# Are Green Initiatives doing more harm than good?



## Marissa Moira (Mar 8, 2022)

With the price of gas reaching Obama levels retarded again for no real reason other than political lobbyist dick sucking, we're to the point where you have people justifying paying shitholes like Venezuela for oil or getting a ladyboner at the thought of $9 a gallon so people will be too poor to drive cars and everyone will become cyclists.

I mean there's a laundry list of things that were supposed to be good for the environment like throwing tires in the ocean to grow coral reefs or corn subsidies for ethanol and it both turned out to make the whole situation worse. Forcing the end of oil may indeed be one of these things that could cause a bronze age collapse at some point. I mean nobody seems to question someone if it's stated to be good for the environment. Who's environment first off? If you mean like plants and trees they'll have no problem reclaiming abandoned cities as is, but for all the people who left the city, what about their livelihoods? Should we just render all common people as statistics that were constructed by groups of people who live in bubbles to begin with? 

I mean having a politician yell and scream about how we all have to cut back while they still take multiple leisure flights every week really tends to ring on deaf ears


----------



## millais (Mar 8, 2022)

The Greens killed Europan nuclear, now look what happens when the Russians don't feel like supplying natural gas.


----------



## Blasterisk (Mar 8, 2022)

Look, you have to strip mine mountain ranges for minerals or the environment is gonna die. Just tow the mountains out of the environment when you're done.


----------



## wtfNeedSignUp (Mar 8, 2022)

Green initiatives are completely taken over by corporations and globohomo, so every "solution" is either pointless (paper straws), destroys the local economy so the elites could save a few dollars (moving factories to China), or a waste of money (huge investments in "Green" energy that barely supplies 1% of energy needs). If humanity goes extinct due to this then we fucking earned it.
The public is stupid, so the public will pay.


----------



## Penis Drager (Mar 8, 2022)

The industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the environment.

Memes aside: Wildlife preserves are great for dealing with the decline of biodiversity. The oceans are fucked, though. Dumping tires in there? You're smoking crack. That's not how coral reefs work. There are initiatives where concrete "sculptures" designed to assist the wildlife, but dumping that kind of trash (tires) into the ocean is just gonna kill shit.
Nuclear is a great long term solution but natural gas i much more easily throttle-able. You have to take into account the changing energy demands throughout the day.
Better battery tech can help fix this but the reality is there is no fixing. 
Climate Change is real; it's mainly our fault; The hysteresis is way too long for anyone to really notice; we'll find ways  to manage the  massive pain in the ass it will be.

I hope this post is somewhat coherent...


----------



## Vault Boy (Mar 8, 2022)

Very much so, given how our leaders seem intent on shoving EVs down our throat regardless of their current practicality.

Not even a gradual weening from gasoline cars, they want us to go electric now now NOW NOW NOW NOOOOOWWWWW!!!

Who could forget their shunning of nuclear in favor of costly, impractical, and ironically pollutive "green" energies? Solar my ass...


----------



## sasazuka (Mar 8, 2022)

Vault Boy said:


> Not even a gradual weening from gasoline cars, they want us to go electric now now NOW NOW NOW NOOOOOWWWWW!!!



I heard something about that on CBC Radio on Monday afternoon, specifically how  demand in Ontario vastly exceeds current supplies of EVs, even for used EVs, so, right now, you gotta wait a while even if you're willing to make the shift to electric.


----------



## gang weeder (Mar 8, 2022)

I'm thoroughly convinced that most "green" anything is a scam. This includes electric cars.


----------



## Marissa Moira (Mar 8, 2022)

sasazuka said:


> I heard something about that on CBC Radio on Monday afternoon, specifically how  demand in Ontario vastly exceeds current supplies of EVs, even for used EVs, so, right now, you gotta wait a while even if you're willing to make the shift to electric.


Also where are we exactly mining the minerals needed for batteries? How secure is that supply chain?


----------



## gang weeder (Mar 8, 2022)

Marissa Moira said:


> Also where are we exactly mining the minerals needed for batteries? How secure is that supply chain?


I am curious what the selling point for EVs is besides muh climate change. There are plenty of potential problems with them even if you accept that narrative, of course.


----------



## The Big O (Mar 8, 2022)

gang weeder said:


> I am curious what the selling point for EVs is besides muh climate change. There are plenty of potential problems with them even if you accept that narrative, of course.


There really _is no selling point _to EVs as things in the world currently stand. It's just another inefficient and unnecessary step to the process of energy usage in automobiles. The part most of the obsessives forget is that the energy to charge an EV still _needs to come from somewhere as a source, _and we already see that solar and wind are woefully impractical to meet the energy demands of the world today.

If energy production were more secured and plentiful, and sourced from things like natural gas and _especially _nuclear, then and only then would EVs actually be on a level of practicality with diesel engine cars. But until that's the case, EVs are basically lemons.


----------



## Merried Senior Comic (Mar 8, 2022)

Exterminate the Chinks and Poojeets and you will have a green planet.


----------



## Ser Prize (Mar 8, 2022)

gang weeder said:


> I'm thoroughly convinced that most "green" anything is a scam. This includes electric cars.


That's where I'm at. It's all so obviously a scam because if they actually cared they'd support nuclear. As it stands it's just a grift to limit travel rights/ability to the modern day aristocrats.


----------



## Kiwi & Cow (Mar 8, 2022)

Yes most of them are bad. I think the only initiative that's good would be the solar panels, not only it's a longer lasting energy resource than nuclear energy, but it also reduces the electricity bills.

I think one of the worst ones would be the massive metallic "windmills" because they are impracticable, expensive and require wind to work properly, so most of the time they don't do anything.


----------



## Ser Prize (Mar 8, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> Yes most of them are bad. I think the only initiative that's good would be the solar panels, not only it's a longer lasting energy resource than nuclear energy, but it also reduces the electricity bills.
> 
> I think one of the worst ones would be the massive metallic "windmills" because they are impracticable, expensive and require wind to work properly, so most of the time they don't do anything.


Solar panels are a grift, frankly. At least large scale solar farming. I can see people having solar panels for personal use, but having big ass solar farms takes up way too much space, and the materials needed to create them have toxic byproducts. They also don't last very long and pollute the earth as they break down.

The best "green" energy sources are thermal and hydro, and we don't see that big of a push for those.


----------



## Deadwaste (Mar 10, 2022)

Ser Prize said:


> The best "green" energy sources is nuclear energy


i fixed it for you fam


----------



## Wesley Willis (Mar 11, 2022)

There's nothing green about a Green New Deal. The Patriot Act isn't patriotic. Affordable housing doesn't exist. It's all doublespeak.


----------



## TurdFondler (Mar 12, 2022)

Green initiatives exist solely to ensure that a shift in energy doesn't change the status quo and power structures.

Green energy would theoretically lead to larger energy independence, which would be horrible for globohomo. Oil is great because it naturally centralizes power.


----------



## Anti-Intellectual (Mar 12, 2022)

Given the tremendous leaps and bounds in terms of energy production, efficiency, and safety overall, I would be an avid nuclear advocate. I believe nuclear energy in all its forms supplemented by hydro, geothermal where applicable then micro energy production like solar and wind is the future of clean, affordable energy generation we have available. As it stands now, all energy production systems I mentioned aside from nuclear simply do not generate enough energy even in the optimal environments possible for them, our energy demands are simply that steep.


----------



## Ser Prize (Mar 12, 2022)

Deadwaste said:


> i fixed it for you fam


You aren't wrong, but in the 'green' spectrum the ones that actually work are hydro and geothermal. Which is why those two don't get pushed all that much.


----------



## Toolbox (Mar 12, 2022)

Green movements are almost always co-opted by people looking for more power over the plebians and to further the economic divides in society. So no, anything that labels itself "green" is either wishful thinking or malicious at worst. I don't know if I can name anyone legit that actually calls being conscious of the environment green at this point. 


wtfNeedSignUp said:


> Green initiatives are completely taken over by corporations and globohomo, so every "solution" is either pointless (paper straws), destroys the local economy so the elites could save a few dollars (moving factories to China), or a waste of money (huge investments in "Green" energy that barely supplies 1% of energy needs). If humanity goes extinct due to this then we fucking earned it.
> The public is stupid, so the public will pay.


Moving factories over seas is almost always just going to be worse for the environment in the long run due to fuel burn alone, in general it would just have been better to improve local factories and infrastructure. The only reason any of this kind of thing is done is because it is economically cheaper in the short term and nothing else. 


Penis Drager said:


> Wildlife preserves are great for dealing with the decline of biodiversity. The oceans are fucked, though. Dumping tires in there? You're smoking crack. That's not how coral reefs work. There are initiatives where concrete "sculptures" designed to assist the wildlife, but dumping that kind of trash (tires) into the ocean is just gonna kill shit.


Eh? The oceans are not "fucked" in a general sense. If anything the direct impact of overfishing is the biggest issue and if hatcheries were better supported it would be mitigated majorly. Unregulated sectors in the third world like the massive all consuming blob of Chinese ships is what we really need to up and nuke. 


Penis Drager said:


> Nuclear is a great long term solution but natural gas i much more easily throttle-able. You have to take into account the changing energy demands throughout the day.
> Better battery tech can help fix this but the reality is there is no fixing.


