for electricity would be <15% as opposed to the 30% it is today and will be in the future. And of course if they had built like 10 new 4GW plants in the 90’s then all the surrounding states wouldn’t be building fossil fuel plants as they wouldn’t need them. They would be free to focus on just Wind/Solar while letting nuclear be their base load.
The 90’s are irrelevant when it comes to discussing renewables. The price has dropped by 99% since then. It’s literally not even in the same ballpark.
Yeah, we would probably have been in a better place if we built nuclear in the past. Hindsight and everything. Does that mean it’s wise to do public investment in nuclear today? Not even a little bit.
We do not live in a world where Solar/Wind can replace fossil fuels, only nuclear can actually do that.
Zero grounds for this being the case.
Can you point to a single instance of a power plant being decommissioned and replaced with renewables?
That’s not how grids work and I think you know it
Nuclear is just a money pit at this point in time. Its not wort it anymore. The same energy can be achieved by solar + battery farm for way less money. Even in places like britain where it rains al ot its still cheaper and wind is even more so.
The same energy can be achieved by solar + battery farm for way less money.
It’s 8pm and the wind died, now what.
I can’t tell if you’re uninformed or a troll.
battery farm
Nuclear is not intermittent and can maintain very stable turbine rotation though, which is great if you want to have a stable grid.
Wind energy requires either a very stable high-power backup (not only due to intermittency, but also variable output frequency), or losses to AC-DC-AC conversion and issues associated with inverters and sensitive motor-based devices.
Solar is intermittent and needs inverters, too.
So, all have their place. Some solutions do emerge, like pumped hydro storage, which both buffers intermittency and allows to directly obtain AC power with desired characteristics, but they’re not universally applicable and can fail through long no-power streaks.
What about building DC nets, then?
Totally not viable for a grid-scale installation.
Main issue is that voltage transformation in DC comes with massive losses, and so does power transfer at 100-200V.
AC allows you to easily and efficiently scale voltage up and down. Transmission lines are typically at 10.000-500.000V, allowing them to move massive amounts of energy with low amperage. As energy losses are dictated by amperage, keeping it low means your grid is very efficient.
Also, while there’s a growing requirement for various kinds of AC to DC converters to charge various batteries and use electronic devices, switching grid to DC will come with a giant reverse problem, as everything with a motor would need to convert from DC to AC. There are plenty of electric motors out there, some of them very sensitive to the imperfect output of most converters.
So, yeah, as much as I love the simplicity and low-scale efficiency of DC, it just won’t work too well when scaled.
Maybe in Finland it has a place (high latitude, a low supply of hydro power). Also in South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan (densely populated mountainous countries with a low supply of hydro power).
To be fair the video is specifically about renewables. I have a feeling if he made one about nuclear he would be for it too.
I find it weird how many people protest clean nuclear, almost like they don’t understand it.
My eyes are really widened for the use of renewables though now after watching the video, so at least us who were mostly nuclear heads now see how good renewables have become at harvesting energy.
Hey, it’s the same guy who helped me understand how dishwashers work
I run the water in the sink until it is hot and I bought a jar of rinse assist because of him.
I bought a jar of rinse assist because of him.
Now I know without looking it’s Technology Connections
Update: yep
Best video of the year. On any channel.
Refreshingly fact based.
Amazing video
I normally love this guy’s videos, but this one just didn’t hit for me.
Now I fully agree with his stance and arguments. But it was just hammering in the same point over and over. I couldn’t get past a half hour.
And when he brought up fracking gas and using that as electricity source as a good thing when it is still a single use burn and done resource just like he has been arguing against gasoline for… He lost me.
Still a minor gripe but clearly electric vehicles are better than gas, and laying out the cost for installing solar panels vs gas for the car was eye opening.
He does bring up that natural gas is still a single use fuel. His argument was that it’s better than oil because it’s domestic, not better than solar and batteries. Also you missed the political call out of you only watched half an hour.
