>not renewable. >still more ecofriendly than wind and solar

>not renewable
>still more ecofriendly than wind and solar

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >can explode at anytime
    >every other power source already makes the environment explode
    With those summer fires, I guess we know where to go

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    all modern energy sources are bad for the environment equally
    to go clean we gotta go back to waterwheels on natural waterfalls

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Nobody wants it in their back yard.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      id live in a nuclear power plant

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      id prefer a micro-scale nuclear reactor the size of like a truck or something in my yard over a fucking windmill any day

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Romanian people are now advised to take iodine pills
    Safe and effective

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Unless you neighbour invades your cunt and bombs them
    why are russians obsessed with distabilising nuclear plants

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    When I was in high school I was sure we'd have fusion power by now. That was forty years ago and we still seem no closer.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    animals?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Animals and "Nature"

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        What's natural about human-made nuclear power plants?

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This. 100% renewable advocates are fucking retards.

    >hydro
    Eyesore, kiss the ecosystem goodbye, also needs a fuckton of concrete

    >solar
    Needs rare earth metals, can’t sustain power production at the hours you need it most, needs tons of land to work large scale, costly to recycle and leaks toxic materials

    >wind
    To be properly effective, they need to take up large swathes of land to be effective, bye-bye ecosystem. The blades aren’t recyclable and have to be transported on big trucks one at a time

    >geothermal
    Extremely location specific, can cause earthquakes, can release toxic gases like hydrogen sulphide

    >tidal
    Disruptive to marine life and ecosystem and doesn’t generate enough to meet demands unless you feel like fucking over a whole ecosystem. Long term effects aren’t even known as nobody bothers with it because it’s so shitty

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The blades aren’t recyclable
      Huh? Aren't they just shaped metal?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Fiberglass, aluminium, and plastic/epoxy.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Most don't have aluminum. They're just waste.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        no, because metal blades are retarded, because they get really heavy, only plastic is light enough and rigid enough for its use, but you need oil to make plastic, which defeats the purpose of of "renewable" energy

        given that it's a caldera supervolcano with the potential to end civilization, i think we should leave it alone.
        plus, the area is already under the federal government's control as a national park. we don't need to set a precedent of ceding federal land to businesses, a wet dream for the energy garden gnomes no doubt

        they can, you just need congress to approve of it, its how a lot of dams were built on national parks like yosemite's hetch hetchy dam

        >it costs money to do so... so no one bothers.
        sounds like job creation to me

        you have to sift the ocean, theres a lot of shit in the ocean, so you risk fucking up a lot of the pelagic ecosystem

        What's natural about human-made nuclear power plants?

        nuclear power is as natural as the sun

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          What's natural about human-made nuclear power plants?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Really weird how there was never a direct answer to this. It's almost as if crossboarders want to shoehorn their board topics into unrelated board using the most tertiary semantic links as le witty loopholes. But surely nobody would do that, right?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              You didn't get a serious reply because you're a troll. Discussing environmental impact is Wauf. Go back to your pitbull thread.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            ill one up your shitty question
            What's natural about any power production method? every single method requires bigass landfills or excavation and damages the world somehow. nuclear is the best hands down

            Also its a little crass but when human nuclear projects go south it creates nature preserves that are guaranteed to last for 500 years I couldn't care less tbh, let more reactors go critical

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              none of them are natural so none of them belong on Wauf, that's the farthest you're getting a response, thanks for confirming this is an off topic shitpost thread made by crossboarders

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >talk about how things affect nature
                >its not talking about nature
                lol

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                producing anime affects nature
                cooking affects nature
                television and film production affects nature
                I guess that's a green light to start bringing /a/, Wauf, and Wauf topics onto Wauf.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >he doesnt know

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                oh i'm very aware that board topics are a meme and don't mean anything

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                well it's an anime website so yeah
                you can technically talk about on any board

