You literally cannot prove this wrong

You literally cannot prove this wrong.

Other urls found in this thread:

liveleak.com/view?i=3cd_1383772851
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fissile_material
duolingo.com/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy
youtube.com/watch?v=MbIe0iUtelQ
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>natural gas not god tier

Who cares, when petrolium goes scarce shit will hit the fan.

>wind
Fuck off. Nuclear fission until panels aren't shit. Panels until we figure out fusion. Fusion until we discover other exotic forms of getting energy or the cold fusion meme happens to be real.

>natural gas
>renewable
i mean maybe on a large enough timescale, but its more likely you can't read

nuclear isn't renewable

>muh fusion

nigga that shit's permanently 20 years away

>20 years was 70 years ago

obligatory what if two workers had died in a nuclear plant accident in the Netherlands?

liveleak.com/view?i=3cd_1383772851

What about garbage? Sure, it emits CO2, but doesn't the reduced landfill size help the earth in countless other ways?

I always thought that the best ways to power a country were as follows;

Rural areas need wind power. Clean, cheap, small land footprint, and quiet. Makes money for the farmer whose land it's on.

Urban areas should use a combination of trash and solar- this way it can reduce the garbage output and improve the sustainability of buildings.

Suburban areas should use wind and solar, and maybe even contribute to the nearby urban areas' trash grid.

This way lots of environmental problems are solved!

>wind is better than solar
This is scientifically wrong faggot.

Wind is neither cheap nor clean.

>solar photovoltaic higher tier than solar solar thermal
>economics? what is that?

>You literally cannot prove this wrong.

Actually by wikipedias definition of nuclear is not renewable

>Renewable energy is generally defined as energy that is collected from resources which are naturally replenished on a human timescale

Spent nuclear fuel rods don't replenish. Nuclear may be clean but its not renewable

>onshore wind top tier
>offshore wind low tier
>tidal meme tier

>nuclear waste
>good
naice, naice goyim

Shit will hit the windmills

>>Renewable energy is generally defined as energy that is collected from resources which are naturally replenished on a human timescale
>Spent nuclear fuel rods don't replenish.

Renewable doesn't mean your spent fuel must replenish, just that you can get new, unspent fuel from a renewing source. For example, wood is a renewable resource, but burned wood does not magically transform into unburned wood over time. New, unburned wood grows independent of the spent stuff.

You didn't spam your trip several years ago. Fuck off. Also, solar thermal is embarrassingly bad.

For rural areas (especially that of the Great Plains) it is a no-brainer. The construction, maintenance, and disposal of solar panels has environmental side effects of their own, and they consume lots of valuable rare earth metals that we might need down the line. Their relative accessibility also makes them more prone to vandalism and damage from debris and other such acts of nature.

For urban areas, I can agree that there's little reason to use wind when solar is more space efficient for them and can be placed on most rooftops. Suburban areas are YMMV, though. Depends on how the place is laid out and all.

Explain that. How can a mechanical object be unclean? It's a hunk of metal. Some composites.

Cheap is relative as well. They're simple, as far as power plants go. Especially when played to their strengths of being very space efficient and able to quite reliably power small areas. Wind farms are weird and not how the technology should be used.

>Also, solar thermal is embarrassingly bad.

>posting outdated tech
Smh tokomak or gtfo

Don't worry I'll make it happen within 50 years its a promise I didn't get a retarded degree for nothing :^)

At least its in Europe. In America people freak out at the sight of the word nuclear

>he doesn't know how nuclear waste is recycled and processed
Kek

That's cool but uranium doesn't grow on trees

solar photovoltiac you need all kinds of polluting rare earth elements and you hardly get back more energy than it took to manufacture.

solar thermal all you need is mirrors.

> implying the universe is gonna stop having supernovas

It's just as "renewable" as anything else that relies on stars.

Uranium is not renewable

>That's cool but uranium doesn't grow on trees
see: > implying the universe is gonna stop having supernovas

And when exactly will that uranium reach us?

>Uranium is not renewable

see: fusion/fission, breeder reactors, natural (geothermal) reactors, deep earth isotope production

I can't really use it after solar system is destroyed though

By that definition, coal is renewable.

...

nuclear != uranium
nuclear reactors can run on literally any matter.
bombs are nuclear reactors that run on plutonium, not uranium.
modern reactor designs often use Thorium.

The sun is a nuclear reactor that runs on Hydrogen, then progressively heavier elements, up to Iron.

Really what you're saying is "matter isn't renewable", which is true only in a very antiquated view of what "matter" and "renewable" mean. In this view, literally nothing (matter or energy) is renewable.

