Why conservatards are against clean energy like Nuclear but want MOAR COAL?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=gfLD-7bCtME
atomicinsights.com/clean-doable-liquid-fission-lf-energy-roadmap-
powering-world/
thorconpower.com/design
ibtimes.com/turn-coal-gold-russia-scientists-say-theyve-discovered-alchemy-process-2449193
phys.org/news/2017-03-coal-burning-power-stations-environmentally-friendly.html
forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/08/16/will-a-president-hillary-clinton-close-down-nuclear-power-plants/#338b8663a1b3
ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/nuclear-waste/safer-storage-of-spent-fuel#.WTB-BHxtmUk
thorconpower.com/costing
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor
technologyreview.com/s/602051/fail-safe-nuclear-power/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

I want both

Westinghouse went bankrupt and they like to get BLACKED by coal companies.

>conservatives are running the (((environmental))) groups that have been attacking nuclear for the last fifty years

The Jews purchased Canada exclusively for shitposting, apparently.

white people won't do manual la-

Choose your poison. Carbon emissions or the surface of the Earth riddled with used up radioactive rods.

I'd want to slowly ditch both and move into Fusion reactors.
If they aren't just jewscience.

except liberals are the ones who block nuclear energy any chance they get

this

LFTR is the future of energy and we should push money into getting them developed

youtube.com/watch?v=gfLD-7bCtME

Huh? Liberals protest nuke energy.

Because they think it makes them sound tough

>conservatives are against nuclear energy

What?

we gon get sum engy from bananaz n kool aid n sheeeeeeit 100 emoji fist bump emoji

nuclear is great wtf you talking about?
more nuclear too

I want more nuclear but there's so much red tape and screeching from the left that nuclear is going nowhere fast in the US.

>Clean energy like nuclear

Are you fucking for real, senpai?

Conservatives want coal because muh jobs
Liberals don't want nuclear because muh scary green goo (pic related)

The result:
Indonesia buys a bunch of American made nuclear reactors and becomes a world leader in energy while the US squanders its wealth on expensive """""renewables"""""
>atomicinsights.com/clean-doable-liquid-fission-lf-energy-roadmap-
powering-world/
>thorconpower.com/design

Fukushima bruh.

>From the left
You've fallen for the b8, it was the oil/companies who financed the lies

>conservatives are against nuclear energy

Both do. Fossil fuel lobbyists block it on the right and retards block it on the left.

Nuclear fuel has significantly higher energy density than coal and its byproducts are easier to keep control over, so I'll take that. And carbon emission isn't the only thing to worry about with coal.

Their campaign contributors own coal mines.

oil is not used for power generation in the US

>The Jews purchased Canada exclusively for shitposting, apparently.

At least they pay for us, you are israels bitch for free.

Boomers in general are against nuclear. It's not really a left or right issue. Young folks will come around to nuclear power soon, I hope.

It doesn't matter who payed for it, the important part is they have a near unlimited supply of lefties willing to go full NIMBY the second any whisper of a new plant happens.

Liberals are against:
-Fossil Fuel
-Nuclear

are for:
-Solar
-Bioheat
-Water
-Wind

Republicans are against:
-Nuclear
-Wind
-Solar
-Bioheat
-Water

are for:
-Coal

What's better?

I'm not?

I'm fully support Nuclear Energy

>expecting American conservatives to make reasoned decisions based on sound evidence and logical arguments

have you been asleep the last few years?

We love nuke power.

Your parents all shouted "Hell no, we won't glow" back in the 1980's and fucked us over. Assholes

Kill the traitor before the enemy. The left can be made to look foolish. We shouldn't allow them to destroy the world for profit.

Both is the option, especially for the UK.

Nuclear to meet our energy needs. Coal because we're sitting on a literal mountain of coal that we aren't burning.

>implying that people other than liberal granola retards are against nuclear.

liblards hear "Nuclear" and flip their shit.
They're fucking retarded.

We will be able to use nuclear waste as fuel soon.

Why do Liberals think moving coal burning plants and factories to the other side of the world with no regulations helps to save the Earth?

coal is manly those other options are all really gay fuck you

Given that you can't possibly balance the grid and meet energy needs with just Solar, Bioheat, Water, and Wind (especially in a country as big as the US), I'm going to have to say the Republican position is better.

good carbon capture can not only fix the emission problem but if done right can yield gold as a byproduct
ibtimes.com/turn-coal-gold-russia-scientists-say-theyve-discovered-alchemy-process-2449193

a ton of coal would almost pay for itself

they're both retarded

>not wanting the climate to change so the world will end faster

>against nuclear
1 - it's too good. Nuclear energy could supply you with all the energy you need by the efforts of a few thousands of workers. No workplaces so it's not populist.
2 It's unpopular. The populus is brainwashed to fear it so you can virtue signal by shitting on it.