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                if you were discussing the environmental impact of humans eating a kind of food that would be fine on Wauf. people do discuss things here like deforestation as a result of cattle farming. there's plenty of nature documentaries so talking about film isn't necessarily an issue either.
                You seem like you're upset that nobody replied to your joke thread about garloids and want to take out your frustration on others.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        they're mostly fiber glass which cant be recycled

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      i just don't get these kinds of attitudes. it's always "b-b-b-but look at all the waste!!!!!!!!!" while ALWAYS ignoring the massive amounts of pollutants and waste comes with drilling for oil. always disingenuous oil garden gnomes

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I don't think he's arguing pro oil, just that the other so-called environmentally friendly alternatives aren't as friendly, or ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE better as nuclear.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          they are though because they never offer alternatives. they're implicitly arguing for the status quo which is hydrocarbons.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >they never offer alternatives
            Did you not see what this thread’s subject is?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >they're implicitly arguing for the status quo which is hydrocarbons.
            Dude's literally pro nuclear, and he's saying that 100% renewable advocates are being retarded by avoiding the inherent problems they pose, many of which are analogous to hydrocarbons, by the way.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >geothermal causes earthquakes
      ??????

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >blow up (or help create weapons that blow up)
    >create the very best nature sanctuaries doing so
    Still a win.
    Only the garbage issue will probably get weird and expensive in the next few thousand years.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I like solar energy. Praise the sun.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    That's false.
    Breeder reactor create nuclear fuel (and and also burn up almost all "waste" products).

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >not renewable

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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Do you really trust us Italians with nuclear plants

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Your descendants in latin america have 2 and will possibly get a third one. If those didn't collapse its all good.

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You can't trust most 1st world governments with building a bridge that doesn't collapse after 30years but you want the same politicians to manage nuclear waste

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >You can't trust most 1st world governments with building a bridge that doesn't collapse after 30years
      Not to turn it into whataboutism, but you cannot even trust 2nd or 3rd world countries to build infrastructure that lasts for 10 years. So if 30 is the current max, 30 is the gold standard.
      >but you want the same politicians to manage nuclear waste
      Next generation reactors are supposed to be able to reuse their waste to generate energy. Beside that, nuclear waste is actually reprocessed to remove as much fissile material for re-use as possible. And frankly, storing it in underground bunkers or inside caves is just fine. I honestly cannot think of a better way of doing it.
      >n-not worth it!!!!
      If you believe that, then you're seriously, SERIOUSLY, underestimating how much energy can be produced from nuclear energy,

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    By definition nuclear is renewable, because it's possible to economically extract uranium from seawater, and it renews over time by emissions from oceanic volcanism. The amount extractable from seawater covers all our current energy needs several times over.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The amount extractable from seawater covers all our current energy needs several times over.
      Sauce. Big if true.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Huge if correct

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    We have so much uranium around the world it doesn't even matter

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Fusion is a complete meme and will never be economical.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's hard to tell whether that's the fault of fusion being technically difficult or the fault of society for being too stupid to invest enough money into researching it. Currently the US spends twice as much money on peanut subsidies.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        source for that, because it sounds like utter bullshit otherwise:
        https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-the-future-of-fusion

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The fault of fusion is being built on the false premise that stars generate their power by fusion.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          But don't they? The sun takes in a bunch of hydrogen and emits a bunch of helium, and the further into the core you go, the heavier the atoms being made.

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Large scale renewables will be more economical than nuclear within few years.
    Nuclear power is already lost because it missed several decades of research and modernisation already and there is no time to catch up.
    Eventually, almost everything will be replaced by fusion power. We are talking about gap fillers until that goal is achieved.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      as much of a pipe dream as fusion sounds, it's incredibly alluring too. literally the ideal energy source. even nuclear feels awkward in comparison to it.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's not like development has completely stopped, and even old reactors are far better than your oh-so-fancied renewables (which tend to use a bunch of rare materials als strip mined in china ontop of that, aside of the environmental inpact what do you do when the war against china inevitably comes). Never heard of thorium reactors? Brilliant stuff, eats basically everything and the waste has an orders of magnitude shorter halflife. We would've had them running 25 years ago but commies here in germany had the reactor shut down.
      trusting on fusion to arrive while ruining the environment both physically and visually with coal plants and renewable nonsense instead of modern nuclear reactors is like sending your men into battle with bow and arrow instead of rifles, just because there's some hobo in a shack who promises he'll have a magic spell ready any day now