Lolwat? Building enough energy storage is tricky but technically possible. There are also a lot of different scaled kinds of nuclear reactors and many more under development. 


Penis Drager said:


> Climate Change is real; it's mainly our fault; The hysteresis is way too long for anyone to really notice; we'll find ways  to manage the  massive pain in the ass it will be.


Is it a thing that is in effect? Sure. Is it indisputably only caused by emissions that humans are at fault for? No, but I do agree it is a contributing part. The big big fuck you in the climate change machine is the constant apocalypse doomerism, claiming the oceans are already rising massively over where they were and sometimes that it has even sped up, but if you check bare satellite imagery for the last several decades, even going back to aerial photos you really cannot tell anything is happening on a major level. Even low lying islands aren't being swallowed up, you can't really even see coastal changes that prove this. Is erosion speeding up on some of these areas? Maybe you can see it and prove it up close but it is happening by the micrometer of a millimeter a year and not anything that will end Florida in 50 years.


----------



## Penis Drager (Mar 12, 2022)

Toolbox said:


> The oceans are not "fucked" in a general sense


Yeh. I was being hyperbolic and most likely on a bender.
I agree with you there. Though the production of carboxylic acid isn't exactly "good" for aquatic life. They'll probably adapt.


Toolbox said:


> Building enough energy storage is tricky but technically possible


I'm a big fan of pumped storage (basically you use exess energy to fill up an artificial lake behind a dam and then release the water into a hydro-electric system to make up for an energy deficit in times of high demand) but that has its own environmental consequences. 


Toolbox said:


> There are also a lot of different scaled kinds of nuclear reactors and many more under development.


Yeah, France is leading the way on this tech as far as I know. They basically adjust the number of graphite rods to meet the demand. The problem with most reactors is they are designed to run at full throttle all the time. Throttling more reactors means building more reactors.
You're absolutely right, but being unrealistic.


Toolbox said:


> Is it [climate change] indisputably only caused by emissions that humans are at fault for? No, but I do agree it is a contributing part.


We are a, if not the, primary contributing factor.
As I said: it will be a pain in the ass. It won't be the end of the world. Global biodiversity will decline. Sea levels will rise. Storms will be worse and more frequent.
The tropics will expand to the north ans south. Temperate regions will retreat the same way. The polar climates will become more temperate. 
If you want to moralize about it, run your own cost/benefit analysis. But this is just a thing that is happening.


----------



## Toolbox (Mar 12, 2022)

Penis Drager said:


> Yeh. I was being hyperbolic and most likely on a bender.
> I agree with you there. Though the production of carboxylic acid isn't exactly "good" for aquatic life. They'll probably adapt.


So you believe in the whole 'the acid cycle is irreversible' thing, or what? Has this actually been proven?


Penis Drager said:


> I'm a big fan of pumped storage (basically you use exess energy to fill up an artificial lake behind a dam and then release the water into a hydro-electric system to make up for an energy deficit in times of high demand) but that has its own environmental consequences.


I would argue those consequences are less than letting our over reliance on gas to continue to pile up consequences, but again pumped storage isn't the only solution. Personally certain mechanical attempts like centrifuge storage could be more viable depending on how expensive future chemical batteries are. 


Penis Drager said:


> Yeah, France is leading the way on this tech as far as I know. They basically adjust the number of graphite rods to meet the demand. The problem with most reactors is they are designed to run at full throttle all the time. Throttling more reactors means building more reactors.
> You're absolutely right, but being unrealistic.


It is, again, still less expensive to figure this tech out than to just face the void of not having other alternatives.


Penis Drager said:


> We are a, if not the, primary contributing factor.
> As I said: it will be a pain in the ass. It won't be the end of the world. Global biodiversity will decline. Sea levels will rise. Storms will be worse and more frequent.
> The tropics will expand to the north ans south. Temperate regions will retreat the same way. The polar climates will become more temperate.
> If you want to moralize about it, run your own cost/benefit analysis. But this is just a thing that is happening.


Again, even if we are, it does not make a difference that the continual doomsday predictions have been wrong for decades and continue to be wrong. It does not help any real research and it muddies the waters. It is also obviously not our main issue. The continual incompetence of companies creating future superfund sites is, direct pollution, mainly oil spillage and plastic, and our inability to make decent material alternatives to petroleum based plastic are. Among other things like urban expansion, birth rates in certain parts of the third world, etc.


----------



## Penis Drager (Mar 12, 2022)

Toolbox said:


> So you believe in the whole 'the acid cycle is irreversible' thing, or what?


It's reversed when the acid is neutralized by calcite. So it's entirely reversible so long as you're okay with shellfish and coral dying.


Toolbox said:


> I would argue those consequences are less than letting our over reliance on gas to continue to pile up consequences,


Absolutely agree.


Toolbox said:


> Personally certain mechanical attempts like centrifuge storage could be more viable depending on how expensive future chemical batteries are.


Don't know enough about centrifuge storage to say anything insightful about it. But the main benefit of batteries is a lack of hysteresis which makes the grid more efficient. Though there are well known environmental impacts to making such batteries so... yeah....


Toolbox said:


> It is, again, still less expensive to figure this tech out than to just face the void of not having other alternatives.


Agreed. But the main problem with nuclear isn't the monetary investment. It's the time investment. You can build a natrual gas plant in about a quarter the time it takes to build a nuclear plant. It may be a good idea to phase out natural gas as the nuclear plants come online. But no government is that competent.


Toolbox said:


> the continual doomsday predictions have been wrong for decades and continue to be wrong.


Because they're not made by actual scientists. Al Gore is a grifter and so is his co. The actual predictions have been mostly spot on.
There is no doomsday: only pain in the ass.


Toolbox said:


> direct pollution, mainly oil spillage and plastic, and our inability to make decent material alternatives to petroleum based plastic are. Among other things like urban expansion, birth rates in certain parts of the third world, etc.


Yup.


----------



## WickyWickyWoW (Mar 12, 2022)

trying to do research on the power sources for renewables and nuclear is always a mess, every different article and page will feed you wildly different numbers on how much X costs per MWH most of the time not adding in key factors like subsidies or other bureaucratic horse shit, assuming the site im reading at the instant isnt trying to sell me bullshit outright. Its gotten so bad shitposting on random web backwaters is almost becoming more trustworthy due to the extreme chaff of information out there.

As for the automotive side of things, EVs are not ready for widescale use. The lithium factor, range, rapid battery degradation, and the monumentous effort that is bringing all those discarded EV car batteries to the ocean for safe disposal, Those suckers are big. However with how fast EVs are progressing maybe those kinks will be ironed out and they might be better than ICE cars
Im surprised that hydrogen cars didnt become the replacement to gas. If they got the development that electrics got we might have seen a difference but unfortunately we got some weird obscure jap cars that are liable to be phased out completely before the decade is over.


----------



## reptile baht spaniard rid (Mar 12, 2022)

gang weeder said:


> I am curious what the selling point for EVs is besides muh climate change. There are plenty of potential problems with them even if you accept that narrative, of course.


EVs accelerate like a raped ape out of hell. 

And you can “refill” at home.

That’s about it.


----------



## Kiwi & Cow (Mar 13, 2022)

TurdFondler said:


> Green initiatives exist solely to ensure that a shift in energy doesn't change the status quo and power structures.
> 
> Green energy would theoretically lead to larger energy independence, which would be horrible for globohomo. Oil is great because it naturally centralizes power.


I think you're not seeing the elephant in the room.

Globohomos love green energy, because it's cheap to maintain. Barrages can last decades and still be fully functional, windmills can also last a long time without having to be fixed, last but not least solar farms generate a ton of energy, even if one of the solar panel breaks, they can just replace it and keep making money off the sun. Every single "green" energy can cause damage to the environment, *yes this includes hydrolic and geothermal energy*. At that, geothermal energy is one of the causes of earthquakes.

Oil does not make profit when the only countries that still carry it around are in the south or Russia and oil is also finite, this is why it's called a "fossil" fuel because it's going to go extinct like the dinosaurs. In that sense "green energy" is doublespeak, this basically means an energy that can be generated indefinitely.

By that same fact, nuclear is not green either, it is finite too, although it's a fact that nuclear doesn't pollute like oil does. Also that being finite is not their only issue, nuclear is just too dangerous for the globohomos to actually consider using in long term when it can cause them a gigantic deficit or even risk their own lives. In simpler words, the globohomos love what they call "green energy" because it is unlimited and also because nuclear is a very big concern to their monopolies since the nuclear plants can go off like the one at Chernobyl.

Obviously protecting the environment and developing a truly "green" energy is none of their concerns, what they want is:

To make tons of money, forever.
Not to put themselves or their monetary gains at risk.
I hope that makes you think. BTW there's a conspiracy theory that apparently you could create electricity with electricity, but the elites don't want you to know because it would give them no excuse to rob people's money. I don't know how true it holds or if it's even possible, but since I heard of that some years ago, I think I'd atleast let y'all know.


----------



## TurdFondler (Mar 13, 2022)

@Kiwi & Cow

I don't disagree with those points. Infinite rent seeking through green initiatives is very much in line with globohomo. Nuclear is overlooked on purpose because it's climate independent, put it anywhere. Green power is always reliant on some special type of environment. 

