Why do I keep seeing this meme? Is it just liberals patting themselves on the back?

Why do I keep seeing this meme? Is it just liberals patting themselves on the back?

"I'm going to do X NO MATTER WHAT TRUMP SAYS"
"Trump CANT STOP US from doing X!!!"

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY
google.com/search?q=nuclear waste containment Nevada&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiEoJCIsbjRAhVhhlQKHYu7Ax4Q_AUICSgC&biw=1366&bih=657
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Technology and market forces will eventually make Obama correct.

Why would this be a bad thing?

Please don't tell me you've let yourself become identified with fossil fuels simply because of "US vs THEM" babby's first politics

impotent rage they can't do anything so they say stuff like that

I didn't realize trump was trying to ban renewable energy.

no it won't, green energy (other than nukes) will never be more economical or efficient than hydrocarbons

Fossil fuels won't last forever.

how to turn conservatives to supporting green energy
>buying and using oil from saudi arabia
>mining and drilling oil/ coal/ natural gas BEFORE the inevitable global market collapse & ww3

Because costs aren't going to stop going down. Coal isn't as cost effective as it used to be and it can only be if you don't factor in the cost of the externalities it generate (just look at China).

I'll take clean coal for 1000 Alex.

He's factually incorrect. Maybe in forty years green energy will be half as cost effective as hydrocarbon fuels. Not before.

Meanwhile nuclear energy will be ignored until the next 50 year old plant melts down because of nonexistent safety standards.

>We got beat in that game but he can't beat us on this!

>technology and market forces make Obama correct
Literally the opposite of reality, friend.

Obuma cares about his legacy of being the first black president, so he is now pushing shit that is popular with liberals (that he or his party won't have to worry about the fallout from)

this, until women stop voting against nukes, hydrocarbon tech will continue to be the supreme energy source as well as become more and more clean and efficient. They have 120 years more research behind them than (((alternative energy))) methods.

Ah yeah, the shift that never happens. But they keep paying millions to convince people that man made climate change is real.

Or how the "shift" included him giving funding to his buddies companies for green energy, Millions of dollars, and then very soon later they all declared bankruptcy. Fake contracts where they all paid themselves millions in salaries, for producing nothing and Obama did nothing. But repeats the same process.

He is correct but the private market, not the government, is responsible; home solar will simply drop significantly in price come the next big advance and the entire middle class will generate its own power.

I guarantee this within 5 years.

If only we could obstain from dealing with OPEC while keeping kikes out of green energy.

>Is it just liberals patting themselves on the back?
It is exactly that. They are trying as hard as they can to make themselves look good after this tremendously crushing defeat. Leftism is on the downward slope because it's been ousted as the corrupt thing that it is and so mad as fuck, they are trying to toss as many wrenches as they can into everything for a final "Fuck you!"

>We lost the entirety of the federal government
>We're still relevant if we cry a lot
Retarded babies

>market forces will eventually make Obama correct.

Sorry. EROEI for solar and wind is dog shit tier. It will NEVER be economical.

This is what greenfags will never admit to.

Trump should eliminate the regulatory blocks preventing research and development into MSR nuclear reactors so the US can undercut coal in $ per TWH.

Trump could be responsible for a bigger reduction of carbon output than any green politician on the planet.

>the price of silver skyrockets
>wake up and your panels are gone

I'll never understand the fascination with green energy.
Wind and Solar is garbage and costs way too much for a small gain, Solar also has the most deaths. Nuclear and hydro will always be the best until more breakthroughs like Thorium.

Solar costs go up as demand for PV panels increases because the production of SC grade silicon is a hardware and energy intensive process. Also, PV solar is just off-shoring pollution to china. The mining of materials for PV and wind (rare earths) is a pollution intensive business. So much so that environmental regulations in the US have killed US production completely for Heavy Rare Earths, all that production went to China.

>say things
>trump keeps proving you wrong
>keep saying things in more and more definitive language
>look even worse when trump proves you wrong yet again

pattern recognition is lacking lately

EE here, the only sustainable clean energy that can be provided no matter the location is nuclear.