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Germany decision to shut down reactors after Fukushima was so stupid.
        By the way, they are not commies, commies would never shut down nuclear plants, they are disgusting green capitalists.
        Thorium is awesome but because of military reasons, Thorium based reactors were discarded.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Large scale renewables will be more economical than nuclear within few years
      It must be very large scale. And let's not forget, economical doesn't actually mean the output is getting better. It just means that what we spend on raw materials is going down, aka economies of scale are at work.
      https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      fusion is meme, not because it can't work but because the efficiency is too low. you literally have to use most of the output just to keep the fusion running.

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >build 5000 nuclear plants to replace all fossile energy needs (currently there are less than 500 on the planet supplying around 10% of worldwide energy)
    >default chance for fuckups increases by x10, likely even more if you take into account that due to lack of space and cooling water many more reactors will be built in less favorable spaces
    >triple digits of these reactors will be built and maintained by more severely mismanaged countries / companies than what we have today if nuclear would expand worldwide
    >nuclear plants would become major strategic targets during war and terrorist actions, as we have seen in ukraine already, and it takes only one foolhardy strategist or misplaced artillery shot to destroy cooling water cycles and release a wind-carried cloud of radioactivity

    and that's not even consider the nuclear waste, including irradiated materials. Would you be totally okay with it if the government decides to store high-level waste below your hometown because THEY think the rocks under your home would be a perfect storage? would you be okay with the illegal dumping of shit into the ocean that africa and south america would inevatibly be doing?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Reactors are prone to accidents because many were built in the 60s. New ones are much more safe. Read a book.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why would the west building more nuclear plants somehow allow them to pop up in third world countries? Why do you think nuclear waste is a problem? Why do you think nuclear plants are somehow accident prone? Are you aware you may have been brainwashed by tv?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Shithole countries even like NK are doing nuclear tests and they still manage to exist. Shove that pussy opinion down your ass.

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Renewable
    Just because something can be used in a cycle doesn't make it good. It would take us thousands of years to use up all of the radioactive material and by then we're mining the stars.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >and by then we're mining the stars.
      Hahaha
      >he thinks we'll make it another 200 years, with or without nuclear power
      Get ready for the water wars, fag. If we had nuclear, we might actually be getting somewhere close to desalination, but nope.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Who is we? My state has 30% of its energy from nuclear and we seem to be moving towards more. Have fun being German.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          How independent is your state from the rest of the global economy? Are all your needs met domestically?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm American. We're a net food exporter. Push come to shove we'll just tell the world to fuck off. You guys seem to love China. I'm sure they'll give you stuff.

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    fuck dandelions
    fuck daisies

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    I'd prefer a reply from someone who doesn't live with his head stuck in the sand

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm hoping the current energy crisis in Europe will change some stances on nuclear.
    More and more countries, particularly in the east, are more concerned with energy independence and nuclear is pretty much the only option.

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why does Wauf only care about ecology when they can shill nuclear energy?
    >invasive species causes biodiversity loss
    >"who cares, manmade impact is nature too"
    >modern agricultural and gardening practices destroy ecosystems and insect populations
    >"it's my land and I do what I want, I don't have to respect nature"
    >giant panda, koala and tortoise conservation provides good results
    >"should have left them to die"
    >photovoltaic station causes pollution
    >"OH GOD THE POOR CREATURES! THE STATE OF OUR POOR PLANET! SWITCH TO NUCLEAR NOW!"

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Because benefiting eco is usually a cost to humans, but in the case of nuclear it benefits everyone.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous
  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The only truly renewable energy source is biofuel

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      coal and oil are both just late-stage refined biofuels

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      like trees

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Biofuel is just a solar-powered chemical battery.

