Makes you think

Makes you think

Other urls found in this thread:

bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29310475
youtube.com/watch?v=8tL4sjHQSTk
youtube.com/watch?v=88o56AkT3bs
youtube.com/watch?v=-ZhPndLmpAQ
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_points_of_Earth#Lowest_point_.28artificial.29
google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiHoorn_qDQAhVLthQKHUCpCV8QjRwIBw&url=http://phys.org/news/2011-03-scientists-drill-earth-mantle.html&psig=AFQjCNHScoPb3lUP5yrz7HIBS7mjf52sZQ&ust=1478963571608139
world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/energy-analysis-of-power-systems.aspx
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>renewable energy sources aren't big business

Solar "power plants" run more expensively than any other but wind turbines per watt and all of it are maintenance costs(for obvious reasons). Think about it for a while.

Why everyone is fapping on this solar panels and wind turbines, but forget about cheap and clean nuclear energy?
Also you will never fix environment while commies are rulling china.

Reminds me how media outlets controlled by obscene profits of oil companies stated scientists changed their message from "The Earth is getting hotter" to "The climate is changing" but with both messages having to involve trillions of dollars worth of change in order to fight this development which is unnatural but not with nuclear power though.

Because (((someone))) has spread misinformation that nuclear energy is dangerous

Really makes electrical connections between neurons fire up.

>clean
>nuclear

pick one

inbe4 the sun is clean nuclear energy

back to school with you

>90% of scientists
debunked myth

most envirofaggotry supporters are actually misinformed celebs and dumb liberals

>implying it isn't
It has the least environment impact of any power generation. This is because of how little mass is required with the tremendous energy density.

>what is a government power grab

Falling for the "solar can sustain us" meme. (((They))) are buying all the renewable industry that (((they))) can and your renewable energy will be used to destroy even more of your lively hood.
>bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29310475
Why do you think Hillary wanted to push into solar more, well I will tell you, because (((they))) have been buying all of it and it will be a lovely payout indefinitely.

>most limited tell that
to the areas of land on planet eaeth that will be uninhabitable for the next millennia

tell that to the people dumping nuclear waste into the sea and killing the sea litterly u think im jokeing

youtube.com/watch?v=8tL4sjHQSTk

tell that to fukishima,Chernobyl

Nuclear energy killed less people than any conventional energy even if you include Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Let that sink in.

If it's a power grab, why wouldn't both sides everywhere do it?

Inb4 politicians against it are saints who are never funded by money'd interests themselves in some way.

i beleave you but nuclear energy dumping grounds are still radioactive and can still kill nuclear energy has the most potential to kill out of any energy source prove me wrong

Chernobyl happend because the head of the ctation turned safety cautions off to increace power output and impress the soviet leader.
Japan stuff happend because you obveously do not build nuclear plants in places where earthquaces are common.

im not debating it there is no safe way to dispose of nuclear waste if there is please enlighten me

They're potatoes compared to oil companies though. Hell, they're potatoes compared to all the money spent on climate change research. Get a sense of scale.

I'm not even sure what nuclear waste is. Is it depleted elements? There has to be a way to recycle it.

youtube.com/watch?v=88o56AkT3bs

lol cant find the vidioes i want but i promise they exist

>90% meme

>prove me wrong
Depends where you store it.

In the sea - it depends on the containers. If they keep up for like 200 years or so then the products that are left there are not really dangerous. If less then we have a problem.

If you store the waste in bedrock though it's basically nothing if you maintain the tunnels well.

there isnt protip and its water alot of the time and as you say elements and so forth basicaly there is no way to get rid of it at all i have spoken to leading nuclear pohysacists and there ideas range from dangerous to outlandish

I don't think anyone is debating that oil companies are protecting their business.

But, carbon tax will hurt our economy. Our ability to compete in a free-ish trade market. And will hurt innovation.

There's no reason alternative energy can't exist and move forward without government regulation.

watcha gonna do with the nuclear waste?

you're retarded, it's objectively safer and cleaner than your meme shit

>there is no safe way to dispose of nuclear waste
Step 1) Dig superdeep borehole
Step 2) Dump it into earth's magma sea

Yeah, it will dissolve and mix with the lava and come back when volcanoes erupt in a few million years, but lava and volcanic fumes are already mildly radioactive (not to mention toxic, acidic and HOT) so it's not making your environment much more dangerous.

It's not the oil companies and the "eco" side is funded by countries and billionaires.

