3
272

[–] SweatyBranch 3 points 272 points (+275|-3) ago 

We have the means to run a society on alternative/clean energy, but the large oil monopolies are suppressing the release of such technologies for the sake of profits.

3
89

[–] FormerRedditUser [S] 3 points 89 points (+92|-3) ago 

is this even a theory anymore, i thought it was just a fact.

2
36

[–] irishmikov 2 points 36 points (+38|-2) ago 

Don't confuse theory with speculation.

1
63

[–] Heinrich_Himmler 1 points 63 points (+64|-1) ago 

It's not just the oil monopolies, it's also the anti-nuclear lobby. Nuclear energy could easily be used to power our society with very little impact on the environment, unfortunately fear-mongering and misinformation prevent that.

5
44

[–] HentaiOjisan 5 points 44 points (+49|-5) ago 

I have to disagree with this. You are just taking into account the direct environment impact, but there are two very big problems with nuclear energy that haven't been solved yet:

  • The environmental problems of nuclear waste. You can't just throw them to the bottom of the ocean, or store them until someone finds a way to fix it. Nuclear waste is very dangerous, and we don't even know what to do with it, all solutions are temporary solutions.

  • The extreme danger and impact of a meltdown. You know, extremely big areas of the world have been sealed because of what happened in Fukushima and Chernobyl, and they'll be sealed for extremely long periods of time.

I know there is a really low possibility of any kind of problem in a nuclear plant, but the risk is never zero and the damage is extremely big. And now we are having peaceful times but imagine a war or something like that happening in a country with nuclear plants.

For me, those two problems are big enough not to want any nuclear plant at all for now. If they get solved then, ok, go for it.

1
21

[–] CommunistBagel 1 points 21 points (+22|-1) ago  (edited ago)

I don't get why people are scared of nuclear power plants. The only times it went wrong are when the people running the place fucked it up themselves. I recently took a vacation extremely close to a nuclear power plant, and I felt totally safe. Nuclear energy is getting bad rep for no reason, in my opinion.

edit: If you want to know what plant I was near, it was this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant

1
10

[–] tom908 1 points 10 points (+11|-1) ago 

Fear-mongering prevented that from happening in the 70's already. Just look at France, they derive most of their energy from np.

0
3

[–] OJdidntdoit 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Nuclear energy actually poses a fair risk to the environment. Most nuclear reactors rely on rivers to supply water for reactor cooling. This water is then returned to the river. While the water isn't polluted by the nuclear power, its temperature is significantly higher than the water in the river. This leads to what is known as thermal pollution, which can hav drastic effects on down stream environments. Diversion of water from rivers can also affect the natural flow of the river, which can have far reaching effects such as increased sediment pollution due to the natural bends and curves of the river being disrupted. This increase of sediment, can affect the health of the lakes and oceans that many rivers flow into.

0
42

[–] Avnomke 0 points 42 points (+42|-0) ago 

The main thing holding us back now is batteries.

0
15

[–] kirt_connor 0 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago 

I can't upgoat this enough. Tesla is trying like hell to make batteries better. We NEED better batteries- more storage, more cycles, better charging and discharging rates, and more reliable. THIS is the one true thing (along with maybe solar cell efficiency) that is holding us back from cutting us off from petroleum. We'll never get all the way off of it- we still need it for oils, greases, plastics, etc. But batteries we NEED.

0
4

[–] LordHumongus 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Exactly this. We have the ability to produce large amounts of clean and/or renewable energy. Putting it in, capacity, cost, and taking it out of storage are the problems. Once that becomes economical we can begin to convert everything en masse.

We could convert completely to nuclear to solve most carbon pollution problems. The problems there are disposal of waste and prevention of weaponization.

0
0

[–] totes-mah-voats 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Yep. The issue isn't evil oil companies (not that they aren't self interested, like ever other industry on earth), it's just the fact that we already have a powerful fossil fuel infrastructure/market mechanisms that produce lots of energy. The way to change that is by providing a viable alternative, which I think very well could be solar. Problem is we don't have good enough means to store the energy. Oil is kind of a battery if you think about it; its just stored energy.

1
7

[–] Dantethebald 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Alternative/clean doesn't mean cheap to produce and distribute necessarily, yet.