  27. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >country has 0 (zero) nuclear plants
    >no plans to even introduce nuclear energy as we get by using green energies
    >I still live 100kms away from an old ass nuclear plant that the other country refuses to shut down

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Belgium?

  28. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    why don't we just build a massive geothermal conduit over yellowstone and replace the national park with a power plant

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      no

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Is this possible?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        yeah, because almost all of energy production is turning a turbine, and most of the time its just boiling water

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >because almost all of energy production is turning a turbine
          Isn't there a chemical process that generates electricity or something?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            inefficient

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous
    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Don’t even need that. Could make lots of small power plants around it with the benefit of not fucking up the entire production when something go wrong with one of them.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      given that it's a caldera supervolcano with the potential to end civilization, i think we should leave it alone.
      plus, the area is already under the federal government's control as a national park. we don't need to set a precedent of ceding federal land to businesses, a wet dream for the energy garden gnomes no doubt

  29. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Wind turbines kill birds and bats, are ugly as shit, and both them and solar panels are made with unrenewable rare earth medals. Why do they shill for those things? I don't even see how they can be a good business venture. Neither of them are really worth shit.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The motors and solar panels usually get recycled properly after being damaged or decommissioned, the fiberglass blades get dumped into the ocean or sent to landfills.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The motors and solar panels usually get recycled properly after being damaged or decommissioned, the fiberglass blades get dumped into the ocean or sent to landfills.

      luv me some nuclear but I always took issue with how something going to landfill is such a bad thing compared to the amount of recyclables that end up there anyways, the mess that is recycling in general, and the fact they aren't third world shithole landfills so they'll actually contain all the trash and everything
      Is putting it in a landfill really that bad compared to grinding it to aggregate, replacing literal rocks because that's the only easy use apparently
      it's just a bunch of plastic and glass, I guess being from an industry level source that should have much more control of source and destination of waste matters a little

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >how something going to landfill is such a bad thing
        because its not really solving a problem, its just hiding things under a rug, and then the problem is stuff can risk contaminating the local area and running out of space, and fiber glass isnt just glass (which you can recycle and is very easy to do and cheaper than making new glass, which is a problem with recycling in general, most of the times its much more expensive to recycle something like paper) fiberglass also has plastics, so you cant recycle it, and all this does is kick the can down the road

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/29bvLkR.jpg

      >Knuckle dragging commies are to blame for this. Chernobyl set back nuclear power by decades.
      Not just the Soviets

      https://i.imgur.com/o3MGjZX.png

      >Large scale renewables will be more economical than nuclear within few years
      It must be very large scale. And let's not forget, economical doesn't actually mean the output is getting better. It just means that what we spend on raw materials is going down, aka economies of scale are at work.
      https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close

      This. 100% renewable advocates are fucking retards.

      >hydro
      Eyesore, kiss the ecosystem goodbye, also needs a fuckton of concrete

      >solar
      Needs rare earth metals, can’t sustain power production at the hours you need it most, needs tons of land to work large scale, costly to recycle and leaks toxic materials

      >wind
      To be properly effective, they need to take up large swathes of land to be effective, bye-bye ecosystem. The blades aren’t recyclable and have to be transported on big trucks one at a time

      >geothermal
      Extremely location specific, can cause earthquakes, can release toxic gases like hydrogen sulphide

      >tidal
      Disruptive to marine life and ecosystem and doesn’t generate enough to meet demands unless you feel like fucking over a whole ecosystem. Long term effects aren’t even known as nobody bothers with it because it’s so shitty

      Nuclear is very much not clean since it requires the destruction of local habitats through mining, which can have devastating side effects if done improperly (which it will be since the CEO would rather have another yacht than pay his workers correctly or hire someone for clean up). Sure, it burns clean, but the energy it takes to mine it and then bring it back offsets any clean benefits. At least until electric vehicles are the norm, or god forbid nuclear powered vehicles. Lets just turn every car into a nuke and pass that off as the occasional accident too. Plus, nuclear waste is still a problem since companies won't bother to recycle it properly. You idiots talking about job creation have probably never worked a day in your life, but as someone who is in a low-end job, I know that they will cut any corners they can which is catastrophic when you have a nuclear bomb waiting to explode in your power plant.
      I used to be big on nuclear energy too, at first it seems perfect until you realise that renewables are already on the same level and the only reason nuclear is discussed is because energy companies won't make money if you have solar panels on your roof instead and you get the energy from the sun for free.