With current energy consumption green power will not deliver enough. We would have to cut back our expectations and standard of living to rely on it entirely. 

You cannot make electricity with electricity, it violates thermodynamics.


----------



## Hollywood Hitler (Mar 13, 2022)

I'm all about not polluting our environment, decimating habitats, cleaner, more efficient energy. I'm a big fan of hybrid vehicles (who wouldn't?) 

Going "Carbon Zero" is impossible unless everyone goes Uncle Ted. 

Right now, these retards that elected themselves want to go from A to Z.


----------



## Bonesjones (Mar 13, 2022)

The only good thing about most green energy solutions is that they are very good small and medium term solutions. Solar power and wind are great at providing a decentralized power solution that's good enough for a small group of householder, anything more than that and it rapidly goes to shit. Same as completely ignored things like microhydro.


----------



## Getwhatyou (Mar 13, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> I think you're not seeing the elephant in the room.
> 
> Globohomos love green energy, because it's cheap to maintain. Barrages can last decades and still be fully functional, windmills can also last a long time without having to be fixed, last but not least solar farms generate a ton of energy, even if one of the solar panel breaks, they can just replace it and keep making money off the sun. Every single "green" energy can cause damage to the environment, *yes this includes hydrolic and geothermal energy*. At that, geothermal energy is one of the causes of earthquakes.
> 
> ...


So your saying do nothing and keep sucking putin/Saudi dick?


----------



## Grub (Mar 13, 2022)

Yes because they do nothing to address actual ecological problems while being detrimental to most of society.


----------



## Return of the Freaker (Mar 13, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> this is why it's called a "fossil" fuel because it's going to go extinct like the dinosaurs.


Wrong. Growing up in the 90s its because they're derived from ancient organic matter. Coal, for example, derieves from peat and other plant matter subject to hight heat and pressure over millenia. Always cool to see the narratives shift


----------



## Car Won't Crank (Mar 13, 2022)

Return of the Freaker said:


> Wrong. Growing up in the 90s its because they're derived from ancient organic matter. Coal, for example, derieves from peat and other plant matter subject to hight heat and pressure over millenia. Always cool to see the narratives shift


Dino oil is also a common colloquial term for petroleum based oils. The root for petroleum itself describes its origins too.


----------



## Toolbox (Mar 14, 2022)

Car Won't Crank said:


> Dino oil is also a common colloquial term for petroleum based oils. The root for petroleum itself describes its origins too.


I do have to wonder if the whole 'it's made from dinosaurs" thing, when they would have only been a fraction of a fraction of what generated oil, is purely some sort of psyop to make oil look worse. If people knew it came from mostly plants would they think its green or something?


----------



## Kiwi & Cow (Mar 14, 2022)

Toolbox said:


> I do have to wonder if the whole 'it's made from dinosaurs" thing, when they would have only been a fraction of a fraction of what generated oil, is purely some sort of psyop to make oil look worse. If people knew it came from mostly plants would they think its green or something?


Correct, it mostly comes from marine life, including marine plants and animals, so that's also why most of the oil can be found in the sea as opposed to land.

It does take up to 300 million years to form making it finite in present time, so that would never be a "green" energy because a "green" energy means an energy that can be harvested indefinitely, it's doublespeak. 



Spoiler



also wanted to say it was my 369th post.


----------



## NewRetroVagina23 (Mar 14, 2022)

Any attempt to massively scale up solar, hydro, or wind will result in the very climate disruption Green advocates claim to be worried about. People forget that when it comes to energy, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Those hills you dot with windmill farms are taking kinetic energy out of the air itself- deploy enough and you begin causing massive changes to the surface-level wind currents. You think that's not altering the local climate quite a bit? Same for the valleys and plains you dot with solar arrays- that's a significant alteration in surface albedo and ground-level temperatures, how do you think you're going to hand wave away these changes as trivial when your own climate science says mean albedo plays a *huge* role in both local and global climate? Need I go on about the dangers of unrestrained hydrelectric damming? China is practically the poster child for such rash ecological decisions, and not all of their troubles maintaining them are due to shoddy construction.

Like others in this thread, I would be greatly interested in seeing nuclear, specifically Thorium reactors, further explored. I feel that is where the future must lie.


----------



## Toolbox (Mar 14, 2022)

NewRetroVagina23 said:


> Any attempt to massively scale up solar, hydro, or wind will result in the very climate disruption Green advocates claim to be worried about. People forget that when it comes to energy, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Those hills you dot with windmill farms are taking kinetic energy out of the air itself- deploy enough and you begin causing massive changes to the surface-level wind currents. You think that's not altering the local climate quite a bit? Same for the valleys and plains you dot with solar arrays- that's a significant alteration in surface albedo and ground-level temperatures, how do you think you're going to hand wave away these changes as trivial when your own climate science says mean albedo plays a *huge* role in both local and global climate? Need I go on about the dangers of unrestrained hydrelectric damming? China is practically the poster child for such rash ecological decisions, and not all of their troubles maintaining them are due to shoddy construction.
> 
> Like others in this thread, I would be greatly interested in seeing nuclear, specifically Thorium reactors, further explored. I feel that is where the future must lie.


The future of solar and wind almost exclusively lie in the hands of DIY off grid types. They are much better generators for single family sustainability than anything else. Very small scale hydro turbines are also usable in this way and cause minimal disruption to the environment when used right. Dams, especially those that are built almost solely to "control" nature in rivers and to generate power, need to go the way of the dodo as soon as we have better reactor scaling.


----------



## Ser Prize (Mar 15, 2022)

Toolbox said:


> The future of solar and wind almost exclusively lie in the hands of DIY off grid types. They are much better generators for single family sustainability than anything else. Very small scale hydro turbines are also usable in this way and cause minimal disruption to the environment when used right. Dams, especially those that are built almost solely to "control" nature in rivers and to generate power, need to go the way of the dodo as soon as we have better reactor scaling.


I mean, water wheels are as old as the hills.


----------



## Toolbox (Mar 15, 2022)

Ser Prize said:


> I mean, water wheels are as old as the hills.


More efficient generally than water wheels by scale, basically it's just creating a tiny ducted turbine that is able to handle water.


----------



## Alexander Thaut (Mar 15, 2022)

wonder how many people believe in thorium reactors because of that sam o nella video.


----------



## Toolbox (Mar 15, 2022)

Alexander Thaut said:


> wonder how many people believe in thorium reactors because of that sam o nella video.


There are far too many people who believe something purely because a minute science video said something.


----------



## Alexander Thaut (Mar 15, 2022)

Toolbox said:


> There are far too many people who believe something purely because a minute science video said something.


to be fair, it's sam o nella, 






he's usually entertaining.


----------



## Ser Prize (Mar 15, 2022)

Alexander Thaut said:


> wonder how many people believe in thorium reactors because of that sam o nella video.


I learned about Thorium reactors way back, on 4chan.


----------



## NewRetroVagina23 (Mar 15, 2022)

Alexander Thaut said:


> wonder how many people believe in thorium reactors because of that sam o nella video.


I'm not gonna lie, it got me thinking. I did further research on my own, though. This was at least 5 years ago, and I could never claim it was a particularly comprehensive or deep dive. There's really no need to become an expert on something you're never going to be in a position to effect meaningfully in any way.


----------



## Getwhatyou (Mar 15, 2022)

I'm happy for my taxes to go up if that means we start seriously considering nuclear/alternative sources of power. 

I bought a hybrid and jammed a 2jzgte into a old BMW to have my money both ways. 

Ironically right now I'm only driving the bmw on the weekend and the hybrid everywhere else.


----------



## Car Won't Crank (Mar 15, 2022)

Getwhatyou said:


> I'm happy for my taxes to go up if that means we start seriously considering nuclear/alternative sources of power.
> 
> I bought a hybrid and jammed a 2jzgte into a old BMW to have my money both ways.
> 
> Ironically right now I'm only driving the bmw on the weekend and the hybrid everywhere else.


That's blasphemy, but at least it's still an inline 6 in a bimmer.


----------



## Getwhatyou (Mar 15, 2022)

Car Won't Crank said:


> That's blasphemy, but at least it's still an inline 6 in a bimmer.


Not going to lie it does bother the purists. E28 535 if you know your bmws. Atleast I didn't do it to a e30 coupe. Might get lynched


----------



## Car Won't Crank (Mar 15, 2022)

Getwhatyou said:


> Not going to lie it does bother the purists. E28 535 if you know your bmws. Atleast I didn't do it to a e30 coupe. Might get lynched


That's a decent swap since it's an older gen 5er. It wouldn't make much sense to swap in a E60 or E39.


----------



## Getwhatyou (Mar 15, 2022)

Car Won't Crank said:


> That's a decent swap since it's an older gen 5er. It wouldn't make much sense to swap in a E60 or E39.


The 4 door feels great with it. E39+ have mostly great platforms in thier own right probably faster and lighter than the 2jz too. 

Getting parts these days for old bmws are getting expensive even living in Europe.


----------



## Car Won't Crank (Mar 15, 2022)

Getwhatyou said:


> The 4 door feels great with it. E39+ have mostly great platforms in thier own right probably faster and lighter than the 2jz too.
> 
> Getting parts these days for old bmws are getting expensive even living in Europe.