Geothermal is the closest but Most of the east coast of the US is fucked in that regard.

Its a shame people are too stupid cause of "muh radioactive power plants".

Thorium is also nuclear, just a different method.

Technology and market forces cant violate thermodynamics. Solar and wind are diffuse, intermittent supplies, nothing will change that.

Hence the breakthrough part.
>Tfw Denmark will never drop Wind energy due to it being one of our biggest markets

>eventually

The key with "thorium" reactors is a particular design, the molten salt reactors. A design where the contaminants generated during reactor operation that "poison" solid fuel can be separated out on the fly instead of the entire fuel assembly being taken out of the reactor and discarded (or re-processed).

This allows for a far more complete utilisation of the fuel. Most nuclear "waste" is unused fuel that is 'poisoned' with these contaminants.

Wind and solar will never be economically viable
We should be focusing on Nuclear but all the retards are too spooked by it

Both Throrium and fission based reactors will pretty much become obsolete once we start to efficiently extract energy from fusion reactions instead.

>enormous energy output
>waste is literally Helium

...OK. Good.

So there was no need to vote for Hillary then.

I forgot to mention that it's much more safer as well. To stop the reaction one would simply need to turn the reactor off and the reaction would cease immediately, whereas in a fission chain-reaction you have to put some control bars to stop the neutrons from "chain reacting" more.

Not only that, the residue from a fission reaction needs proper care to cool off because it'll still be very radioactive, which will heat itself up and it may be dangerous.

Really think so? I think 40 cents a gallon at the gas pump would beg to differ.

I don't know how far away from practical fusion reactors we are, honestly. Especially if the current anti-nuclear sentiment continues. I'm sure it's a few decades at least. Might as well use fission in the meantime.

>Next year's crop will entail a surplus of CORN! Take THAT, TRUMP!
Saying something obviously going to happen, is going to happen, and then trying to take ownership of it, is the bottom-barrel political equivalent to shilling.

>2017
>WATER IS STILL WET
>TAKE THAT, BIGOTS

Yeah, no fucking shit we're going to switch to different sources of energy ~eventually~.

Efficient and reliable fusion is unlikely. It will, in any implementation, require massive amounts of energy and high precision, two factors that are directly opposed.

Current nuclear implementations are already expensive mostly because of the massive forgings for the reactor vessels due to the pressure the coolant water needs to be placed under.

I doubt the builds for plasma containment would be less difficult than keeping steam contained.

MSR is run at atmospheric pressure and the reaction is self-sustaining, far fewer cost barriers.

they will last longer than you will.

Nuke is Green

FTW

>whereas in a fission chain-reaction you have to put some control bars to stop the neutrons from "chain reacting" more.

Not in a MSR, the cross section of the reactor allows for the neutron density for chain-reaction. The moment the fuel leaves the reactor the thinner cross section of the pipes prohibits drops reaction below criticality.

Furthermore in some preposed designs if the reactor gets too hot the thermal expansion of the fuel would be enough to end criticality in the reactor core, it would be self-stabilising, no intervention needed.

MSR reactors can run at higher temps than current BWR designs. As a thermal source you could use it to synthesise dimethyl ether from a carbon source (such as carbon capture from existing coal plants or other industrial carbon outputs).

DME can be used directly in existing diesel engines.

hardley a crushing defeat. Obama won by more electoral votes in 2008 and 2012.

In the deserts solar is already cheaper than coal. It's only a matter of time before it becomes the norm.

Obama knows about the Tiberium future.

Didn't they lose the presidency, the house, and the senate?

I don't believe we'll have efficient and reliable fusion soon, but I believe it's achievable. The way they're topologically twisting magnetic fields to trap and heat the plasma inside the reactors is pretty clever and it looks feasible. The question is how to make those twisted magnetic fields and how to maintain them operating at a high tension. The latter could be resolved by redirecting some of the output to the system itself.

Now how did I have heard of this MSR before? I've just had a glance and it looks pretty interesting.

test

I don't think green energy is the same as massive subsidies for shitty wind turbines. You are literally giving away tax money to people who have large holdings of land and political connections. Oh wait...