The backlash against fission nuclear power is pretty bizzare in my mind, renewables aren't able to fill the gap as they currently are and relying on new technology to be invented isn't a safe option. I can see why people worried about how countries have been looking for safe nuclear waste storage for decades and still can't decide would be against more fission power stations being built, but nuclear is not that risky in itself. Expensive at the beginning and end of its lifespan, but there's no better option excepting some miraculous discovery like super dense and convenient energy storage or working fusion power.

phys.org/news/2017-03-coal-burning-power-stations-environmentally-friendly.html

only libshit hippie faggots protest against nuclear because muh mother earth crieeees

You definitely can lol
Also, only Sanders was anti Nuclear, while Hillary had a clear pro Nuclear stance.

I'm not really sure how you expect me to do anything to the American coal lobby.

>Hillary had a clear pro Nuclear stance
got a source on that?

If only your plants didn't suck ass.

Just a figure of speech.

>conservatives
>opposed to nuclear power
You've got it backwards, leaf. Republicans have been pushing for MORE nuclear power for decades, but liberal politicians have blocked their efforts.

Hell just look at that little faggot Harry Reid who spent years blocking the Yucca Mountain project: We've got a long-term nuclear waste storage facility FINISHED and ready to go, with enough space to store all the nuclear waste produced in the last half a century, plus anything we produce for the next 100-150 years and yet it sits there, empty, because of a bunch of yuppie, hippy politicians who'd rather dump hundreds of billions of dollars into windmills and carbon credits.

Why didn't you bongs allow us to annex Canada back in 1812? Look what you have done...

>You definitely can lol

No you can't, that's why big countries like the US and China use fossil fuels and only fucking tiny countries with low energy demand use shit like Hydroelectric. Even countries like Norway still have to import energy from Germany/Denmark during high-demand hours because you can't balance the grid with Hydro alone.

Fuck off tard do some research. Google ran their own study into the ability of any renewable source to run the world and their scientists came back with nothing so they decided not to invest. Germany tried to go to 50% wind and solar and in three years they got to 18% and had to stop. They spiked their electricity bills by 300%. It has already failed but goes largely unreported. Read something fuckface.

we use hydropower, mainly, but our energy is expensive as fuck exactly because it is the cleanest in the world

>Just a figure of speech.
Yeah but I'm still not really sure what you expect me to do. You could give me every anti-nuke protester in the past 50 years and I couldn't make a dent in the coal lobby or probably any lobby for that matter.

forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/08/16/will-a-president-hillary-clinton-close-down-nuclear-power-plants/#338b8663a1b3

Meanwhile China is at the forefront of going green.

>Meanwhile China is at the forefront of going green.

China is still the biggest carbon producer by a fucking mile. They only invest in shit like wind because they're desperate to pump money into their economy to continue their growth.

Wind and solar are fucking shit, the Chinese know this, which is why they still build dozens of coal power stations every year. It doesn't matter how much they spend on vanity projects like wind and solar if they're still pumping out coal.

It's the same problem with Germany, they spend so much money on wind and solar, but they are still one of the biggest carbon producers in developed Europe because wind and solar are vanity projects and aren't long term solutions.

You can make solar and wind stations until you're blue in the face, but it's clearly not a long term solution.

Because conservatives like to know the costs of something before we jump into it. So go ahead and post the evidence that convinced you that we can afford to replace oil and maintain growth before the cost of oil begins to skyrocket.

Show us how much it will cost.

You won't.

China didn't even make a pledge in this Accord.

I want all energy production used.

>Meanwhile China is at the forefront of going green.
HAHAHAHA! Man the stereotypes are wrong, Austrians have a great sense of humor!

I know, that's not really what I'm getting at with this post.

I'm just saying that spending huge amounts on vanity projects like wind and solar is rarely ever good for the environment in the long-term because they have to fill the energy gap with coal.

Are republicucks really against nuclear plants ? This sounds totally illogical, but then again we're talking about the biggests retards in the history of politics so it's possible

If you take Chinas carbon production per capita, they are bellow many first world countries.

Austria (2015): 8.69t
China: 7.73t

To add, I would way, way prefer to just go full nuclear, but anti-nuke "environmentalists" are sadly brainwashing the general public enough that it will always get protest.

Nobody has done a cost estimate.

How does anyone know if it's a good idea without that?

Conservatives are against nuclear?

I think you meant women, op.