It depends on how old. I haven't had too many issues getting parts for my E38 and E46 yet.


----------



## Shiawase (Mar 16, 2022)

Regarding wind power, has anyone mentioned the ongoing issue of blade waste?

Fortunately if the EV Revolution stays on course, we will eventually have plenty of played-out strip mine pits to dump our broken wind turbine blades into. It's the perfect plan, paisanos.


----------



## Kiwi & Cow (Mar 16, 2022)

Ser Prize said:


> I mean, water wheels are as old as the hills.


Water wheels are a thing of the past, maybe small towns lost in the middle of nowhere and the amish still use them, but for the most part, hydroelectricity is generated by dams which damage the environment.

You want to know why solar was the best "green" energy source? It's simply because they don't take nearly as much space as some other green energies (dams), they work atleast for a full 12 hours (unlike windmills), they don't disrupt/damage the environment surrounding them nearly as much as other alternatives (a dam is bad for the fishes who live in its pond, metallic windmills have killed distracted birds before and they disrupt the normal flow of wind, geothermal is one of the causes of earthquakes). The only thing I've heard about solar energy that was bad was the fact that it causes pollution (How much?), they prevent the sun from hitting the ground due to excessive use (How's that bad?) and they need maintenance because they break down easily.

There's not a single clean "green" energy if you look deep into it, any "green" energy causes harm to the environment to some extent. I'm also sceptical of nuclear plants despite the praise they get here because if they blow up I'm going to either die from radiation poisoning or I'll have to abandon my home. Maybe Thorium is way better than Uranium in that regard I don't know really, but I wouldn't want to bet on this.


----------



## Ser Prize (Mar 16, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> because if they blow up I'm going to either die from radiation poisoning or I'll have to abandon my home. Maybe Thorium is way better than Uranium in that regard I don't know really, but I wouldn't want to bet on this.


You're misinformed. Nuclear plants aren't made like nuclear bombs: they use the infused uranium/thorium to heat up water and have the resulting steam turn turbines. Even in the worst case scenario the plant won't explode.

And if your counterpoint is "Chernobyl/Fukushima" you got to remember that both of those were made with very old designs and, in the case of Fukushima, only happened because of a natural fucking disaster. And from Fukushima only one person has died.

Quit letting them manipulate you via your feelings.


----------



## Kiwi & Cow (Mar 16, 2022)

Ser Prize said:


> Nuclear plants aren't made like nuclear bombs


Where did I say that? You made that one up.


Ser Prize said:


> they use the infused uranium/thorium to heat up water and have the resulting steam turn turbines. Even in the worst case scenario the plant won't explode.


In the case of Chernobyl, the generators heated up and melted down, this resulted in a blast that destroyed reactor 4. The whole sector didn't explode as if a giant nuke fell down from the sky, but the damage was still noticeable. 


Ser Prize said:


> And if your counterpoint is "Chernobyl/Fukushima" you got to remember that both of those were made with very old designs and, in the case of Fukushima, only happened because of a natural fucking disaster. And from Fukushima only one person has died.


They still happened and Chernobyl was almost entirely due to human error, an event like Chernobyl can happen twice even with modern technologies. I also really don't care if it only happened a few times when the damage it does is far bigger than anything else you can think of. Nukes are far less destructive in the long term than a plant going off like the one at Chernobyl. It is estimated that over thousands of people might have died of premature cancer caused by the radiation and the area around the nuclear plant is inhospitable for over a few hundred years at minimum if not more, I will die of old age before anyone can safely live in Chernobyl. 
Obviously the nuke explodes in mid-air whilst the plant is on the ground, so the uranium will dissipate quickly with a nuke, but not with a power plant. The reactor at Fukushima was also lucky that it was near the sea when it got destroyed.


Ser Prize said:


> Quit letting them manipulate you via your feelings.


Oh the irony coming from you.


----------



## Retired Junta Member (Mar 16, 2022)

Green initiatives in the West will always be useless and nocive while India and most Asia is basically using oceans as dumpsters and destroying their domestic environments at the speed of light.


----------



## Car Won't Crank (Mar 16, 2022)

Retired Junta Member said:


> Green initiatives in the West will always be useless and nocive while India and most Asia is basically using oceans as dumpsters and destroying their domestic environments at the speed of light.


That's why it's laughable when western countries like the US and UK act all high and lofty about reducing their net carbon output when all they've done is outsource manufacturing to China, Bangladesh, India etc.


----------



## Ser Prize (Mar 16, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> Where did I say that? You made that one up.
> 
> In the case of Chernobyl, the generators heated up and melted down, this resulted in a blast that destroyed reactor 4. The whole sector didn't explode as if a giant nuke fell down from the sky, but the damage was still noticeable.
> 
> ...


You were the one who talked about nuclear reactors exploding like it's fucking Fallout. Chernobyl was a case of everything that can go wrong did go wrong compounded with human error, newer reactor designs make it so another chernobyl can't happen.


----------



## Kiwi & Cow (Mar 16, 2022)

Ser Prize said:


> You were the one who talked about nuclear reactors exploding like it's fucking Fallout. Chernobyl was a case of everything that can go wrong did go wrong compounded with human error, newer reactor designs make it so another chernobyl can't happen.


I mean it kind of is when the area is so bad for people that the only living things there are plants and wild animals that still get cancer and die due to radiation. No, human error was the only cause to that meltdown, just read what underwent during the reactor's maintenance testing. Newer reactor designs can't stop stupid people from doing stupid things unless it's automated by an AI at which no person can cause another accident.


----------



## Ser Prize (Mar 16, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> I mean it kind of is when the area is so bad for people that the only living things there are plants and wild animals that still get cancer and die due to radiation. No, human error was the only cause to that meltdown, just read what underwent during the reactor's maintenance testing. Newer reactor designs can't stop stupid people from doing stupid things unless it's automated by an AI at which no person can cause another accident.


What are you on about? Chernobyl isn't a wasteland right now. It's a borderline wildlife sanctuary and animals are getting on fine. This is what I meant when I said don't think with your emotions, because it makes you really easy to manipulate. They say "OH NO CHERNOBYL IS A RADIOACTIVE DEADZONE BUT THANKFULLY WE HAVE ALL THESE CLEAN SAFE ENERGY SOURCES" and you fucking believe them.

Do you know wind turbines fuck up bird migration something fierce, on top of being very inefficient? Do you know that solar panels have lingering effects on where they're set up on top of fucking things up for birds? The heat gets reflected up into the air.


----------



## Absolutego (Mar 16, 2022)

Chernobyl was an antiquated, extremely flawed reactor design in an authoritarian hellhole whose bureaucrats cared more about meeting party quotas and building on the cheap than rewarding people who cared about safety protocols, and anyone bringing it up as an example of the risks of nuclear power in the modern age is the tier of moronic mouthbreather who not only gets their real-world opinions from their entertainment, but is literally too stupid to understand the overt messages said entertainment was presenting to them.
Nuclear wasn't the cause of Chernobyl, the goddamn Soviet system was.


----------



## Kiwi & Cow (Mar 16, 2022)

Ser Prize said:


> What are you on about? Chernobyl isn't a wasteland right now. It's a borderline wildlife sanctuary and animals are getting on fine. This is what I meant when I said don't think with your emotions, because it makes you really easy to manipulate.


Have you been there and observed the stuff happening there? The radiation still manages to kill the animals that live there, you fucktard. It doesn't literally cause every living thing to drop dead. Usually radiation poisoning takes years to take effect, that's why people report on "premature cancer" because that cancer wasn't supposed to occur, especially this quickly, even within the timeframe of exposure.

I've seen a documentary years ago and it showed some animals getting very ill from the radiation along others that were less afflicted by it.


Ser Prize said:


> They say "OH NO CHERNOBYL IS A RADIOACTIVE DEADZONE BUT THANKFULLY WE HAVE ALL THESE CLEAN SAFE ENERGY SOURCES" and you fucking believe them.


But green energies are not clean. Are you retarded? Learn to read my posts.


Ser Prize said:


> Do you know wind turbines fuck up bird migration something fierce, on top of being very inefficient? Do you know that solar panels have lingering effects on where they're set up on top of fucking things up for birds? The heat gets reflected up into the air.


Love the tangeant, who's the emotional one again? I've also said million of times windmills are awful for the environment and you supporting hydro/geothermal hurts the environment. Facts don't care about your feelings. Stop supporting the construction of dams.


----------



## Ser Prize (Mar 16, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> Have you been there and observed the stuff happening there? The radiation still manages to kill the animals that live there, you fucktard. It doesn't literally cause every living thing to drop dead. Usually radiation poisoning takes years to take effect, that's why people report on "premature cancer" because that cancer wasn't supposed to occur, especially this quickly, even within the timeframe of exposure.
> 
> I've seen a documentary years ago and it showed some animals getting very ill from the radiation along others that were less afflicted by it.
> 
> ...


You are, because you parrot "no nuclear power because of chernobyl".


----------



## Kiwi & Cow (Mar 16, 2022)

Ser Prize said:


> You are, because you parrot "no nuclear power because of chernobyl".


