Why conservative love coal instead of new technology power plants

...

Other urls found in this thread:

forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/07/14/coal-doesnt-have-to-die-we-can-make-furniture-out-of-it/#379bc5d97584
theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/03/fukushima-daiichi-radiation-levels-highest-since-2011-meltdown
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I like nuclear energy too, but apparently that's evil for some reason.

Coal drives new and innovative technologies. It's something I'd expect you train faggots might understand.

they like both, no?

they love getting BLACKED

Personally I'd love it if Trump shifted away from coal and other fossil fuels and moved towards nuclear. Unfortunately thats not going to happen because libs won't shut up about "MUH CHERNOBYL MUH 3 MILE ISLAND".
Its not like we don't have better technology now or anything.

conservatards love burning the coal

Coal miners vote.

black lung is sexy to white women in those towns. its like a man in a uniform to them.

Because there are millions of families in the south and central us that depend on the coal industry that aren't in a position to phase in other industries and which liberals are prepared to simply abandon for demographic reasons.

Also conservatives are more supportive of expanding uranium fission which we desperately need more of

because they value people keeping their jobs and not being fired for pie in the sky alternative energy ideas

Coal is cool. I'm a nuclear man myself.

Why do liberals want to increase energy expenses for working families?

It won't matter once the eggheads figure out how to pull energy from space

We can export coal.

Because they're retards who think nuclear energy will turn the world into Chernobyl.

Because if you aren't lucky enough to have an easily-accessible natural source of renewable power (like hydro) near where you live, it's a cheap option that also employs lots of people.

Nuclear plants are cheaper to maintain than coal ones and they don't fuck up the environment nearly as much.

>employs lots of people.
so you are saying it's not efficient?

Really what needs to happen is a concentrated and well co-ordinated effort to transition the people currently working in the coal industry into jobs in cleaner energy industries such as Nuclear power. Trump is doing a good thing by not throwing the coal workers under the bus and into unemployment but technological progress stops for no one and coal is quickly becoming obsolete.

Nobody likes coal more than the left, because that's what they're trendy anti-nuclear idiocy gets them.

yeah nuclear is best, triggers leftists hehe

But they could. Fat tails and all that. So it's silly to outright dismiss the concerns that people have with them

dumbfuck, how many people you think it takes to operate a nuclear power plant?

The byproduct of nuclear power is a bigger threat over time than "climate change"

That's... just literally not relevant to the point I'm making, to be quite tbqh with you.

it's cheap, efficient and reliable.
Clean wind and solar energy have it's use but the backbone of the grid needs to be coal and nuclear.
It sucks but you need power when the wind isn't blowing and sun is not shining.

he won Penn by a cunt hair (literally 1%) which means he needed all those first time coal voters and Amish to beat out the lazy niggers of Philly and their election fraud and the libtards of Pittsburgh

we're talking about unemployment and power plants

>nuclear is clean because we capture and bury the radioactive waste in the desert for a million years
>capturing the carbon burned from coal and reusing it for things that benefit humanity ("clean coal") is st000pid

I thought faggots like you promoted coal burning.

It's silly to have outrageous unrealistic concerns.

>that's evil for some reason.
how about you stop the Fukushima leak then we talk

I'm pretty sure we're talking about loving coal as a power source

Why are democrats anti jobs?

No it isn't as long as you isolate it. Also, it's not just climate change, it also damages the ozone layer, causes acid rain and the harmful chemicals being in the air can cause lung disease

We can throw the nuclear waste into the sun, or just to Mercury or Venus.

The thing is that a nuclear plant works normally most of the time, but if it fails then the failure is catastrophic and a large area is irradiated for a very long

Carbon isn't the only thing produced you cretin.

>We can
"We can" != "we can in theory in a few hundred years"

I see what you did there

>in a few hundred years"
Space elevator will be up by 2024.

Well yes but with newer reactors thats extremely unlikey. Most reactors which fucked up used tech from the 60s and 70s.
If we could some day achieve fusion power it would be even better.

And none of those things are radioactive waste which immediately destroys life.

Because coal is an economical source of energy unlike your "new" power plants.

don't be a retard.

But they do damage the ozone and cause acid rain and in areas of high pollution, lung disease.
Also, you can't catch all carbon released so some will still enter the atmosphere.

The problem is that newer reactors are so expensive to build and maintain that they cannot profit off the electricity.

At least I can switch retardation on and off, unlike yourself.

Also, you can just isolate the waste in a remote area or island.

Yep
pic related, Mia Love (R-UT), tea party conservative.

Look up marine oil. Container ships burn it by the ton per mile. That is your great pollutant, not coal or cars.

Because lithium promotes child slavery as well as war
Coal contributes to American jobs

PLEASE

SOMEONE

PHOTOSHOP TO SAY

"TRUMP BURNS COAL"

Yes which is why nuclear energy needs many more government subsidies for research. Fuck burning away money on shit like solar and wind, the focus should be nuclear.

I like both I’m not going to arbitrarily fuck coal over

Why not love both. The issue is the government's picking an choosing of what grows and what fails. All you're doing is strawmanning so you will accomplish nothing in your arguments.

>extremely unlikey

That's what fat tails means. It works fine most of the time, but if there's a failure, the failure is horribly catastrophic the effects of it last many generations.

It's generally a bad way to do things. A multitude of small failures are better than one single massive one.

Yeah you're pretty retarded if you think you can string up a 40,000 kilometer chain from ground to geostationary orbit in one launch.