>nuclear fission
>above meme tier

Redpill me on offshore wind turbines

>The sun is a nuclear reactor that runs on Hydrogen
The sun is a fusion reactor, "nuclear" usually means fission

>The sun is a nuclear reactor that runs on Hydrogen, then progressively heavier elements, up to Iron.
And after iron can no longer continue fusion, since it would require more energy than what is gained from iron fusion

>nuclear reactors can run on literally any matter.
dumbass
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fissile_material

>The sun is a fusion reactor, "nuclear" usually means fission
agreed, but only because we haven't built a fusion reactor

pure fission in a closed system is indeed nonrenewable, but as long as there's a fusion reactor SOMEWHERE nearby (like...1AU nearby?) you will not run out of heavy elements

the same could be said of wind and solar power. Both are only "renewable" thanks to the great free fusion reactor in the sky

I'm sorry I'm not very educated on nuclear fission but could you give me an example of a non uranium nuclear reactor that produces more 1 MW.

Onshore wind is terrible.
- Raises local air temperatures by 3-4 degrees c
- spreads seed, fertiliser, insecticides and herbicides
- kills local bird life
- loud as fuck
- ugly as fuck
- competes with local flora

Straight up the ONLY place you could put onshore wind without it being a massive problem is the middle of a desert. that's it.
Anywhere else is actually worse than burning coal.

sure, pic related

produced about 88 Terjoules in < 1 second, so at least 100 TW.

>onshore wind
lol bird killing, shadow casting perfect for epilepsy, self destruct.

>nuke
lol enjoy your meltdown. evacuate everything you have. oh right you can't.

>geothermal
enjoy your daily earthquakes

>hydroelectric
just flood everything. it will be fine.

>biomass
lets plant sugar cane and corn with slave labor so we can burn it to make electricity

>solar - photovoltaic
lol let's put it on our roads.

>offshore wind
bird killing, self destruct.

>solar thermal
let's heat some oil to heat up some water.
i don't know about you, but this is cost effective.

>not posting the molten salt tower which will still provide power at night

>tidal
totally meme tier.

20 years away.
wait for it.

>people pretending to care about birds

Really? Who the fuck cares about birds, more of them die by crashing into each other lmao

Renewable energy typically implies that the energy can be converted into a useful form, typically electricity.

Lol but that's not a reactor

Sounds like you live in shit area

>Both are only "renewable" thanks to the great free fusion reactor in the sky
Both are renewable because neither sunshine nor wind is gonna run out before the all lives on earth die out.

>54538256
So I can build a windfarm in your back yard famalam?

>Lol but that's not a reactor

>powered by nuclear reaction
>not a reactor

okay, I'm done with b8 thread here. saged

>nigga that shit's permanently 20 years away

Well, that's an improvement then, because I've been hearing it's perpetually 50 years away for most of my life.

You know what's funny? 50 years isn't very long. 20 years is laughably short. It probably doesn't seem that way to most of you, but really, consider how much you *actually* accomplished in the last year, multiply that by 20, and consider how much more monumental the task of making a fundamental physical and industrial achievement is.

>geothermal
>earthquakes
geothermal extracts heat from below-surface levels, if anything it would reduce the likehood of earthquakes (it doesn't, because the effect is too minor)

sure, go ahead. i'll keep 10% of the profits. deal?

>burned wood does not magically transform into unburned wood over time.

Uh, actually, that's *exactly* what happens.

The mass of a tree is almost entirely made from carbon pulled from the air. CO2 in, O2 out, leaving the C in the plant.

Regardless, that has absolutely *nothing* to do with the parent quote:

>Renewable energy is generally defined as energy that is collected from resources which are naturally replenished on a human timescale

Nuclear material doesn't replenish on a human timescale. I suppose you could argue that it 'replenishes' in the fact that, ultimately, it is spewed forth from stars over the course of millions of years, but that's not a human timescale.

No you don't get to keep anything, just the noise and dead birds.

We're force majeure on the land mate.

separate nuclear to fission and fusion
put fusion in god tier, fission in low tier

Not that guy, but we do literally have thousands of years of nuclear fuel here.

It's renewable enough in that by the time we've exhausted it - if we haven't yet made our way to the stars to grab more, we're fucked anyway.

IEC Fusion is the future.

Hydroelectric are shit tier since they biologically isolate the ecosystems upstream.

>>Renewable energy is generally defined as energy that is collected from resources which are naturally replenished on a human timescale
>Nuclear material doesn't replenish on a human timescale.

More nuclear material is being produced by the universe each second, than humanity could use in its species lifetime. This is true even if you include only the small fraction of the universe's matter in earth's light cone. This argument is nonsensical.

>renewable
>by the time we've exhausted it
hm

Fusion is pipe dream, it will always be '50 years away'
Fission is now.