As they develop the technology and it is cheaper than coal and petroleum, we will be using it. The fact is that coal and petroleum is just so damn cheap compared to the alternative right now, damage to the environment be damned (their thoughts, not mine).

Other than the nuclear "boogie man" that the general public thinks is going to make their children grow extra arms or fish to have three eyes, the alternatives are still just too damn expensive.

0
6

[–] Duckies 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Most of the renewable sources require a distributed power grid, something we never even thought of when electrifying our cities. Wind and solar are also not particularly reliable sources of energy, producing the largest amounts of power when we are not at peak consumption, so we have to store the energy and then release it at the correct times. That means batteries.

Battery power density, in a word, sucks.You'd need a room in every home devoted to nothing but battery cells in order to make such a system work, and the cost of doing something like that (initial only, but maintenance and replacement costs would also be a nightmare) is simply not within reach for the vast majority of people. By suggesting we move to renewable sources of energy, you're asking that people take on this cost themselves, or that we construct battery centers in a distributed fashion so that the grid can be more fault tolerant than it is now. Even if we manage to make the production of wind/solar/tidal cheaper than burning fossil fuels, the projects to modernize our power grids will be astronomical in cost.

The real, pragmatic truth is that large-scale renewable energy is a lot, lot more complex than the proponents (of which I am one) make it out to be. It's going to cost a whole lot of money, and the direct comparison per kWh in terms of production really only tells part of the story. We have a long way to go until we're on renewables, and it likely won't be in our lifetimes. Nuclear is the only option we have, and building plants is a combination of a massive investment project and getting the NIMBYs to shut the hell up.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
101

[–] deanna 0 points 101 points (+101|-0) ago 

Donald Trump is being played by the Republican party to be himself so Jeb will look better to the masses. I think I read this here a few days ago. Wouldn't surprise me at all.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
6

[–] 9-11 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

MLK was as big of a radical liberal as X, but he remained non-violent

0
8

[–] Jahonay 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago  (edited ago)

This is also known as the median voter theorem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFt0k6n_HKc

Edit: To clarify, what they're doing is making Donald Trump extreme, and so the moderate republican who runs will appear to be more moderate than he or she actually is.

0
8

[–] Xhezazarng 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Or maybe he's being played by the Democrats to make the GOP look like a bunch of crazy folks

1
9

[–] 0fux 1 points 9 points (+10|-1) ago 

The GOP needs to be made to look like a bunch of crazy folks?

0
1

[–] mediocrescientist 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

More plausible. He has donated a lot to the Clintons in the past.

0
1

[–] Ilamapickle 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

There could be someone on the offering Trump billions to make a fool out of himself and his party.

Which I am okay with.

0
3

[–] username_goes_here 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I think it's more likely to take attention away from Rand Paul and his message. Trump isn't being played he knows what he is doing and he is appealing to the right wing that feel they aren't being represented. However Rand is who we need to bring in fresh ideas and implement them. Trump is going to take some supporters away from him.

0
100

[–] HorseSizedDuck 0 points 100 points (+100|-0) ago 

False flags. Not so much that the government purposely goes out and creates distractions, but I think the media is probably encouraged to over-report on certain emotionally-gripping issues and jump to conclusions about them so we're all kept entertained while the actual important stuff goes on in the background. Likewise, I think the major political parties lean on these emotionally-charged bits of fluff (gay marriage, abortion, racism, etc.) to get people to support their side who would never in a million years support any of their actual policies.

0
14

[–] Wafflebutt 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

I sometimes lean towards your first point, then realise that the media simply is out to make a buck, and they know which news articles will gain them more viewers. Like reality TV, people en masse like to suck up sensationalist news. Always have...since the first days of journalism.

Your second point, absolutely! Politicians know how to hit those buttons....I always figure that's why so many "down with the gays" politicians are later outed. They don't actually believe in what they are saying, but know it's an easy way to pick up a certain amount of support.

1
4

[–] VictoryScreech 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

Who's paying the bucks?

0
5

[–] tabarjack 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

It's not a conspiracy as much as pleasing their target audience. Newsrooms have to make money and are forced to pander to a certain audience to keep raking in that money. That cold autistic turd in the corner that incessantly bothers us with his shitty world views on the Internet is not their concern. Sadly, the audience that cares about news tend to be the emotional kind who want a false feeling of being informed. Journalism now is a form of entertainment, not a source of news.