Epic you skipped literally all my comment because you have no argument.

You know what would be better than nuclear? A mandate that every roof of every house have solar panels, thus everyone has his electricity and this no longer damages the environment like it currently does right now with the solar farms, but the elites will never allow that because they're greedy.



Absolutego said:


> Chernobyl was an antiquated, extremely flawed reactor design in an authoritarian hellhole whose bureaucrats cared more about meeting party quotas and building on the cheap than rewarding people who cared about safety protocols, and anyone bringing it up as an example of the risks of nuclear power in the modern age is the tier of moronic mouthbreather who not only gets their real-world opinions from their entertainment, but is literally too stupid to understand the overt messages said entertainment was presenting to them.
> Nuclear wasn't the cause of Chernobyl, the goddamn Soviet system was.


I hope you're right and no human error happens in the near future because even with Thorium-based nuclear plants, a mistake after another mistake can happen and the plant can melt due to that. Retards have been allowed near a reactor once, it can happen a second time.


----------



## Ser Prize (Mar 16, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> Epic you skipped literally all my comment because you have no argument.
> 
> You know what would be better than nuclear? A mandate that every roof of every house have solar panels, thus everyone has his electricity and this no longer damages the environment like it currently does right now with the solar farms, but the elites will never allow that because they're greedy.
> 
> ...


No, I cut to the meat of the argument. Even if you outfitted every roof with solar panels it would not produce nearly enough energy to supply the world, and you'd still have the issue of degradation and disposal of the panels themselves once they've gone off.

Your resistance to nuclear energy is entirely emotionally driven when it's the best chance we have at having a sustainable source of energy.


----------



## Kiwi & Cow (Mar 16, 2022)

Ser Prize said:


> No, I cut to the meat of the argument. Even if you outfitted every roof with solar panels it would not produce nearly enough energy to supply the world, and you'd still have the issue of degradation and disposal of the panels themselves once they've gone off.
> 
> Your resistance to nuclear energy is entirely emotionally driven when it's the best chance we have at having a sustainable source of energy.


If something poses a real risk then I'm fully entitled to be sceptical if not worried, I'm worried about the current war because Putin can at any time just nuke where I live. There are other things that worry me besides the idea of a nuclear plant near my home.

And I'm going to reiterate it again, your reaction to my scepticism is emotionally-driven since you react as if those nuclear plants were your girlfriends that I'm basically insulting. Honestly calm the fuck down for once in your life. Your avatar is a perfect depiction of how you look like behind the screen.


----------



## Ser Prize (Mar 16, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> If something poses a real risk then I'm fully entitled to be sceptical if not worried, I'm worried about the current war because Putin can at any time just nuke where I live. There are other things that worry me besides the idea of a nuclear plant near my home.
> 
> And I'm going to reiterate it again, your reaction to my scepticism is emotionally-driven since you react as if those nuclear plants were your girlfriends that I'm basically insulting. Honestly calm the fuck down for once in your life. Your avatar is a perfect depiction of how you look like behind the screen.


You keep going for personal attacks and it won't get you anywhere. I care about disproving stupid emotional responses like yours because I want a better world and nuclear energy is currently the best and safest way to deal with the energy needs we have. You suggest feel good measures like "a solar panel on every roof" and it just won't work, they don't produce nearly enough. 

We're both against solar farms, which I give you credit for, but solar farms exist because light is not evenly distributed in intensity around the globe. Having rooftop solar panels _might _ make a dent in Phoenix, say, but it won't do shit in Seattle or NYC. It's just not doable.


----------



## Kiwi & Cow (Mar 16, 2022)

Ser Prize said:


> You keep going for personal attacks and it won't get you anywhere.


Ditto.


Ser Prize said:


> I care about disproving stupid emotional responses like yours because I want a better world and nuclear energy is currently the best and safest way to deal with the energy needs we have.


Yes it's the safest until the plant goes boom because retards were allowed anywhere near it.


Ser Prize said:


> You suggest feel good measures like "a solar panel on every roof" and it just won't work, they don't produce nearly enough.


Then prove it. If that was a sham, nobody would have solar panels on their roof in the first place.
It produces enough energy for 12 hours and then the rest that's not used could be stored in a large battery in case of bad weather the next day.


Ser Prize said:


> Having rooftop solar panels _might _ make a dent in Phoenix, say, but it won't do shit in Seattle or NYC. It's just not doable.


Of course the skyscrapers demand far more electricity because each of the 100 floors uses it, but the solar panels could then be installed on the sides of the building to generate more energy and if that wasn't enough then I can see a small generator either using coal, oil or small amounts of the thorium you've been simping about somewhere in the basement to generate the remaining electricity until new technologies are invented to generate more electricity reliably.

Atleast if the mini-power plant goes boom, it won't have lasting repercussions.


----------



## Anti-Intellectual (Mar 16, 2022)

Nuclear power plants don't go boom, they're not using weapons grade fissile material and your concerns are obsolete at this point. Nearly every criticism you have of nuclear energy production has been addressed in one form or another.


----------



## Kiwi & Cow (Mar 16, 2022)

Anti-Intellectual said:


> Nuclear power plants don't go boom, they're not using weapons grade fissile material and your concerns are obsolete at this point. Nearly every criticism you have of nuclear energy production has been addressed in one form or another.


Chernobyl seems to be the exception to the rule, eh?


----------



## Ser Prize (Mar 16, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> Ditto.
> 
> Yes it's the safest until the plant goes boom because retards were allowed anywhere near it.
> 
> ...


Do you think there are many houses that operate solely on solar panels? Most houses that have them use them to supplement their power use. Solar panels aren't efficient enough for that and won't be for a long time, most likely. And you still haven't addressed how people will dispose of solar panels and the hazardous materials they decompose into.

Why have "a small generator either using coal, oil or thorium" when you can have nuclear reactors that produce more than enough power for half the expense? Like seriously, what is the point here? You've been proven wrong many times about chernobyl and yet you still parrot on about "but it might happen again".


----------



## Generic Retard (Mar 16, 2022)

Ser Prize said:


> You are, because you parrot "no nuclear power because of chernobyl".


And you parrot "nuclear power safe" because newer reactor designs can't explode like Chernobyl.
Mhh yes, we just have them melt down into the basement, where the molten core material has to be cooled and the irradiated water then to be disposed of.
Fukushima had an explosion btw, there was a radioactive cloud as well, not as bad as Chernobyl though (because it didn't fling out the fuel directly).

I would be the first, on one condition, to let everything run on nuclear though. The condition being, that it be run better than now, including an above ground bunker waste disposal inventory. Not some underground bullshit, where "oh no" another crack has developed and now the waste is contaminating the ground water table, "shocking".
But as long as you do shit like that cheap, you can call nuclear power cheap and green lol, so this won't change anyway.

Also all the waste disposal in the ocean will continue to add up. Theoretically dumping nuclear waste has been outlawed (internationally too IIRC), but then people just do it like the french and build huge pipe into international waters 

Energy from fusion reactors would be great, the radioactivated waste has a short half-life I hear, but they can't even run a reactor continuously and when that is done, you still have to make it produce electricity.


----------



## Ser Prize (Mar 16, 2022)

Generic Retard said:


> And you parrot "nuclear power safe" because newer reactor designs can't explode like Chernobyl.
> Mhh yes, we just have them melt down into the basement, where the molten core material has to be cooled and the irradiated water then to be disposed of.
> Fukushima had an explosion btw, there was a radioactive cloud as well, not as bad as Chernobyl though (because it didn't fling out the fuel directly).
> 
> ...


Fusion is perpetually 40 years away, I wouldn't bank on it anytime soon. It'd be good if it did, though. Also Fukushima was a really old reactor and the damage caused by it has been minimal.

I parrot nuclear power safe because it fucking is, it's also more efficient and less impactful to the environment than the alternatives. Is it 100% safe? No, nothing is. But when you balance the risk vs reward factor nuclear is undoubtedly the best choice we have going forward. 

Most nuclear waste disposal I'm aware of is stored deep underground in geologically stable areas, deep under layers of concrete. I wouldn't want it stored above ground because that's a bad time waiting to happen in cases of stuff like floods or hurricanes.


----------



## mindlessobserver (Mar 16, 2022)




----------



## Toolbox (Mar 16, 2022)

Generic Retard said:


> And you parrot "nuclear power safe" because newer reactor designs can't explode like Chernobyl.
> Mhh yes, we just have them melt down into the basement, where the molten core material has to be cooled and the irradiated water then to be disposed of.
> Fukushima had an explosion btw, there was a radioactive cloud as well, not as bad as Chernobyl though (because it didn't fling out the fuel directly).
> 
> ...


Do you propose dam failures as better than nuclear meltdown? I know which tends to be more contained.


----------



## Generic Retard (Mar 16, 2022)

Toolbox said:


> Do you propose dam failures as better than nuclear meltdown? I know which tends to be more contained.


Depends on where the dam is, doesn't it? A dam failure is probably more expensive than a contained (read: no clouds or explosions) meltdown though...


----------



## Toolbox (Mar 16, 2022)

Generic Retard said:


> Depends on where the dam is, doesn't it? A dam failure is probably more expensive than a contained (read: no clouds or explosions) meltdown though...