Climate change is real. Even if its not man-made it's bad. Even if it doesn't raise sea levels and destroy cities, it acid-bleaches coral reefs. On SOME LEVEL, climate change is real and exclusively negative for most people. You really think (((they))) won't use an expanding sahara desert as an excuse to bring more niggers in to Europe? STOP THIS MADNESS, GO GREEN. Hitler would have agreed with me.

>Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, the President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, has come out denouncing the UN climate Paris agreement as a massive waste of money that will do nothing to impact climate change. In a January 16, 2017 “The Paris Climate Agreement Won’t Change the Climate,” Lomborg explains that “the agreement will cost a fortune, but do little to reduce global warming.”

>Using the same prediction model that the UN uses, I found that [Obama’s] power plan will accomplish almost nothing. Even if its cuts to carbon dioxide emissions are fully implemented – not just for the 14 years that the Paris agreement lasts, but for the rest of the century — the EPA’s Clean Power Plan would reduce the temperature increase in 2100 by just -.023 degrees Fahrenheit,” Lomborg explained.

>and will cost $100 trillion – To Have No Impact – Postpone warming by less than four years by 2100

That's not how nuclear works you fucking chimp.

ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/nuclear-waste/safer-storage-of-spent-fuel#.WTB-BHxtmUk

Oh look it's that retard from who calls everyone on /sci/ a "fucking chimp" all of the time.

i dunno what you mean by green but they're putting billions into nuclear energy lately (which is a good thing imo)

>Nuclear still produces CO2 emission
>Very expensive to upgrade old reactors to more efficient new ones
>Literally takes almost half a century to disassemble facilities when they become outdated

So burn it in modern reactors.

This is the problem with you worthless chimps. You cry about nuclear waste then use it as an excuse to not build reactors that produce next to no waste.

I can't decide if you're all retarded or just mentally ill.

>per capita

yeah because most of their country of a billion people is completely unindustrialised.

holy shit. a russian being RIGHT

Hey fucko if you're so certain that this is a solution then show us the cost estimates for supplanting the other 90% of the world's energy demand while keeping up with growth.

You stupid fuck, you don't have that. You just plagiarize /r/futurology.

there are centuries left of coal reserves. and nuclear energy is not clean, nuclear waste is one of the most harmful things on the planet

Nuclear is a mistake.
I'd rather burn my dick off with >muh solar
At least I won't contract some fucking tumor or suffer from mutation

Republicans are not against Nuclear. They have voted to save and pass several power plants.

> Being against Nuclear Power
> Conservative

Pick one and only one. White people being against cleaner energy is like saying the "white working class" doesn't exist (it obviously does and the statement itself is an oxymoron). It's kind of like the "alt right" meme the left started to fracture the Republican party as much as they could before Trump was elected.

Umm I think you got the wrong end of the stick here. I'm not against Nuclear. I was stating that every energy generating source has cons. Coal it's mostly Co, Nuclear is radiation and Wind power killing thousands+ of migrating birds. I'll say it again, pick your poison.

is this real?

Your average coal plant releases more radiation than your average nuclear plant by several orders of magnitude.

Cost Estimate, cunt. Do you have one?

so instead of 0.000003 it's 0.0003?

No, OP is full of shit. Republicans are notoriously pro-nuclear. It's even been used against them by liberal politicians.

see:
>atomicinsights.com/clean-doable-liquid-fission-lf-energy-roadmap-
powering-world/
>thorconpower.com/costing

Thorium is a meme until someone actually engineers a working, industrial-scale reactor design.

Until that happens, it's as practically useful to us as nuclear fusion (which is to say, not at all).

You base your energy policy on what you have NOW, not what you MIGHT have 40 years from now. And right NOW we have uranium fission and it works pretty goddamned well.

you bet your ass it is

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

there is still quite a lot of R&D left to be done but it could theoretically power the entire US for one year on 500 tons of thorium

Comparing countries like Austria and China is completely fucking stupid. Most people in China have limited access to power.

yes it still isn't ready though
technologyreview.com/s/602051/fail-safe-nuclear-power/

yes, but the numbers makes it such a draw

1 ton is a lot less on the environment (not that I care, but that's easy to push to lefties)

If we had a working reactor in 1975, surely we have come far enough to make more and longer?

we don't even have 500 tons but I get what you're saying

Are they?It's always libtards shilling against nuclear.

nuclear isn't clean and each incident poisons large areas of the earth

One won't work, the other works poorly. Fuck them both, we need to transition from everything to nuclear (mainly), wind, and geothermal. Everything else is retarded.

Conservatives aren't against wind if it works-- Texas has the most wind power generators.

After burning that coal take that coal ash and process the thorium and uranium out of it. You're not only creating energy but concentrating other source of energy sources materials.