..why not just seal it off and wait for it to stop being radioactive, can't we just make/use elements that lose radioactivity right after their use, and find a way to purify the water

You should visit a nuclear power generator. Those things are engineered to withstand alien invasions. Ask those questions about how the plant could explode and believe me, those engineers will explain in great detail how that can't happen.

aslong as there is no ground water and we dont need to go there for x time asin the more you put there the longer it will take and

youtube.com/watch?v=-ZhPndLmpAQ just watch this shit

This is especially true of new plants that have been designed to be extra safe and foolproof to reassure people after the accidents damaged public opinion

we could hopefully but we dont and its the amount of time it takes depending on whtas in the waste you can be talking litterly hundreads of thousands of years

protip i have been to one and one nuclear reprocesing centre

It is the government and university's money, not the activists.

Theoretical nuclear technologies like fusion produces no waste product and thorium fission produces a very limited amount with a relatively high half life, meaning more stable and less radioactive.

I think the future lies there honestly.

This is basically my take on the subject.

good idea except we cant bore that deep yet

like i said, use elements that decay very quickly, low half lives. Uranium is pretty garbage, 4.5 billion year half life.

Its impossible to drill deeper than 10km into the earth because of the rising heat. You'd have to drill a lot deeper than 10km to reach the magma in the earth so thats not possible.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_points_of_Earth#Lowest_point_.28artificial.29

i understand th thorium concepts but that s a LONG way away and certainly isnt the current system

also go to 30min on greenpeace thing shows how fish are fucked

Dumb it to the somalian coast. Like in the good old time..

90% LOL its utter horse shit THAT IS COMPLETE LIES AND PROPAGANDA

Simple
We nuke the waste

In my town there is a big debate about transporting nuclear waste on a highwaythat runs by us.
One local hippie group is trying to liken if a crash were to happen to a nuke being dropped on our town.

It'll suck when they get BTFO with how many fail safes go into transporting it. I'm going up to city hall next week when they debate it and myself, someone who actually produces some of the safety equipment that is required goes into detail how safe it really is.

Let's just dump it into an active volcano then. Don't we have the technology to create volcanoes?

Pretty sure the Chikyuu mission is supposed to reach the mantle.

That's worse since it will come back with the eruption in a few decades.

More seriously there's zero risk with burying the waste several kilometers underground.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_points_of_Earth#Lowest_point_.28artificial.29
google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiHoorn_qDQAhVLthQKHUCpCV8QjRwIBw&url=http://phys.org/news/2011-03-scientists-drill-earth-mantle.html&psig=AFQjCNHScoPb3lUP5yrz7HIBS7mjf52sZQ&ust=1478963571608139

Volcanoes actually aren't hot enough, how do we make volcanoes hotter? Rather, how do we make something so hot it can just melt away radioactivity and break down elements completely?

Environment is a multi billion industry not a bunch of disgusting hippies

>create a better world (not really though just the US) at the cost of destroying our economy for a few decades
or you could ignore the power struggle and continue developing alternative energy without regulating anything.

alternative energy is the future. it's going to be cheaper, cleaner, and it's not finite. It's like selling air, why would anyone pass up that opportunity. Having a solar farm is like owning a money tree.

Well since lands surrounding volcanoes actually need the volcanoes to errupt once in a while to make the lands surrounding the volcanoes fertile for agriculture it isnt a good idea. Radioactive farms and all. And no we can't make volcanoes lol

So 'Murica it hurts

>2222

Except the budgets aren't limited?

$1.7trillion

while i dnt disagree how much do we plan on making aslong as there is no ground water but u cant go there u will die and the more places like that on earth the more places we can asically never ever go again not that we need to its just the rinciple its like gfilling ur sick draw with acid but the draw wont melt

Quit talking shit about potatoes you god damn frog.

Same here french bro

Both are happening. It's plainly obvious.

Good news is, none of it matters. Yellowstone is going to have the last laugh.

>how do we make something so hot it can just melt away radioactivity and break down elements completely?
make a new sun, the one we have is shit

Ugh, nuclear is kinda the cleanest out there? And it kills less people than wind turbines.

Look at Chernobyl, wildlife is flourishing. Radiation is less harmful than humans. I'm just busting gourds by the way, most of the half lives of the elements were 1 day to 100 years, so not too bad.

Al Gore and others who own companies that produce CO2 filter and measuring hardware and software make propaganda about climate change and they lobby for their 'solutions' to be mandatory for all companies across the world.
They make massive amounts of money.

I'll give you real one.

Big oil companies
↓
Hire enviromental terrorist groups
Who created world wide warming hoax
↓
To get rid of competition

>muh 90%

Hasn't this been debunked over and over and over again?

Why do they keep using it? Don't they know we know it's a bullshit statement?

Bury it on the moon

Fucking useless glob of dirt it is we may as well utilise it

A better world is created through growing economy and trade.
And through growing those things, the stuff on your picture can be acheived because people have the money to do them.
Where as now doing these things would slowly kill the economy and eventually the country.

Good economy leads to more jobs, remember that friend.

Lets send the elements into the sun, or to venus. Venus is pretty hot and a lot closer right?

