First New Coal Mine of the President Trump Era Opens In Pennsylvania

Burn the coal…

Those are CANDUs. Not all reactors are efficient or have the subsidies.

Oy you cunt, Québec knows where the good electricity's at, and that would be Hydro not Nuclear.

This is good purely because if it keeps up, it's going to lock PA in as a permanent red state. Now start rounding up the spics, build that wall and we're in good shape.

Other than Trump, when's the last time there was a Republican (or Democrat) presidential candidate who wasn't a complete shabbos goy? You jew-party fags are the worst.

...

you're right. wtf I hate conservatism now let's just hand the country over to muds as quickly as possible.

Securing PA red = Trump definitely gets reelected in 2020.

Then what happens in 2024? We just vote for Ted Cruz or whichever cuckservative runs and hope for the best? Trump is the exception, not the rule, we aren't going to vote our way out of this.

You realize there's more nuance to be had than picking between being a good goy loyal GOP voter and just completely ignoring/boycotting the political system, right?

No, Trump isn't going to fix the problems we face. But I'll sure as shit have him for another 4 years so we can buy ourselves time, rather than going back to a complete shill ASAP.

amen to that, Trump will be the Paul von Hindenburg to our Hitler

Will the Jews be sent to the salt mines??

Excellent. We'll need a lot more coal for white whores to burn since we'll be importing less of it.

I used to live in Quebec and now live in pic related.

Hydro is one big reason.

I hope people with a triple digit IQ know this means you should invest in steel and coal industries immediately because they can only rise over the next 4-8 years.

hydro is definitely a good source of electricity. It's listed in the infograph I attached. Unfortunately limited facilities worldwide for exploiting falling water.

Irrational and overwhelming fear of radiation is a psyop that dovetailed with the cold war, useful in continuing people's fear of nuclear energy.
Not only does nuclear energy kill fewer people per kilowatt hour than any other source of electricity besides hydro, reactors can be designed to be incapable of melting down, which is the major danger of current reactors (a very, very small danger)

Let me ask you, do you fear flying in an airliner because you're thousands of feet high in the air?
I don't.
There are literally billions of passengers per year with extremely few fatalities thanks to engineering and safety precautions. There are currently about 22 deaths per million flight hours which is a profoundly small number.
That's the same idea as nuclear plants, with the correct precautions and passive safety features, you're not going to get a containment breach short of an asteroid or bunker buster landing on site.

This is true, CANDUs are better than your average reactor.
But if we were actually building new reactors with the latest technology we would metaphorically be taking day trips to space to experience fucking in zero g…i.e. stuff we can CURRENTLY build is a quantum leap ahead of the caveman reactors we are running.
If we had spent the trillions on building functioning reactors instead of the retarded, parapalegic, gynocomastic technology of rejewable energy we would already have a near-zero carbon economy.

Don't build the reactor on the shore where tsunamis hit and it'll be fine.

kek

Checked. They are fat shaming the President.

Fukushima could have spread insanely radioactive particles into the atmosphere if it went just slightly more wrong than it did. I don't care how much promise an energy source holds, if it's capable of poisoning the landscape and giving people cancer for miles then to hell with it. Nuclear needs to sort its shit out.

One of those reactors gets severely damaged due to an accident, intentional sabotage, or a natural disaster. Now what?

I'd fear airliners if they had the potential to nuke the environment and mutate DNA for generations to come in the event of a crash.

Oh yeah, user, that was DEFINITELY not an isolated event due to building nukes in a fault zone.

HURRHURR, TAKE DAT LIBRUUULSSS

Carbon is good for the planet, retard.

its so fucking basic, the entire concept of global warming and how it effects the climate yet retards like you either refuses to believe it because muh libruls/leftist or you're just genuinely dumb.

You have to go back.

Does lung cancer from coal burning count?

Stopping the wind from removing the heat inside of a glass enclosure?

Lets see some stats showing that living near a coal burning facility increases the number of lung cancer patients.

What is THE fuel for the growth of plant biomass. faggot?

Now THIS is shitposting

NOW THIS IS BAIT I CAN REPLY TO!

Don't have any stats to back this up but pretty sure there's a link between burning coal and getting HIV

Specifically mentioned reactor designs that cannot melt down but you just ignore him like a faggot.
Good job.

This coal is mainly used for steel
Regular coal used for coal fired power plants is losing bigly to natural gas. No government hand needed here, it's all market forces. Then again this never was about regulations but about wealth redistribution but we knew that. And regulations wouldn't save us anyways even if climate change were real, only good technology. New technology.

But I have been doing reading on CO2 lately to try and make up my own mind about what is going on and to my surprise in my studies I came to find out that CO2 is beneficial both for plant and animal life. The more CO2 we have in our blood/cells the more efficiently we can produce energy, and of course plants thrive on CO2. I wonder if all this push to keep CO2 levels low is just a way to keep humanity from ascending to some higher plane…. it would be interesting to see a graph of CO2 levels along with when certain empires existed on this planet

That seems believable at least.

Your pic is a selfie, isn't it, user?

No, especially not when coal plants are quipped with scrubbers. You're gay.

They're invincible to damage and equipment failures?

I want Jims Filipino ladyboys to leave.

And coal is safe unless the Jews that run the power plant don't feel like putting proper filters on the damn things and we all get an extra daily dose of mercury and other nasties.

Hopefully this turns on a few lightbulbs for you and other Holla Forumsacks.

We could open a salt mine from all the faggot tears in this thread.

I'll do one better, and post the one that covers millions of years. Stay the course.

As in the reason coal was attacked had not much to do with climate at all? Or as in the reason we are going hugely pro-coal again is because we need steel in order to build things?

That's good. I will dig around the net and see what I can find as well.

This.

NUCLEAR ENERGY WORLDWIDE WHEN

Found a couple. Nothing exactly like what I wanted, might have to make it myself. But so far it looks like warm periods lead to great civilizations. Though they were all located in the old world.

are wind and solar
do you even know?

You surely did.

You can reprocess nuclear waste, use it, and then the half life of the new waste is something like 100 years. Instead of a few millions years, and less radioactive. Much safer to store somewhere else.

and american steel means american jobs

Nigger you are using stale 70's tier anti-nuclear propaganda. Technology has come a long way since then. The only "problem" is one of public perception due to people pushing falsehoods such as yourself.

Start here: youtube.com/watch?v=QiNRdmaJkrM
TLDR: Leftist anti-nuclear zealot looks for actual evidence, finds nuclear is the safest and cleanest energy there is.

They don't seem to understand how all politicians operate