      All I'm hearing is that fossil fuels are the future and we gotta figure out a way to fast-forward bones into oil

  30. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >smog gets so bad it blocks out the sun
    >who knows how we're gonna fuck up the wind
    It's fucking retarded that we're not all in on nuclear energy. Knuckle dragging commies are to blame for this. Chernobyl set back nuclear power by decades.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Knuckle dragging commies are to blame for this. Chernobyl set back nuclear power by decades.
      Not just the Soviets

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Dear God that's tankie as fuck

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Dear God that's tankie as fuck
          If this was the Eastern Bloc he'd already be on a train to the nearest re-education facility.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            And that's a good thing.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        lmao he should be elected to gulag for having such a retarded opinion. dismantle the patriachal colonial system by starting with yourself homie

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I hate people like this like you wouldn't believe.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Trying to find his early life section

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I may not have the best of brains, but I am thankful that it's resistant to politically-induced rot such as this.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I'd rather talk to normal people over over-educated midwits like that one any day.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >over-educated
            more like miseducated

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The scary thing is, this opinion is very common amungst hardcore environmentalists.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Such as?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            My uni professors, everyone in that tweet, most if the people I read the last 2 years. They see the climate crisis as a way to address things they view as moral issues.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Using Twitter and fucking Apple doesn't dismantle systems of oppresion as well!

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        How many layers of bullshit do you need to be on to think like this?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          TLDR: They see western imperialism and America capitalism as the source off all evils past and present. This goes so far to the point where they see their "climate crisis" as the result of those things even more so then fossil fuels. Therefore they see it as a moral imperative they use global warming as an excuse to dismantle our economy and force behavioral change on the population.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        That guy is paid to be retarded on purpose theres no other explanation.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I hate leftists so much it's starting to make me physically ache.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >this level of koch brother dicksucking
        Nuclear is absolute shit and you morons have the wool pulled over your eyes. Renewables are far cheaper and their effectiveness is hidden by the media because it doesn't fit the agenda of the big businesses that fund them.
        >inb4 I DONT WATCH THE NEWS
        Yet you are reciting the exact dogma of the Cato institute and other nuclear lobbying groups. Pathetic how unlike boomers, you'll recite that institutionalized bullshit without having the TV on 24/7.

        The guy is an absolute gay for surrounding it in identity politics bullshit, but the gist of his argument is true. All the biggest piece of shit corporations on this planet will just change their coal mining projects to nuclear and nothing will change. Nuclear is an expensive distraction aimed at preventing any actual progress into renewables from occurring because all of the coal/nuclear mining and energy companies will lose their income.
        Whether you're a piece of shit 4chanfag or a tankie you should prefer renewables because it takes power out of the hands of the corporations that control this planet.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          how do you survive with 60 IQ?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            How do you survive with the Koch cock in your mouth and his grey pubes in your nose?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Nuclear is an expensive distraction aimed at preventing any actual progress into renewables
          renewables are not the end goal, clean energy is.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nuclear is very much not clean since it requires the destruction of local habitats through mining, which can have devastating side effects if done improperly (which it will be since the CEO would rather have another yacht than pay his workers correctly or hire someone for clean up). Sure, it burns clean, but the energy it takes to mine it and then bring it back offsets any clean benefits. At least until electric vehicles are the norm, or god forbid nuclear powered vehicles. Lets just turn every car into a nuke and pass that off as the occasional accident too. Plus, nuclear waste is still a problem since companies won't bother to recycle it properly. You idiots talking about job creation have probably never worked a day in your life, but as someone who is in a low-end job, I know that they will cut any corners they can which is catastrophic when you have a nuclear bomb waiting to explode in your power plant.
            I used to be big on nuclear energy too, at first it seems perfect until you realise that renewables are already on the same level and the only reason nuclear is discussed is because energy companies won't make money if you have solar panels on your roof instead and you get the energy from the sun for free.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Lets just turn every car into a nuke and pass that off as the occasional accident too
              >You idiots talking about job creation have probably never worked a day in your life
              >when you have a nuclear bomb waiting to explode in your power plant
              see now I know you're full of shit

