Are Green Initiatives doing more harm than good? - Paying Regimes that hate you for fuel instead of producing your own

[Absolutego]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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

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.

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

 

[Kiwi & Cow]

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.

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]

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.


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.

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]

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]

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]

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

Ditto.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

Ditto.

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

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

 

[Toolbox]

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.

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

 

[Generic Retard]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

 

[Toolbox]

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.