Dam failures tend to be far more expensive directly, probably end up causing more obvious deaths, and end up destroying a lot of things. Sure, they don't give you a higher chance of getting cancer (generally) for a good few decades but on top of everything else,  there's the fact you need to destroy a lot of land to make a dam in the first place.


----------



## mindlessobserver (Mar 16, 2022)

Generic Retard said:


> And you parrot "nuclear power safe" because newer reactor designs can't explode like Chernobyl.
> Mhh yes, we just have them melt down into the basement, where the molten core material has to be cooled and the irradiated water then to be disposed of.
> Fukushima had an explosion btw, there was a radioactive cloud as well, not as bad as Chernobyl though (because it didn't fling out the fuel directly).
> 
> ...


I hate this logic. Bad stuff can happen with nuclear power therefore no nuclear power. Never mind how much damage oil spills and wat not does. The fact of the matter is even if a modern reactor melts down its not the end of the universe. The worst case scenario is what happened at Fukushima, and that was a combination of retards putting back up generators below sea level in a tsunami zone with a once in an epoch level tsunami.

And even with the absolute worst case scenario involving a near complete outside context set of events Japan is just fine.

Nuclear energy is cheap, carbon neutral and provided its not being run by complete retards is completely safe. I live near a nuclear reactor myself. People go fishing in its cooling lake year round and during the summer it's a popular swimming attraction.


----------



## Shidoen (Mar 16, 2022)

Unless they're installing all this green technology on my house to use, I doubt that a green tax would help with anything.


----------



## Toolbox (Mar 16, 2022)

mindlessobserver said:


> I hate this logic. Bad stuff can happen with nuclear power therefore no nuclear power. Never mind how much damage oil spills and wat not does. The fact of the matter is even if a modern reactor melts down its not the end of the universe. The worst case scenario is what happened at Fukushima, and that was a combination of retards putting back up generators below sea level in a tsunami zone with a once in an epoch level tsunami.
> 
> And even with the absolute worst case scenario involving a near complete outside context set of events Japan is just fine.
> 
> Nuclear energy is cheap, carbon neutral and provided its not being run by complete retards is completely safe. I live near a nuclear reactor myself. People go fishing in its cooling lake year round and during the summer it's a popular swimming attraction.


Not to mention dams also cause immediate ecological destruction in the form of cutting of routes for fish, and any other aquatic life. Not to mention cutting off routes for people to move freely, and creating a massive water buffer.


----------



## Generic Retard (Mar 16, 2022)

You people are all retards reading too much into what is written. Stop strawmanning and writing your own narrative into the discussion. 
I can see why this is an unproductive thread. Well I will see myself out.


----------



## mindlessobserver (Mar 16, 2022)

Generic Retard said:


> You people are all retards reading too much into what is written. Stop strawmanning and writing your own narrative into the discussion.
> I can see why this is an unproductive thread. Well I will see myself out.


Before you go keep in mind Generation IV and onward reactors are so efficient they can even use the dangerous 100,000 year waste as fuel. Their waste product is only harmful for 300 years and we have a convenient place already built to store all of it at Yucca mountain.


----------



## Car Won't Crank (Mar 16, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> If something poses a real risk then I'm fully entitled to be sceptical if not worried, I'm worried about the current war because Putin can at any time just nuke where I live. There are other things that worry me besides the idea of a nuclear plant near my home.
> 
> And I'm going to reiterate it again, your reaction to my scepticism is emotionally-driven since you react as if those nuclear plants were your girlfriends that I'm basically insulting. Honestly calm the fuck down for once in your life. Your avatar is a perfect depiction of how you look like behind the screen.


You sound like one of those crazy antivaxx TM skeptics who are reasonably concerned about putting questionable drugs in their bodies and still dismissed as pariah in some backwards places (Canada). How dare you question the infallible science with reasonable concern for powerful technologies!


----------



## Ser Prize (Mar 17, 2022)

Car Won't Crank said:


> You sound like one of those crazy antivaxx TM skeptics who are reasonably concerned about putting questionable drugs in their bodies and still dismissed as pariah in some backwards places (Canada). How dare you question the infallible science with reasonable concern for powerful technologies!


That's a pretty bad comparison, man.


----------



## Toolbox (Mar 17, 2022)

Generic Retard said:


> You people are all retards reading too much into what is written. Stop strawmanning and writing your own narrative into the discussion.
> I can see why this is an unproductive thread. Well I will see myself out.


You came here, said nuke bad, agreed that other 'alternatives' have similarly bad downsides, then just leave?


----------



## Lemmingwise (Mar 17, 2022)

It's true that nuclear power has advanced tremendously since the two that disastered.

But think about this: at some point they will be 20 years old and its employees complacent... and you will have diversity quota's. Everything fails (eventually).

With that said nuclear power is one of the best sources of power.


----------



## NewRetroVagina23 (Mar 18, 2022)

From what I understand, simply strapping a solar array to the roof of each house will only produce slightly more energy than the household requires (and even then only under absolutely ideal conditions which almost never pan out unless you're in a laboratory). My outdated years-old statistic on the energy-efficiency of solar panels put them at 20% of all sunlight striking the substrate being stored as power per panel...Nominal. Meaning actual figures are certainly less, and even if they weren't, that simply isn't efficient enough to be adopted de novo, much less replace an already existing method of power generation. At the time, I had read breathless copy about how researchers would certainly be able to beef that up to a 20% average 25% nominal, in the next half decade at most. Well, it's been about that long, and while I don't recall hearing of that goal being met, it still wouldn't matter if it had, because the actual target they must hit is well above 50%, more than double their most optimistic projections.

Perhaps I misremember, but I'm pretty sure even the sorts of calculations you might do on the back of a paper napkin show that solar simply can't cut it alone, which is why I always hear it mentioned in the same breath as wind and hydro, even from Green advocates.


----------



## Anti-Intellectual (Mar 18, 2022)

Car Won't Crank said:


> You sound like one of those crazy antivaxx TM skeptics who are reasonably concerned about putting questionable drugs in their bodies and still dismissed as pariah in some backwards places (Canada). How dare you question the infallible science with reasonable concern for powerful technologies!


When we tell you something simple like the sky is blue with plenty of evidence to back it up and you insist that it's otherwise because you harbor unfounded concerns already addressed by said evidence, you're not a skeptic, you're an idiot.

Also I haven't got the Covid "vaccine" and I'm never going to as I don't need it.


----------



## Kiwi & Cow (Mar 18, 2022)

@Anti-Intellectual
Accidents have happened and will continue to happen because it's real life, it's not a fantasy land where nothing bad can ever happen, and you're a retard for thinking that no accident can ever happen with a certain technology that you think is 100% safe.
You're using the same exact arguments of a vaxoid who thinks the coof vaccine is 100% safe when it's only 99% safe with the remaining 1% being nasty side effects. You're a retard for completely discarding that 1% which is even more prevalent in relation to a technology with longlasting consequences if something goes wrong.
You've also been wrong about your assertion that nuclear plants can't explode, Fukushima and Chernobyl did explode, go get your facts straight for a start.

I thank Lemmingwise for pointing out the fact that any nuclear plant even the modern ones will eventually become delapidated, I haven't thought of that.


----------



## Pro. Memer (Mar 18, 2022)

NewRetroVagina23 said:


> From what I understand, simply strapping a solar array to the roof of each house will only produce slightly more energy than the household requires (and even then only under absolutely ideal conditions which almost never pan out unless you're in a laboratory). My outdated years-old statistic on the energy-efficiency of solar panels put them at 20% of all sunlight striking the substrate being stored as power per panel...Nominal. Meaning actual figures are certainly less, and even if they weren't, that simply isn't efficient enough to be adopted de novo, much less replace an already existing method of power generation. At the time, I had read breathless copy about how researchers would certainly be able to beef that up to a 20% average 25% nominal, in the next half decade at most. Well, it's been about that long, and while I don't recall hearing of that goal being met, it still wouldn't matter if it had, because the actual target they must hit is well above 50%, more than double their most optimistic projections.
> 
> Perhaps I misremember, but I'm pretty sure even the sorts of calculations you might do on the back of a paper napkin show that solar simply can't cut it alone, which is why I always hear it mentioned in the same breath as wind and hydro, even from Green advocates.



IMO solar is the best non-hydro renewable we can go with, but it does have it's own costs. and isn't best for all environments. 

Solar can never be the backbone of an electrical grid, however it can help a lot in augmenting it.  The efficiency percent doesn't matter all that much at this point, it's passive and gets the job done. Let nuclear do the main work, but solar has a place in reducing electricity demand. A house in a sunny location can have a a net negative electric usage in some months, and cut bills by a lot in months where AC is running constantly. However, solar is still expensive, especially on a grid level. It's in a weird combo of centralized and decentralized. (But I think it's dumb as a purely centralized power source) Centralized only because you need equipment that communicates with the grid and shuts it off in case of temporary power outages (if there's a power outage, and some linemen are up there, but you have a bunch of solar electricity coming, that's bad) Decentralized because it's custom installed, which is more expensive than a field of solar. That being said, if you have a home, solar may be a wise personal choice on it's own. 