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >lets pretend nuclear fission isnt how nuclear bombs work
                I'm not scaremongering here but it's just the truth; nuclear is very dangerous if handled incorrectly and a lot of times it is handled incorrectly because companies will cut as many corners as they can. Fukushima is one of the few times it was handled correctly in the case of a disaster because a single dude gave enough of a fuck to ignore bad orders, so I'm not going to cite that.

                >>You idiots talking about job creation have probably never worked a day in your life
                >see now I know you're full of shit
                Do you know where we are?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >energy companies won't make money if you have solar panels on your roof instead and you get the energy from the sun for free.
              This is the only decent point you've made. It would be nice if everyone individually was 100% self sufficient, but you still can't make your own solar panels from scratch. You need a big factory and logistics.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >realise that renewables are already on the same level
              lol, lmao even, its no where even close, because renewables are hot fucking garbage, all their energy predictions are based on them running at peak capacity, which is like 10 minutes for solar, and if there are 40 mph winds. that doesnt even get to how dirty it is to mine and refine the materials necessary. everytime you hippies come out proselyting about "muh renewables" you all forget the fact that you have to mine rare earth metals, which is done through strip mining and contaminates the locale, but thats fine because its some third world shithole, and then these panels go to shit in 10 years because reasons, or the fact that you need oil to produce plastics for wind turbines which also go to shit. "renewable" energy is literally the least renewable energy source because of how short lived the materials are over its life time and how little energy you can produce compared to nuclear

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Nuclear is very much not clean since it requires the destruction of local habitats through mining
              Don't look up how solar panels, lithium batteries and aluminium wind turbines are made, then

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >. Renewables are far cheaper and their effectiveness is hidden by the media
          can you point to literally any research that supports your argument?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Nuclear is absolute shit

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >his source

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          fuck off saudi cunt

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I don't even care about the logistics of nuclear waste management, can we just adopt mass scale nuclear power to spite this guy?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Is that tweet mocking the contents of the link, or is he actually agreeing with it?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        the earth doesnt care about human antics, we as a species are ridiculous

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >We'd like to use x to solve problem y, but it doesn't do z, so it is worthless

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      its mostly hippies, and it grinds my gears when people call fukushima a nuclear disaster when its literally not, its literally an example of how safe nuclear is, because there was no meltdown from uncontrolled fission like at chernobyl, just a 9.0 earthquake and a 40 meter tsunami disabled the outdated pumping system, so spent fuel couldnt get water to cool down in time

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >nuclear disaster
        Didn't it pollute the sea into oblivion with radioactive water?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The ocean is already more radioactive.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          thats not a nuclear disaster, retard, thats just radioactive contamination, you dont call radioactive coal ash leaking a nuclear disaster, and even then thats low level stuff, the only danger is if you ingest it, so dont go drinking sea water for a while, like an actual retard. also its the fucking ocean, its gigantic, the radiation will be a drop in the puddle that is the ocean and the amount of radiation is less dangerous than getting heavy metal poisoning, microplastic pollution, or shit water pollution from india

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Literally fear mongering, ffs the Russians did worse with thier decommissioned subs.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >pollute the sea into oblivion
          Can you still swim in the sea?
          Then no.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Agreed, the fact is that the nuclear reactor is pretty much the only thing that didnt suffer catastrophic failure on ALL fronts.