0
4

[–] CONGLOM-O 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

cough TPP cough cough

0
3

[–] mondogecko 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Like that woman who was just murdered in SanFrancisco by an immigrant. The dude's a violent criminal and a mexican... the story focuses on the latter much more than yhe former.

0
0

[–] 9-11 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

to give Trump another 15 minutes

0
75

[–] ProfKraken 0 points 75 points (+75|-0) ago 

That modern media storms are almost entirely fabricated to distract the public from important debate.

The one that comes to mind is the time the media photoshopped a fat Latino into a "beefy" white guy and used years-old pictures to make a 17 year old wanna be thug into an innocent little kid, then made a situation about two stupid people making very bad decisions on a rainy night into a race war. At the time Snowden was about to drop some serious 1984 shit on the USA, and predictably all anyone could talk about is which of those two idiots was at fault.

0
27

[–] Red_Gibson 0 points 27 points (+27|-0) ago 

Another recent one that comes up is LGBT marriage rights during the Trans Pacific Partnership proposal. Or Bruce Jenner and Net Neutrality.

0
4

[–] photonasty 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Rachel Dolezal too, I think. It's not something that should be front-page news. It's worth discussing in certain contexts, since race relations and all that are valid sociological issues. With that said, why was the Dolezal story fucking everywhere?

0
2

[–] Froztwolf 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Check out "Confessions of a Media Manipulator". The gist of it is that you can seed stories in a certain way to see them snowball, but once it starts you can never kill a story. Though of course, the guy writing it is a marketer that uses guerilla tactics, not a government agent.

Edit: It's a fascinating and depressing read if you want an insight into how the media works today

0
0

[–] fyreNL 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Got a link?

6
64

[–] WaitThisIsntReddit 6 points 64 points (+70|-6) ago  (edited ago)

Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams.

Edit: a word

6
69

[–] Lord-Stokeworth 6 points 69 points (+75|-6) ago  (edited ago)

You're right it doesn't. It gets hot enough to ruin the structural integrity of the beams though. Steel beams don't have to literally melt before they can no longer support tons of weight.

Edit: The truthers came out quick: http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

[–] [deleted] 5 points 40 points (+45|-5) ago 

[Deleted]

1
26

[–] SavePrivateRyne 1 points 26 points (+27|-1) ago 

What about the whole falling at free fall speeds thing?

1
17

[–] madmaddiemim 1 points 17 points (+18|-1) ago  (edited ago)

For context, Popular Mechanics is roughly the 911 equivalent of the recent Ellen Pao apology.

Thinking that because it was published in Popular Mechanics that it is the end-all is somewhat of an appeal to authority. There have been plenty of responses to what was published and it quickly becomes clear that it's an apology piece, not much different from the official 911 Commission Report.

Yet, people are stupid enough to still think that "because Popular Mechanics" is enough of a reason to quell debate.

Edit: Spelling, it's morning and I haven't had my coffee yet

[–] [deleted] 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

4
23

[–] jayenomics 4 points 23 points (+27|-4) ago 

anyone who truly believes 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by the government so they could increase their power over us and take away our freedoms, and start a war in the Middle East...is.....well....fucking crazy.

0
27

[–] WaitThisIsntReddit 0 points 27 points (+27|-0) ago 

Nice try CIA

0
21

[–] onlyforwriting 0 points 21 points (+21|-0) ago 

Such a bad mindset. There are plenty of documented 'false flag operations' in America's history with the goal of doing just that.

0
7

[–] nomaroma 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I am going to get downvoated here for going against the grain but:

This guy did a really good job discussing 9/11 theories and applying science to each belief. A great watch for all those who disagree with jayenomics...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nN3qUXJp7l0

1
3

[–] Genocide 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Looking at the objective available evidence of the last 15 years and using your own words, I would argue that anyone that doesn't think that is "fucking crazy".

...but I'm not that rude. I would just say that it is too difficult a reality to face for most people. It was difficult for me.

0
6

[–] Sublate 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

It does, however, melt the softer rivets in the beams.

0
4

[–] whynotanon1 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

even when they are sprayed with fireproofing foam and encased in concrete? i'm asking because i don't know.