A big paradigm shift will happen when one of those labs makes some kind of cheap solar sheet or tarp that can be laid out like carpet over a roof or stretched out as a parking lot shade.  You'd get less power per square foot, but at a much cheaper install cost on all levels. If it gets cheap enough per watt, you can expect to see the tech become very common. I have no idea on the timeline of that though.


----------



## Toolbox (Mar 18, 2022)

NewRetroVagina23 said:


> From what I understand, simply strapping a solar array to the roof of each house will only produce slightly more energy than the household requires (and even then only under absolutely ideal conditions which almost never pan out unless you're in a laboratory). My outdated years-old statistic on the energy-efficiency of solar panels put them at 20% of all sunlight striking the substrate being stored as power per panel...Nominal. Meaning actual figures are certainly less, and even if they weren't, that simply isn't efficient enough to be adopted de novo, much less replace an already existing method of power generation. At the time, I had read breathless copy about how researchers would certainly be able to beef that up to a 20% average 25% nominal, in the next half decade at most. Well, it's been about that long, and while I don't recall hearing of that goal being met, it still wouldn't matter if it had, because the actual target they must hit is well above 50%, more than double their most optimistic projections.
> 
> Perhaps I misremember, but I'm pretty sure even the sorts of calculations you might do on the back of a paper napkin show that solar simply can't cut it alone, which is why I always hear it mentioned in the same breath as wind and hydro, even from Green advocates.


A good off grid system would be a heavy mix of solar and wind, personally I like HAWT wind turbine designs for their efficiency but they seem to have maintenance problems and tend to require a more expensive build.


----------



## SneedEyeMitch (Mar 18, 2022)

Lemmingwise said:


> It's true that nuclear power has advanced tremendously since the two that disastered.
> 
> But think about this: at some point they will be 20 years old and its employees complacent... and you will have diversity quota's. Everything fails (eventually).
> 
> With that said nuclear power is one of the best sources of power.


This is unironically the best argument I heard against nuclear, and instead, we should stick with fossil fuels, because at least fossil fuels are more retard proof.

Btw Lemmingwise you might be a stoner mermaid (see Dutchman) but I enjoy reading your posts.


----------



## Bonesjones (Mar 18, 2022)

Lemmingwise said:


> It's true that nuclear power has advanced tremendously since the two that disastered.
> 
> But think about this: at some point they will be 20 years old and its employees complacent... and you will have diversity quota's. Everything fails (eventually).
> 
> With that said nuclear power is one of the best sources of power.











						Vogtle Electric Generating Plant - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				




20 years old you say? These are over 45 with no issues, it's also the only active nuclear expansion.


----------



## Colloid (Mar 18, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> @Anti-Intellectual
> Accidents have happened and will continue to happen because it's real life, it's not a fantasy land where nothing bad can ever happen, and you're a retard for thinking that no accident can ever happen with a certain technology that you think is 100% safe.
> You're using the same exact arguments of a vaxoid who thinks the coof vaccine is 100% safe when it's only 99% safe with the remaining 1% being nasty side effects. You're a retard for completely discarding that 1% which is even more prevalent in relation to a technology with longlasting consequences if something goes wrong.
> You've also been wrong about your assertion that nuclear plants can't explode, Fukushima and Chernobyl did explode, go get your facts straight for a start.
> ...


This same logic could apply to hydroelectric dams and crude oil extraction. If a dam isn't maintained then it'll break and send a devastating flood of water to everything downstream of it. If an oil rig out at sea (where most of the world's oil is) isn't maintained or something breaks at a bad time, then at best the oil leaks out into the sea or at worst the oil leaks out into the sea _and_ catches on fire. These incidents happen annually and the collateral damage has the potential to be better or worse depending on their location, but despite all of that risk involved we still use these energy sources because these technologies been researched and upgraded for hundreds of years. Yet you want to forgo nuclear power despite its potential and increasing safety thanks to recent technological advances just because Japan's got walloped by the worst tsunami in its existence, and also because some backwater, corrupt USSR nation cut corners and bit off more than they could chew? Come on now.


----------



## Kiwi & Cow (Mar 18, 2022)

Colloid said:


> This same logic could apply to hydroelectric dams and crude oil extraction. If a dam isn't maintained then it'll break and send a devastating flood of water to everything downstream of it. If an oil rig out at sea (where most of the world's oil is) isn't maintained or something breaks at a bad time, then at best the oil leaks out into the sea or at worst the oil leaks out into the sea _and_ catches on fire. These incidents happen annually and the collateral damage has the potential to be better or worse depending on their location, but despite all of that risk involved we still use these energy sources because these technologies been researched and upgraded for hundreds of years. Yet you want to forgo nuclear power despite its potential and increasing safety thanks to recent technological advances just because Japan's got walloped by the worst tsunami in its existence, and also because some backwater, corrupt USSR nation cut corners and bit off more than they could chew? Come on now.


I don't support dams nor oil either, but anyways what's the difference between a dam and a nuclear plant?
It's simple, the damage the dam does is massive, but short-lived, however the damage caused by a nuclear explosion is in the long-term infact Chernobyl will last my entire lifetime a few dozen times.

Think about this, my concern with nuclear plants is the same as people who are scared to travel by plane. Why are people afraid of planes when they have no issue with cars in spite of accidents happening more frequently and thus resulting in more death? A car accident is less likely to be fatal than a plane accident. Here's you answer. A dam accident does less damage to the local civilisation than a nuclear accident which led to the town of Chernobyl to be evacued and no one is allowed back in.


----------



## Colloid (Mar 18, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> I don't support dams nor oil either, but anyways what's the difference between a dam and a nuclear plant?
> It's simple, the damage the dam does is massive, but short-lived, however the damage caused by a nuclear explosion is in the long-term infact Chernobyl will last my entire lifetime a few dozen times.


Indeed Chernobyl took a lot of damage that it's finally starting to recover meaningfully from, and it serves those retarded commies right for trying to cut corners and not respecting the power of radioactive material. With a properly designed and maintained plant it'd no doubt still be running fine like the many others built back then that are still going strong like in Philadelphia.


Kiwi & Cow said:


> Think about this, my concern with nuclear plants is the same as people who are scared to travel by plane. Why are people afraid of planes when they have no issue with cars in spite of accidents happening more frequently and thus resulting in more death? A car accident is less likely to be fatal than a plane accident. Here's you answer. A dam accident does less damage to the local civilisation than a nuclear accident which led to the town of Chernobyl to be evacued and no one is allowed back in.


Completely wrong. A nuclear reactor blowing up in the middle of a desert nobody was using anyway is less expensive than a damn busting upstream of several towns and cities and moving trillions of gallons of water like, say, Hoover Dam. I'm gonna repeat what I said here since it already covers this whole paragraph.


Colloid said:


> These incidents happen annually and the collateral damage has the potential to be better or worse depending on their location


----------



## Car Won't Crank (Mar 18, 2022)

Colloid said:


> Completely wrong. A nuclear reactor blowing up in the middle of a desert nobody was using anyway is less expensive than a damn busting upstream of several towns and cities and moving trillions of gallons of water like, say, Hoover Dam. I'm gonna repeat what I said here since it already covers this whole paragraph.


Oh yeah, almost forgot about the almost obsessive testing of nukes the US did back in the mid 1900s. Bikini Atoll was a popular site along with mid air explosions. Besides, hasn't the US Navy been using nuclear powered ships and submarines for a while now? That should speak to the reliability of more modern nuclear power plants operated with proper oversight.


----------



## Toolbox (Mar 19, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> I don't support dams nor oil either, but anyways what's the difference between a dam and a nuclear plant?
> It's simple, the damage the dam does is massive, but short-lived, however the damage caused by a nuclear explosion is in the long-term infact Chernobyl will last my entire lifetime a few dozen times.
> 
> Think about this, my concern with nuclear plants is the same as people who are scared to travel by plane. Why are people afraid of planes when they have no issue with cars in spite of accidents happening more frequently and thus resulting in more death? A car accident is less likely to be fatal than a plane accident. Here's you answer. A dam accident does less damage to the local civilisation than a nuclear accident which led to the town of Chernobyl to be evacued and no one is allowed back in.


I wouldn't really call the damage dams do short lived, especially what it costs to maintain them, especially ecologically. What they do when they fail is sometimes the least of your problems, sometimes the most of your problems. If (when) 3 Gorges Dam is to fail, it will undue actual decades of Chinese manufacturing progress. Not very short lived. This kind of thing definitely massively depends on how large the dam is, what it is holding back, and what is on the other side.


----------



## Anti-Intellectual (Mar 20, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> @Anti-Intellectual
> Accidents have happened and will continue to happen because it's real life, it's not a fantasy land where nothing bad can ever happen, and you're a retard for thinking that no accident can ever happen with a certain technology that you think is 100% safe.
> You're using the same exact arguments of a vaxoid who thinks the coof vaccine is 100% safe when it's only 99% safe with the remaining 1% being nasty side effects. You're a retard for completely discarding that 1% which is even more prevalent in relation to a technology with longlasting consequences if something goes wrong.
> You've also been wrong about your assertion that nuclear plants can't explode, Fukushima and Chernobyl did explode, go get your facts straight for a start.
> ...



