You don't care about climate change unless you want 100% nuclear power

That's right leftist scum, every solar panel and windmill you put up, every nuke station you protest is a victory for big oil.

How's it feel being a dumb patsy for CO2 pollution, liberals?

>MFW the South is the most Pro Nuke section of the US

Other urls found in this thread:

nytimes.com/2016/04/20/business/economy/liberal-biases-too-may-block-progress-on-climate-change.html
archive.is/GeBAN
iun.edu/~cpanhd/C101webnotes/chemical reactions/combustion.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

i second this as a nuclear operator, the best source of energy.

This.

Lefties are so obviously using environmentalism as anti-capitalism when they realise that nuclear power means nationalistic mercantile competition of nuclear fuels.

BTW if you see me arguing for a carbon tax I swear it's purely to fund reactors. I have a plan, worst case scenario is you'll have a higher power bill.

If you CAN post that here, then I'm not comfortable with the current industry. You handle material that if sold could earn you millions and catalyze global nuclear disaster.

This is why it'll inevitably be nationalised, that and all the money involved and the necessity of power makes me think we should go straight to the government. Yes, I'm a libertarian and know exactly what this looks like.

nuclear waste remains dangerous for tens of thousands of years. there is no way we can keep all this nuclear waste safe for that long

BUT a thorium reactor could take that waste and process it to the point where it's only dangerous for a hundred years. that is something we can manage.

here's hoping that we evenetually develop a workable cost efficient molten salt reactor even if only to process our waste

You're either autistic or a shill. If you live near a plant, just know that society has deemed where you live expendable.

Yeah, because Canada just can't find any uninhabitable, desert like regions within its borders. The idea is to store it and use it later, because most of this stuff has undiscovered future uses, especially in the medical fields.

>I have bad feelings
I'm so sorry.

I live in the middle of TWO 30 mile zones because my city is in between 2 2Gigawatt stations. There's a Million of us here, btw. Bring it the fuck on.

> nuclear waste remains dangerous for tens of thousands of years

I thought you leaf morons liked recycling?

google said this
Nuclear waste is recyclable. Once reactor fuel (uranium or thorium) is used in a reactor, it can be treated and put into another reactor as fuel. In fact, typical reactors only extract a few percent of the energy in their fuel. You could power the entire US electricity grid off of the energy in nuclear waste for almost 100 years (details). If you recycle the waste, the final waste that is left over decays to harmlessness within a few hundred years, rather than a million years as with standard (unrecycled) nuclear waste. This page explains how this interesting process is possible.

>nuclear waste remains dangerous for tens of thousands of years
I watched Simpsons too lol

But really, try a hundred years or so if a reactor is actually efficient and can even use up the isotopes that have a long half life

are people still protesting nuclear power in 2017? I don't think they are

People still think huge, nature destroying wind and solar farms are better than a single small fast breeder reactor.

nytimes.com/2016/04/20/business/economy/liberal-biases-too-may-block-progress-on-climate-change.html

and that's coming from the democrat shills at the NYT

they think it will BLOW UP and radiation and everyone dies boom

Fixed the unrachived clickbaiters
archive.is/GeBAN

>People still think huge, nature destroying wind and solar farms are better than a single small fast breeder reactor.

We just had a solar farm open up in my state. They sawed down a thousand acres of forest to get the land to build it.

Also, you're a cool leaf.

Nuclear >>> everything else.
Too bad the retards outnumber sensible people by a large margin.

>t. the only country in the world who shut down 4 reactors less than 10 years after building them

I've visited two of them, and the second time our tour guide was one of the original plant operators. You could tell he was still so fucking pissed about the plant closing, even after 30 years.

The main point is to make nuclear energy 100% safe.
Is safety protocols are very strict and accurate and nuclear wastes are disposed in the right way, nuclear energy can be a good resource.
Of course it's dangerous to using nuclear power in country that can't handle the necessary tecnology or have an unstable political situation.

>We just had a solar farm open up in my state. They sawed down a thousand acres of forest to get the land to build it.

That's just fucking retarded. Who authorized that?
Judging by the flag I'd guess you're in the southeast, and if that's the case the only sensible place to put solar farms would be in the Texas desert.

>and if that's the case the only sensible place to put solar farms would be in the Texas desert.

You build them where the environment is already damaged. Building a parking lot? Cover it with panels. Building a factory? Put an array on the roof. The texas desert is fine.

DO NOT CUT DOWN A FUCKING TREE TO PUT UP A SOLAR PANEL. Yes, I want to shoot whoever approved that deal.

unless the desert is the sahara, its still full of fragile life and rare species.