Even Thorium Fission is going to happen before Fusion.
>bbut muh Thorium meme
No longer a meme and no longer needs pushing - China is investing very heavily in it and will have commercial plants operating by 2025, they saw it as the only way out of their smog mess - so we all win.

On the earth, autist-kun. Not 3000 light-years away. The earth doesn't create new fissile fuel.

You're arguing semantics mate, I'm done with you.

>Wind
>God tier
stopped reading there

Sorry dude, didn't know it was okay to twist language to fit our own views

>waste you literally can not get rid off unless you blast it into the sun
>god tier

>On the earth, autist-kun.
keep moving those goalposts user

again, if renewable means "on earth, the closed system", neither wind nor solar apply

Yes, they do. Wind and sunshine will exist for as long as the earth does.

>Yes, they do. Wind and sunshine will exist for as long as the earth does.
So will the fucking universe. For quite a while afterward as well

Yes, but the earth will not.

....
the earth won't exist for as long as the earth does?

user, please choose from the following
1: non-native english speaker (i forgive you)
2: bait (i do not)

The earth will not exist for as long as the universe does.
Thank your for playing.

>The earth will not exist for as long as the universe does.
what's your point senpai

wind and solar power will run out when/before the earth does, and therefore is finite

nuclear material never will, the universe is full of it, and therefore is (functionally) infinite

I'm perfectly happy with calling a power source that will last until entropic heat death "renewable," more than one tied to the lifetime of a single planet

>Thank your for playing.
ah, so it's (1.) then.
you**

check out duolingo.com/ pajeet

>No you don't get to keep anything
In that case, fuck you. I've already leased out around 80ha of my land to run a small wind park (cheap, but for a good cause, so why not)
>noise
Non-issue. Childs playing on the street are louder. Wind brushing through some trees is louder. Don't build generators using technology from the early 80s.
>dead birds
Survival of the fittest. At least they die fast, unlike the unlucky kids that live (or should I say die, of leukemia) around La Hauge.

You're so fucking dumb.

>wind and solar power will run out when/before the earth does
What? Those will be around for as long as the universe is, pal.

>keep moving those goalposts user
No one moved the goalpost, you were just playing on the wrong side of the field.

apparently southampton gets geothermal energy, is that what that eyesore near soton central is?

solar panels are shit tier at their current efficiency

>Nuclear
>The most expensive energy source by a mile
>Takes decades to get a reactor online
>requires 100% subsidizing by the Government because it's so expensive.

Nuclear is shit, I legitimately don't get contrarian circlejerking over an outdated technology meme.

Uhh, you do realize the world only has around 15 years of material for nuclear power if only the US alone was 100% nuclear right?

Dump it into some subduction zone. By the time it hits the surface again (if it ever does), it will be harmless.

[Citation needed]

All current forms of solar are utterly terrible
>expensive
>inefficient
>require toxic rare earth elements
>increase local temperatures massively

>unlike the unlucky kids that live (or should I say die, of leukemia) around La Hauge.
Survival of the fittest.
I don't care is some pleb subhuman kids die.
I do care about earths ecosystem though, I'd much rather poison some piece of shit not even quite humans than innocent wildlife.

>Solar
>Expensive

>Continued use of fossil fuels will take 60T out of the world economy
?

>biomass
>not low tier

But the reason you keep the ecosystem alive is to keep pleb subhumans alive.
The ecosystem is important to humans, not anyone else.
The earth will recover when the humans are all dead.

If you mean the Farnsworth, it's a dead end, man. It's cool, but you're not going to get good energy out of it.

If you mean the polywell, shit looks real promising.

Come on, just because JayZ made it doesn't mean Tidal is bad!

People should find ways to significantly consume less.

>I do care about earths ecosystem though
And you realize how much crap (i.e. "minor" amounts of plutonium) the La Hauge reprocessing facility pumps into the ocean? Killing some birds is sure doing so much more damage to the ecosystem.

People should find ways to efficiently store energy. There's enough of it, just not at the right time. Look at germany, they're "selling" their energy at a negative price at nighttime in summer.

>Not that guy, but we do literally have thousands of years of nuclear fuel here.

Yet again, irrelevant to the point.

>More nuclear material is being produced by the universe each second

Irrelevant to the point.

Seriously, I have no idea what's wrong with you. Nuclear doesn't qualify as renewable energy. I'm 100% for nuclear, but you guys are still literally retarded.

Great, now you just need to get all that energy and move it a billion fucking miles away.

Nuclear will last another 200 years at current rates.. probably not god-teir bb. Unless we switch to thorium but thats got a lot of upfront costs.

stop saying shit you don't understand.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy

look.
i even googled it for you.

and this.
youtube.com/watch?v=MbIe0iUtelQ