1. Cry more. If the crux of your argument lies solely on "what ifs" you could construct any manner of criticism for why something should never be built because of some unintended results. You seem to operate under the presumption that there should be some Nirvana solution to these problems which is not feasible.

a) I'm certain you're an accident between your parents yet you're still here and making the most of existence.

2. Never did I make those assertions with such conviction, I don't make such stringent conclusions. I'm simply stating your concerns are useless because you're so damnably ignorant it would take a light novel worth of reading and comprehension to repudiate the garbage you keep churning out here. 

3. Chernobyl and Fukushima underwent meltdowns not outright fissile explosions, seriously at least learn the bare minimum of nuclear physics and mechanics before you spout off. Reactors grade uranium is not weapons grade uranium.

4. Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island are the exceptions, not the rule. There are literally hundreds of nuclear fission power plants in the world today with very little incidents in their history, not even close to the travesties aforementioned.

Stay mad, stay frightened.
*
You have no fucking clue what're you talking about.*


----------



## Kane Lives (Mar 20, 2022)

Anti-Intellectual said:


> 4. Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island are the exceptions, not the rule. There are literally hundreds of nuclear fission power plants in the world today with very little incidents in their history, not even close to the travesties aforementioned.


I'll just note that if South Africans can manage to maintain a nuclear plant without incident despite the turmoil of the past 20 years, then Amerifats can as well.


----------



## Kiwi & Cow (Mar 20, 2022)

Anti-Intellectual said:


> there should be some Nirvana solution to these problems which is not feasible.


Solar panels are, you fucking retard.


Anti-Intellectual said:


> yet you're still here and making the most of existence.


Ditto, what are you doing here nigger? I only post here because it's the last place that allows free speech that isn't literally boomer Gab.ai or Parler.


Anti-Intellectual said:


> Never did I make those assertions with such conviction, I don't make such stringent conclusions.


Niggerfaggot, your whole premise is that nuclear plants can't ever go wrong and thus everyone should use them over anything else. It's literally "muh nuclear plants safe" without outright stating it and you know it.


Anti-Intellectual said:


> Chernobyl and Fukushima underwent meltdowns not outright fissile explosions, seriously at least learn the bare minimum of nuclear physics and mechanics before you spout off. Reactors grade uranium is not weapons grade uranium.


It's clear we don't have the same definition of what constitutes an explosion. When there was a large fire ball coming out of the nuclear plant of Chernobyl, THAT WAS an explosion. There was a meltdown, but also an explosion. Eh whatever I don't care, at the end off the day the nuclear plants went off regardless.


Anti-Intellectual said:


> Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island are the exceptions, not the rule. There are literally hundreds of nuclear fission power plants in the world today with very little incidents in their history, not even close to the travesties aforementioned.


"Muh nuclear plants r saef" You would make a great Fauci puppet.

Honestly the only person here that even convinced me to be less sceptical about nuclear energy was _NewRetroVagina23_ because I thought solar energy alone could replace nuclear, neither you nor Ser Prize could convince me otherwise because you held onto your same barfed arguments that I've heard dozens of times already from this thread. Good golly, you expect anyone to change their mind when you can't even do the basic of changing your own arguments for a start.

Also you fucking wonder why most people don't trust nuclear energy, it's because they think there's safer alternatives to that. Here's your answer, your inability to actually cover the issue of a possible meltdown/explosion/shitshow does not make people support nuclear and multiple people here share those concerns too. If the nuclear plants were properly supervised including failsafes in case of an accident, plus possibly having to be entirely automated rather than allowing any person near it, then I would fully support it. I already support small-scale generators running in Uranium because I know that if an accident happens it won't cause nearly as much damage as a power plant. Hell even in the case of generators, there was an accident involving a submarine where the generator became very radioactive and the crew on board got sick to some extent.


----------



## Kiwi & Cow (Mar 20, 2022)

Car Won't Crank said:


> Oh yeah, almost forgot about the almost obsessive testing of nukes the US did back in the mid 1900s. Bikini Atoll was a popular site along with mid air explosions. Besides, hasn't the US Navy been using nuclear powered ships and submarines for a while now? That should speak to the reliability of more modern nuclear power plants operated with proper oversight.


Ok you know what, they should build a nuclear plant at the same place they nuked, I'd fully support that initiative.


----------



## Anti-Intellectual (Mar 20, 2022)

The way you keep sperging and filling the responses with blathering nonsense makes me perceive like you're undergoing your own meltdown with the byproduct of ionizing radiation - retardium

You basically answered your own concern here you imbecile.

_"Supervised failsafes with automation."_

What did you think they were doing this entire time? Don't accuse me of failing to tailor my argument if you don't even understand how you even undercut your own here yet arrived at the proper conclusion purely through ignorance.

Solar panels are not a viable replacement. The mining, disposal, and construction are very much damaging to the environment, exponentially so if they were to be produced en masse on a global scale. Our energy demands are too high as it is, and they only rise higher each decade - well past what photovoltaic technology can progress in time to meet.


----------



## Penrowe (Mar 20, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> Hell even in the case of generators, there was an accident involving a submarine where the generator became very radioactive and the crew on board got sick to some extent.


What on earth are you talking about?
What the fuck is a nuclear generator?
"AN" accident?

I'm not the dunce you're replying to but come on, at least mention this accident by name. There have been many incidents onboard submarines which have resulted in crew being exposed to significant radioactive contamination. Dyatlov, the shift supervisor at chernobyl had even been involved in one, yet he still found work in the field. Nuclear safety in the soviet union was a joke and the fukushima dai-ichi reactors were built after designs more than half a century old, pretending as if either are relevant in any discussion involving CURRENT technology among which many passively safe design proposals can be identified is fucking infantile, as is your bone headed insistence le solar will save the planet.

Maybe in some fantasy world where there are no budgetary constraints, Musk prints billions of sheets of graphene for pennies, endless battery storage is available everywhere and there is no bad weather then your case for solar might make sense but in the real world modern, modular reactor designs are the obviously superior choice for baseline power generation.


----------



## Kiwi & Cow (Mar 21, 2022)

Anti-Intellectual said:


> The way you keep sperging and filling the responses with blathering nonsense makes me perceive like you're undergoing your own meltdown with the byproduct of ionizing radiation - retardium
> 
> You basically answered your own concern here you imbecile.
> 
> ...


Cope




Seethe



and Dilate



Tranny





Penrowe said:


> I'm not the dunce you're replying to but come on, at least mention this accident by name. There have been many incidents onboard submarines which have resulted in crew being exposed to significant radioactive contamination. Dyatlov, the shift supervisor at chernobyl had even been involved in one, yet he still found work in the field. Nuclear safety in the soviet union was a joke and the fukushima dai-ichi reactors were built after designs more than half a century old, pretending as if either are relevant in any discussion involving CURRENT technology among which many passively safe design proposals can be identified is fucking infantile, as is your bone headed insistence le solar will save the planet.


I've heard of it years ago, but didn't think much of it until subs were mentioned in the thread. It was a Russian submarine and they got help from either the U.S or another country from NATO that's all the details I remember.
I'm glad for the guy if that's what happened, he was one of the lucky ones.
The issue I and someone else mentioned here are that incompetence and delapidation trumps any system, Chernobyl was a case of both playing together and my worry is that it happens again even with modern designs. If it was fully automated and almost nobody had to intervene other than for inspection and cleaning then I would probably not care, it is because nuclear plants still rely too much on human intervention to function correctly that I do care.

You know, I've been reading about nuclear stuff and apparently scientists are researching a way to both make electricity and create anti-ionising medicine out of mushrooms, that would honestly be a very good way to implement atomic energy and a good enough compromise for me.








						Recent developments in mushrooms as anti-cancer therapeutics: a review
					

From time immemorial, mushrooms have been valued by humankind as a culinary wonder and folk medicine in Oriental practice. The last decade has witnessed the overwhelming interest of western research fraternity in pharmaceutical potential of mushrooms. ...




					www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
				











						Scientists hope that mushrooms from Chernobyl will help protect people from radiation
					

Unusual mushrooms that grow inside the Chernobyl nuclear reactor and “feed” on radiation, converting it into energy, can become the basis for new drugs that




					www.soulask.com


----------



## Penrowe (Mar 21, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> Chernobyl was a case of both playing together and my worry is that it happens again even with modern designs.


You don't know what you're talking about. This is as far as I'm willing to take things while still maintaining some level of decorum with you, your ignorance is not an argument. You should not need me to point out how fucking foreign ALL of the design concepts of the RBMK are to even contemporary western designs nevermind modern developments.
I'm not going to go out of my way to explain any of these particulars to a moron who posts a picture of an oil refinery fire thinking it's a nuclear plant, you've failed at such a fundamental level all there is to do is point and laugh.



Kiwi & Cow said:


> You know, I've been reading about nuclear stuff and apparently scientists are researching a way to both make electricity and create anti-ionising medicine out of mushrooms, that would honestly be a very good way to implement atomic energy and a good enough compromise for me.


Nobody gives a shit if something is an acceptable compromise to you. You are an idiot with a grade schoolers understanding of the topic at hand.


----------



## mindlessobserver (Mar 29, 2022)

Kiwi & Cow said:


> Cope
> View attachment 3095129
> Seethe
> View attachment 3095130
> ...


That looks extremely painful


----------