Shame nobody lives there.

Solar functions best in places where nobody lives or needs the energy (which is still only available 1/2 the time at best).

So then you build massive transmission lines, which will only have power running through them 1/2 the time, lose more energy to resistance the longer they are and require massive amounts of steel and concrete. Concrete manufacture is a huge source of carbon and so is steel refining.

But never mind all that, because green ideology favours feelings over the environment.

Here, have some LFTR gateway drugs:

youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY

>Technology and market forces will eventually make Obama correct.
Then explain how Solyndra went bankrupt.

Ive yet to see a trump quote saying anything about green engergy or fossile fuels.
Its a known fact of life that we were going to go green.. who the fuck thought that just because of one guys opinion that wed just call it off?
libcucks and niggers are retarded.

trump has neutralized this pathetic argument...

the truth hurts for Obama...

he was an inexperienced leader that failed miserably...he will see this more and more as he tries to be relevant...and fails

>hardley a crushing defeat.
Psssst, there are more positions of authority in the government of this country than just the leader of the Executive branch. Liberals lost THEM ALL, including control over many more of the state governments by losing so many Governorships.

They put all their energy into the Presidential race and lost ground everywhere else. Then also lost the one race they invested in.

>Nuclear energy is the most efficient green energy on the face of the earth
>can't use it because of some fucking corner cutting communists and some dumb ass nips building their plants poorly

OUR ISLAND IS PRONE TO EARTHQUAKES AND TSUNAMIS

LETS BUILD IT NEXT TO THE OCEAN

I grip my phallus and jerk @ the stupidity of liberal, communist, socialist stupid fux thinking Hillary was awesome....

As a laymen observer of all things global, I would say that Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Iran's little incident with "malware" are prime examples of the (at least potential) ramifications of nuclear energy.

The moment your reactors get a little bit too hot, you've got yourself a CBRNE incident to deal with. Seen the tradewinds across the US lately? A meltdown in San Fran, for example, could decimate Atlanta, or New York, or DC with fallout.

Also, clean? Have you seen the containment caves in Nevada?
google.com/search?q=nuclear waste containment Nevada&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiEoJCIsbjRAhVhhlQKHYu7Ax4Q_AUICSgC&biw=1366&bih=657

Green energy? that means nuclear right?
>doesn't rely on foreign resources
>no emissions
>best reactors only have waste with a half-life of 100 years and is all stored on sight
>huge energy potential

when you type stuff...


all I hear is sometimes you suck penis...

The hilarious thing is that if democrats lose one more govenorship and legislature they literally have no political power because they wouldn't be able to stop republican constitutional amendments

when you type stuff..

all I hear is canada is a real place, we almost matter

>hear
you might want to get your text to speech program looked at

>Green energy? that means nuclear right?
>>doesn't rely on foreign resources
>>no emissions
>>best reactors only have waste with a half-life of 100 years and is all stored on sight
>>huge energy potential
But muh Chernobyl

Does the left really think we want to reverse it? We don't, we just are tired of liberals doing everything in their power to keep oil more expensive. Hopefully green continues on without govt aid.

>Chernobyl
soviet era shit box made with a focus on pumping out weapons material rather than safety. who cares.

look...Canada advised America...

all America heard was a fart from the distant tundra...

that was what I thought at first but king nig is probably talking about memes like solar

Buy our expensive PV-Stuff. Have a nice Job here.

Indians buy much more atm than burgers.

Think of the climate and all those evil CO twos.

More!! MOOOOREEEE!!!

Seriously, that videos has me all jacked up, say more things about stuff

2018 Super Majority here we come

dude did the math...you are correct sir

>green energy
Yes, because nothing says more green than expanding the coal industry to support the "green" alternatives.

what if it's dark?

Blatant corruption on a level that should make the Enron execs blush.

Seriously, that shit should be covered in every ethics course in the nation.

Look at the most recent 'energy outlook' publications from EIA, IEA, Exxon, BP, Shell etc. and you will find that in all of them renewables have the strongest long term growth projections even in their 'no climate policy' scenarios that don't include renewable subsidies or regulations that discriminate against fossil fuel