>newfags still don't know what zero-point free energy is in 2017.

so make a power plant using it, genius

Well yeah, roofs and parking lots are a no brainer but they don't count as "solar farms" for me.

McKay is that you?

Yes but with a drastically lower population density than forests, plus deserts generate very little plant oxygen

>Nuclear
HAHAHAHAHAHHA
man, this is how I know Sup Forums is fucking shit now and has been infested with r/the_donald garbage. nuclear is the most r*ddit energy source out there. Natural Gas is the best source of energy you fucking idiots

A parking deck at a university or sports arena can be 100,000 square feet. That's potentially 100Kw of power.

>deserts generate very little plant oxygen
so in the end its just about what benefits humans? why be a naturalist at all at that point?

Because believe it or not, human life is more valuable than animal life.

Darwinian survival and all.

What if 90% of your trees were voracious depleters of your already low water table and is not even suitable as proper bedding or sustenance for wildlife because of it's waxy nettles and harboring of ticks?

ticks are wildlife

>nuclear is reddit-tier
Wanna know how I know you're new?

I wonder how leftists feel about campaigning for accelerated climate change.

Also yes, Nuclear power is the way forward, but we should invest heavily into Nuclear Fusion research as well.

Anonymous Global put out a great video of Chemtrails today.

Nuclear has always been reddit tier, worrying about climate change AT ALL is fucking retarded. Natural Gas is not only insanely cheap and domestic, but if you also wanna be a little faggot and worry about climate change, it also doesn't have CO2 emissions

>but if you also wanna be a little faggot and worry about climate change, it also doesn't have CO2 emissions

combustion fuel reaction doesn't have CO2 emissions

dude, just, dude

iun.edu/~cpanhd/C101webnotes/chemical reactions/combustion.html

It's a lot less, now please stop worshiping reddit tier energy

I'm a climate scientist and I am all for nuclear power. Everyone in my lab is for nuclear power. Almost everyone in my building is for nuclear power.

I don't think a single legitimate advocate of environmentalism is opposed to nuclear power for rational reasons. Sources like wind energy and solar power are still worth pursuing because they can operate on smaller systems (Solar powered cars are useful because they can recharge, and wind and solar can supplement household energy use). There's enough safeguards at this point that nuclear energy should be diligently explored.

Please don't equate environmental concern with radical retarded leftist extremists. We are different groups.

All those leftists failed Physics and Chemistry in high school.
Many of them literally dropped science to take drama and pottery.

We've been digging big holes for centuries now, plenty of depleted mines to drop it in.

This guy kinda gets it. However there is no reason to shit on nuclear energy.

>Solar powered cars are useful because they can recharge

I'm sorry friend, but pic related is not a practical vehicle. Did you mean to type 'Plug in car' or something?

...

No, not that type of car. There's ongoing work for hybrid cars that use plug in technology as their main source of battery charge, but also have solar capabilities. That way if you run out of charge away from a plug-in station you can just wait for two hours instead of calling AAA. There's also urban designs for things like covered parking lots, where the area is covered by solar panels to provide recharging opportunities.

Granted, these are mostly novelty applications at the current time. But I still think it's worth pursuing as a supplement to nuclear power. Not as a replacement.

It's about 50 percent less. That's still too high to be acceptable. It's good, and in the short term it's a reasonable pursuit. But ultimately it needs to be replaced with a true clean source of energy. It's a short-lived endeavor given the pace and demand of clean energy technology.

Then I would still consider it a plugin vehicle until it can rely on solar as its primary energy source.

>your head is the roll cage

Member Fukushima, member Chernobyl, i member. Im glad my countrys nuclear free. 1 fuckup at the nuclear plant is all you need.

Yes it is a plug in vehicle. That wasn't really the point I was going for, and it certainly doesn't undermine the usefulness of solar power as a supplement. Solar as the primary source of anything is not really feasible. Solar is something you invest in as a supplemental energy source to save money in the long-term. I would honestly be really surprised if a commercial car that runs entirely on solar power is ever created.

Solar power has killed more people this year than nuclear energy has in its existence

Grow a pair, pussy

> MFW japan gets lolraped by an earthquake and tsunami every single week and chernobyl was run by filthy commies

What libshits don't get is that the carbon credits trading industry (((they))) are trying to build still requires polluters that will trade for more credits so they can keep spewing pollution. If they think supporting carbon credits trading will reduce emissions, they're fucking wrong. They're monetizing pollution, instead of completely replacing it with renewable energy.

And as OP said, if libshits truly want zero carbon emissions, they'd support nuclear energy as viable alternative to fossil fuels. Putting more funding on nuclear energy would lead to the development of safer and cleaner nuclear energy. Maybe cold fusion. Or thorium usage.