  31. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    If you dont wanna be dependent on fossil fuels, this is the only viable alternative at this point.

  32. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You're right.

  33. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's true. Except when it leaks in the ocean.

    Although that's still probably better than the trash we pour in the ocean daily.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      We can reuse most of the so-called "nuclear waste" but it costs money to do so... so no one bothers.

      There already is radioactive substances in the ocean naturally, what was poured into the sea was nothing at all compared to what was already there.
      If we could manage to extract uranium from the sea effextively, we would have no shortage of the stuff.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I think you're talking about "heavy water", not uranium.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          No he's right about the uranium in sea water

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Even though there is a large supply of uranium in seawater, there are political and physical challenges in oceanic uranium extraction. [1] The ocean's 4.5 billion ton supply of uranium is in the form of ions, or more specifically water-soluble uranyl (UO22+) which is present at a very low concentration (14 nM). [2] The low concentration is then dissolved in an extremely large volume of water (all the world's oceans) which span 1.3 billion cubic km. [4] Then, the uranyl is tightly bound by carbonate and other anions, and exists in seawater, where there are many other metal ions at much higher concentrations (for example 10 mM calcium). [6] These two properties make extracting the uranium extremely difficult. To meet these challenges, recent research publications cited advances and presented alternative methods in extracting uranyl from seawater. [6]
          http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2018/ph241/voigt1/

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >it costs money to do so... so no one bothers.
        sounds like job creation to me

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >when it leaks in the ocean.
      *if

      https://i.imgur.com/hvfRUwB.jpg

      >country has 0 (zero) nuclear plants
      >no plans to even introduce nuclear energy as we get by using green energies
      >I still live 100kms away from an old ass nuclear plant that the other country refuses to shut down

      How much of tye stuff you use was manifactured with your own country's power?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        37% from renewable energies in 2020. Probably higher now.

        Belgium?

        Portugal. Actually, we also have contracts with Iberdrola and Endesa over here, but the profits go to Spain.

        I'm seeing a larger push for solar as of recent. The company I work for, for example, has just now installed photovoltaic panels all over their warehouses.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Portugal
          Hallway country

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The ocean is naturally radioactive and the harmful parts of these leaks are heavy metals that don't go far.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Deepwater Horizon was more damaging to the ocean by a factor of 1,000 compared to Fukushima and all the nuclear tests. Our dumping of plastic in the ocean is 1,000,000 times more damaging. The impact of all nuclear activity is a rounding error against the rest of our pollution, and the advent of nuclear weapons ushered in a new era of global peace through the threat of MAD while nuclear power plants have produced many terawatt hours of clean energy. Nuclear is genuinely humanity's greatest power source yet we refuse to tap it because the public is morons

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Except when it leaks in the ocean.
      I assume you're talking about Fukushima. It basically bled into the background radiation in the ocean (spoiler: it's a big place) and had no discernible impact on human health.

      Fukushima had 1 death from the accident and 2200 from the evacuation (lol). Three Mile Island had no deaths. Chernobyl had around 100 deaths.

      Tens of thousands of people in the US alone die every year from coal/gas power plant pollution.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Except when it leaks in the ocean.
      the ocean is excellent at diffusing radioactive contamination, and humans could never compete with the uranium rich seafloor when it comes to leeching radioactive materials into ocean water.
      Far better for your radioactive waste to spill into the open ocean, than to contaminate soil which takes much longer (through rainfall, mostly) to dissipate to safe levels.
      >If we could manage to extract uranium from the sea effextively, we would have no shortage of the stuff.
      we can, it costs twice as much as mining but luckily fuel/mining costs are a fraction of the final price of Nuclear energy, so it would mean a final price increase of less than a dollar compared to traditional means

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Disregarding all of the industrial accidents in the ocean, how does it compare to the effects of acidification?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        radiation in the ocean is like getting a scratch, can get worse if it keeps going, acidification is like an untreated stab wound to the gut, its going to get worse a lot faster and the effects are more immediate

Your email address will not be published.