Cause coal is cheap and there's a lot of it duh

Are there really any cleaner alternatives to oil though over than perhaps electricity but that's not very efficient.

>chain
Literally clinically retarded.

Nuclear physics is not the problem. Getting the energy from it is. Thermodynamics does not give us much and what it does give us has very low efficiency.

We still boil water for the majority of our energy needs. Put that in your singularity pipe and smoke it.

China has said it will take 20 years to complete a commercial-scale prototype, and another 20 years to develop a production reactor. That takes us to 2050 without any energy contribution from thorium, even longer if we consider net energy

>The byproduct of burning Coal causes problems over time if we don't capture and recycle it
>So let's create a few thousand tons of radioactive waste every year and bury it
>The TV told me that saying stupid shit like that makes me an intellectual

I should have clarified, when I meant research I meant research into things like stabalizing fusion reactors.

Yeah ending globalism would solve it in a hurry.

sorry, billions of single molecules braided into a rope. Better? The nanotubes have to be single molecules or they won't retain their tensile strength.

Fission is hot on its own and we can barely profit off of it with lax safety standards. We're never going to economically make a miniature star and gain energy in the process. It will always be a net energy loss economically.

This right here.

It was stopped fucking years ago

It isn't, but it is a good material.

forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/07/14/coal-doesnt-have-to-die-we-can-make-furniture-out-of-it/#379bc5d97584

Don't be a luddite American.

Why do liberals love wind mills that kill 140,000+ birds annually?

You can't capture all of the carbon though and the product of nuclear energy is much less damaging than coal as long as it is away from most life. You don't really know how radiation works anyway, as long as it is closed off it can't travel far.

>graphene meme

lol no.

Nice try
Fukushima nuclear reactor radiation at highest level since 2011 meltdown
theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/03/fukushima-daiichi-radiation-levels-highest-since-2011-meltdown

No he's saying the costs are cheaper in the short run. compared to lets say having a nuclear power plant installed. The paperwork alone, shit.

>what is background radiation
>what is half life
Radioactive waste is literally a non-issue created by big oil

The barrels undergo nuclear transmutation and leak eventually. Even beryllium can only tolerate it for so long.

Votes. Same reason dems support open borders.

Coal mining will employ more citizens than nuclear power plants

Because they're migrants who won't vote for them?

American “conservatism” seems to have a lot of retarded baggage perhaps because the two-party system feeds into a hyper-partisan team sports mentality where people on the right MUST support x industry and be against y environmental tax simply because they adopt the positions of their opportunistic politicians who are trying to cater to different interests in a purely self-interested way. Might also have something to do with the fact the only explicitly conservative news outlet in America is fucking Fox so all the retards watch it and get brainmind-injected with the exact shit party donors want to hear.

>Radioactive waste is literally a non-issue
Just keep burying it, out of sight out of mind

>You can't capture all of the carbon though
Liar. Carbon capture and sequestration has been a thing for a long time. Progress was halted thanks to geniuses like you who believe burying deadly radioactive waste for a million years is safer than reusing carbon because a man on the TV said so.
>and the product of nuclear energy is much less damaging than coal as long as it is away from most life
>as long as it is away from most life
So in other words, radioactive waste is more dangerous. Got it.

You can recycle it and use it in reactors again

No you cannot. You can recover a tiny amount of it in exchange for even more dangerous radioisotopes that you then have to store away.

Firstly, "green" energy is terrible for the environment. This is due to solar panels and wind turbines being reliant on Rare Earth Metal, which involves a very dirty process to excavate.
> Its not green

Secondly, "green" energy is about 1/50th as efficient as fossil fuels.
> Its not cost effective

>Coal is not as bad for the environment as it used to be and with tech progress, coal and other fossil fuels are going to become more and more efficient, ie less impactful on the environment and more cost efficient.

My question is why do you liberal faggots love this stupid shit so much?

Oh, I know why, its because you hate white people.

Sportball = welfare = global warming = green energy = redistribution from white people to dark people.

Truly spoken like a foreigner. Fuck off cunt

The US does not have lax safety standards for nuclear power. Quite the opposite.

Why should we make jobs for polluters for jobs sake? Great, you've got a shitty job that effectively lowers your life expectancy every time you punch in and also you get the added bonus of contributing to poisoning your own community (coal ash in drinking water)!

Fun fact: Coal produces more radioactive waste than nuclear.

>The firm said radiation was not leaking outside the reactor
Yes?
>600 sv/h
Nothing compared to a fresh fuel rod

Go lick a rock, or eat a banana, its way more "dangerous" than your "million of years" waste

What? Don't say dumb shit like that

I thought the same until you realize that other nations will undoubtedly push to be able to do the same and do you really trust India or China not to fuck up their waste disposal?

*releases more into the enviornment

They love jobs, and coal means jobs.

America wants to embrace traditional values like dirty energy and restoring local ice delivery services.

Too many people grew up watching The Simpsons. It's all mushroom clouds and three-eyed fish to them. Plus OPEC has a HUGE DC lobby.

People forget that literally the entire reason for Trumps existence was to prop up poor white people. Its actually more pragmatic ironically because Obama decided to fuck over coal and while there was some decent growth in solar and wind, coal almost went bankrupt and then we had the opioid epidemic and a fuckton on food stamps.

Trump is fulfilling his campaign promises to the poor whites of the USA even if its stupid. Don't worry I am sure the Democrat president of the future will guts all this shit and these dumbass whites will just cry again rather than use their money to get IT skills like they should.