The whole point is that they are creating excuses for us to lose industry and jobs in the US. The jews go from one country to another, fucking up their people, while the rich fucking cuckholds get some money and make a deal to save only themselves.

Everyone is paid off, the "environmentalists" who's sole existence to make money telling people where they can't build things and why california has it's own snowflake gas formula, and create the excuses why utility and gas prices go up(of course alongside other factors), are the product of this sensationalized fake pop science. The rich oil people just want money and opportunities, they don't care about people or their country, they only heed the call of the investor, the bank, and we already know those people are.

FACT

Good eye, Ivan. Nuclear is safer than any other form of energy production.
Considering it's number two behind coal(I think) in total power generated, that's quite a statement.

Nuclear is politically untouchable.
It's not a conspiracy, it's just fear. People are scared of what they don't understand, and nuclear scares the shit out of people.
It scares people, and then they look for reasons to be scared and scream about those.
If you want nuclear you have to start by softening people up to it.

And the IPCC?

read my other posts i gte what ur saying and the cleanest part is complete shit but the killed less people i agree with the fact is we DO NOT dispose of the wase in any way that could be deamed adequate and we have no idea what to do with the waste also ill get link now world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/energy-analysis-of-power-systems.aspx

ur wrong ameri bro scroll to toher technolgys

Breeder reactor and 4th gen reactors.

>Earth creates more carbon emissions than all of humanity combined

>Clearly human created pollution is a bigger threat

protip thy dont exist on a comercial scale?

No it doesn't. 90% of these researchers are paid by the state, which craves power to create more draconian regulations that keep people poor and unhappy so that they can elect more (marxists) and gain more power.

We save the world by doing THE MOST OPTIMUM THING(read: not limiting our ability to extract resources), so that we can build spaceships and colonize the solar system and really get own with our destiny rather than all tbis pathetic trivial plebian shit

As does the government when they tax companies based on carbon emissions and we all know how the government loves any opportunity that lets them take more money from citizens

>Implying carbon is the only pollution

Clearly we need an Earth tax

Most people don't even realize that about a dozen Exxon Valdez tanker's worth of crude gets dumped into the ocean a year naturally, due to leaking petroleum deposits caused by undersea quakes.

But most people also don't know that nature cleans up oil spills very fact, because certain strains of bacteria love hydrocarbons.

This
Nuke the Earth
It's getting too Jewish anyway

>Earth stores carbon in the ground for 100 million years
>we burn it all in 500

Radiative forcing.
We don't know the baseline temperature the earth 'should be' but we can calculate, based on emissions, how much extra heat is absorbed from solar radiation, and use that to guide temperature predictions.

i fully agree but whats wrong twith solar its not going anywere wheras nuclear we will mine the earth dry in a few thousand years

This is true, because by being stuck here on one rock, we're basically sitting ducks for the next Toba event or a huge asteroid.

China's economy has boomed in the last 30 years but the air in their capital is unbreathable

Yes this is true, hence it;s the future and not the present. It only took the US a solid 20 years with it's full research budget to get Uranium running. We know a lot more than we did then, so a partnership between a few energy desperate countries like China and India could help make it achievable.

Note on green peace. They're pretty hysterically anti-science on nuclear. making erogenous claims like higher half lives of atoms = more danger (they're safer) and you can run a plane into a nuclear power plat to blow it up. The US government ran a jet plane into the wall of the reactor and crumpled like origami. They are ideologically bent, not necessarily acting in the interest of the earth for sustainable human purposes.

Delaying a solution until you find the most optimal one possible is absolutely fucking retarded.

>making erogenous claims
Hot

We will be gone from this shithole before a thousand years we will have developed whole new technologies and discovered newer and better energy resources by then.

but Sup Forums doesn't deny climate change or global warming

Why are you shills still here

so put funding into them like retards want to put funding into solar and wind?????????????

i get what your saying i use the documentry because they litterly show the piplenes to the sea and live footage of waste dumping in the sea they also pull up rusted open barrels and while it is indeed safer with a longer halflife given sufficent mass it is no longer safe for a now insane amount of time the last reaserch i read on thorium puts us 200 years away i read it mayb 2 years ago

>use nothing but nuclear power
>fire off nuclear waste into space

100% clean energy, problem solved.

Heheh, asteroids. I'd be more worried about Jupiter gaining enough mass to become a star.

better than the sun....

please murica u just voted trump stop saying dumb shit

>Entire thread is moving the goalpost now because mah nuclear energy

Nuclear material isnt endless unlike the sun.
Nuclear material would run out in less than 30 years if everybody would buil them

its not about the funding einsten couldnt create cold fusision its about litterly not knowing how to do it give me a fukin bllion pounds i cant touh the moon from were im sitting

Bong is right. Nuclear is the best non renewable energy source.

>fire off nuclear waste into space
Do you know how expensive it is to send material into space?