0
0

[–] pushthis 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

it does however, not melt steel beams.

0
4

[–] kirt_connor 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Jet Fuel + The Chimney Effect + Lots of Fuel = Weakens the structural integrity of the beams enough to cause collapse.

0
7

[–] pushthis 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

jet fuel was consumed in a matter on mins after the hits,, except for wtc7 for which no plane hit. the pentagon was also hit by allegedly a plane that was allegedly piloted by someone who cant land a cessna yet he, in the words of professional pilots, "performed a expert move they are not capable of themselves". the 'plane' was a guided missle. the wtc buildings used alumniothermic explosives, as per the reports of multiple bombs going off, molten metal seen leaking out the side of the building, ground zero emitted steam for a week or more. those who went to universities for trades like engineering, chemistry, meteorology, and history dont agree with you. They even have an organization call architects and engineers for 911 truth. http://www.ae911truth.org/

0
1

[–] nomaroma 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

You won't watch all 7 parts but w/e.. Posted this above

https://youtu.be/nN3qUXJp7l0

[–] [deleted] 2 points 38 points (+40|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

0
9

[–] TheOneAndOnlyCrumpet 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

Can somebody tell me what motive the CIA would have in killing the president of the USA?

1
12

[–] Tsugumori 1 points 12 points (+13|-1) ago 

He was drastically improving relations with the USSR.

0
6

[–] themanlyhegoat 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

JFK was going to basically dismantle or at least totally reorganize the CIA (and withdraw from Vietnam)... his brother was going to destroy the US Italian underworld system. Both him and his brother were assassinated.

Also, both Oswald and Ruby had strong connections to one or the other.

http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/13-documents-you-should-read-about-the-jfk-assassination/Content?oid=3192028

[–] [deleted] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] Pajakistan 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I've heard the speculation was because of his actions towards Vietnam. They thought he messed up Cuba and was gonna mess up Vietnam because he was ready to stop all US involvement in Vietnam. They were scared he was gonna let the Soviets keep expanding their sphere of influence and not do anything about it. That's why when Johnson got in one of the first things he did was send massive amounts of troops into Vietnam.

0
8

[–] flatbread 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

The Denver airport?

0
11

[–] Morro 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

The Denver Airport Conspiracy.

Btw I agree on JFK case, the book by Garrison won over my skeptic attitude.

0
1

[–] asquirrel 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

oh my god Denver Airport, shit is crazy, my favorite anecdote is that here's this ridiculous statue of a Bronco outside with glowing red eyes and the artist who was making it got decapitated when the statues head fell off onto him

0
1

[–] bassman1805 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

It didn't decapitate him, but it did sever an artery in his leg and pin him down so he couldn't get help.

It's only a matter of time before he collects enough souls to come to life and rule over all.

0
1

[–] obijuanvaldez 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Why would you be sure JFK was not shot by Oswald who had the means motive and opportunity and continued analysis confirms that version of events?

0
0

[–] heili 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The only thing I don't get about that is why Oswald chose to wait until the car turned and was driving almost parallel to the book depository thus requiring him to practically lean out the window to shoot Kennedy when he could easily have sat further back in the room in front of an open window and shot the president from the front as the limousine approached nearly straight on to the window that Oswald used.

0
32

[–] ImReallyHighBut 0 points 32 points (+32|-0) ago 

Voting makes a difference

;)

[–] [deleted] 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

1
11

[–] thekingofapples 1 points 11 points (+12|-1) ago 

Except when you do vote third party it only hurts your second choice. Then you get screwed over because your last choice ends up wining cause people split their votes.

0
7

[–] Phivex 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

We shouldn't even be having a bipartisan system. The founding fathers advocated against it.

0
0

[–] ick_bin_n_pfankuchen 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

that worked out very well for britain...

0
4

[–] DiggRedditVoatBlank 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Only on Voat.

1
24

[–] Lord-Stokeworth 1 points 24 points (+25|-1) ago 

At least some parts of the USA government (or factions within) knew about the JFK assassination.

3
7

[–] Could_Be_Your_Father 3 points 7 points (+10|-3) ago 

I think a lot of people know about the assassination. It's taught in like, middle school or something.

load more comments ▼ (84 remaining)