Shit that fucking annoys me: neoliberals who are for clean power but not nuclear power. Remember that nuclear power has the highest capacity factor and the highest output of any clean source of power yet does not get any federal subsidies.
What particularly annoys me are people who claim that solar/wind are economically viable when they are not, especially not without government subsidies, Most of which will end in 2020, putting the wind and solar industry into the same hole the nuclear industry is currently in. This leaves Big Oil, who can of course offer "clean" natural gas (not clean when you factor in methane emissions) or "clean" biofuel (ditto).
Remember that green power is not economically viable, except for oil, gas and coal as they are abundant (think in global terms) and silly cone valley randians who think so are collaborators who need to be purged. The only way we can stop climate change without fucking over energy consumers (factories, railroads, also individual consumers) is if we use nuclear power. Also as a bonus nuclear power plants are uniquely well suited for seawater desalination, so they can help prevent future Droughts too.
Right now the only country fully committed to this is France (despite their German masters pissing themselves over it). Russia is a bitch to Rosneft, as is China with their coal mines.
I dunno, I've never seen the math on why alternative energy would not be viable if we adopted it over night, or if at the very least we developed better and better technology. Everyone I've met who descries alternative energy was a neocon but I suspect that has ore to do with ideology then the science behind it.
Neocons dont like solar because its associated with leftists, and leftists dont like nuclear because its, well, nuclear. I dont know why both camps just cant be honest and admit that they both have got problems.
Also, economically viable? According to whom? To what?
Noah Young
American politics man. I'll never understand.
Kayden Cook
Main issue: capacity factor. More solar panels are needed to obtain the same amount of energy as a single nuclear reactor. Dollar per dollar it's not an efficient use of resources.
Tech companies like SolarCity etc claim that they are economically competitive against natural gas, oil or coal (a thing which is patently false). Much of their business exists due to tax rebates the state of California gives to homeowners (bourgeois scum) for putting panels on their property. Though, in fairness, the nuclear industry made the same claims 50 years ago when the feds footed half the bill for reactor construction.
Hunter Sanchez
What about solar/wind isn't inherently leftist? It's a leftist stance to want clean power and not use exploitative oil or coal power.
The only problem I have with these people is that they aren't real leftists. They claim solar is great because they believe the tech company BS and think it's economically viable against natural gas, oil or coal. It is not without government subsidy. Then they use this argument to discredit nuclear power.
Brayden Cruz
The amount of fissile material in the Earth's crust may not be enough to last more than 100 years or so were it to become a significant portion of power consumption. What we really need to resolve our energy crisis is lunar solar power.
Leo Flores
Lunar solar ._. Why not a dyson sphere while we're at it
Jonathan Roberts
Because a Dyson sphere requires technologies that haven't been invented yet. Lunar solar power does not.
Carson Evans
At that point you might as well argue for rectenna GEO power instead as it wouldn't be a logistical clusterfuck like moon solar would. But that technology still has the same problem as all solar: it only works 12 hours a day.
Also, you're wrong. Just like the peak oil BS there's plenty of uranium within earth's crust for nuclear power for over 1000 years, and uranium can be made from seawater.
Jaxson Garcia
Not quite. The advantage of lunar solar power is you can beam power to dark sides of the planet.
Angel Mitchell
Why not just store energy in molten salt? You'd lose less than transmission between the moon
Christian Wilson
That's what some solar collectors already do actually.
Isaiah Rivera
Not sure if ironic, or American politics that fucked up.
Nathaniel Ramirez
Nuclear power plants are bombs waiting to be terrorized. They emit water vapor which technically is a greenhouse gas.
Solar is a tent waiting to be knocked down. It can only be installed in some locations, most of which happen to be in the ocean and flood/drought-prone areas. And "advanced solar technologies" require oil to function. Wind takes up too much space and gets in the way of bird migration.
All of this stuff requires the steel industry, which is one of the most polluting industries know to mankind, yet is considered a green jobs creator.
Elijah Bennett
This implies that the right want to destroy the planet for a quick buck.
Thousands of years of Uranium in the seas though. Plus Thorium.
Nuclear should form the backbone of the global power infrastructure while enough renewables are developed and built. Lunar solar sounds cool though too for down the line.
Noah Wilson
greenpeace plz
Carson King
Have you ever left Europe in your entire life? The vast majority of the planet, including the US, relies on fossil fuels. And people defend it as it's the lowest cost option. Things like solar and wind require government subsidy to operate therefore most people are against it (even if it is against their own class interest).
Robert Perez
Yes, absolutely.
Aiden Watson
Have you ever left America in your entire life?
Opinions on power generation don't correlate much to people's left/right beliefs.
Jeremiah Jenkins
Except maybe NIMBY. People left OR right want the plants built way the fuck away from them.
Isaac Hall
Bullshit. Even in countries with state owned oil companies, people defend big oil even as it's CEOs steal all the money. The only ones to dissent are of the socialist/leftist/liberal variety.
John Nguyen
Anyway, fucking citation needed. Otherwise it's:
Carson Anderson
Nah see I've heard people be indifferent to big oil at most
Adrian Barnes
Bullshit. People in Mexico (where I grew up) fucking take Pemex as a surname. Meanwhile it's CEO (yes, publicly owned companies do have CEOs) gets paid a "competitive" salary vis-a-vis other oil companies while workers certainly do not (most Pemex employees aren't even paid the US min wage).
It's even worse in central and south America where they suck off American companies too. It's revolting and anyone who suggests differient is immediately arrested (or simply shot) for being a communist.
Joseph Ramirez
I support nuclear power. I'm a nationalist.
What now?
Thomas Bell
Yes, and notice how you're not a capitalist (a system which is inherently international by the way).
Angel Evans
I'm for a nuclear baseload, with solar, tidal and wind, phasing out peaking gas plants in favour of storage.
What now?
Julian Howard
First of all, read Planetes. Only reason to go to space under capitalism is energy.
Second, there is no such thing as "viable energy" under capitalism. In the end we will have the future of Dead Space. (Except for the necromorphs).
Levi Williams
Based on the -ur think you're British, and good luck shutting down Scotland's oil platforms with them still a part of the UK.
Owen Phillips
Only Americans are dumb enough to come up with this, then expect anyone to believe it. The mental gymnastics are SO real
Asher Clark
...
Owen Evans
Scotland's oil platforms are shutting themselves down soon
Aaron Flores
does it matter? It's just an excuse to keep on coal. Everyone uses the same tactics.
Aiden Powell
Other reasons to go into space?
Isaac Peterson
only until the price of oil begins increasing again
Nicholas Rivera
To spread True Communism.
Brandon Cruz
user said "reasons under capitalism"
Christopher Jones
Wasn't china going to build a few hundred nuclear plants?
Gabriel Wilson
That's the current 5-year plan, but in reality doing so only makes sense if (a) their capitalist boom continues and (b) they fire all of their state mine workers. Neither will happen.
Landon Wright
I know you're in a trade war with China so your media tells you to be all butthurt, but China is pushing the boundaries on next generation nuclear.
Remember. You'll be burning coal forever Wyoming fag
Cooper Smith
Canadians and Australians use that spelling too.
Isaiah Powell
Under capitalism? None.
Without capitalism? See Star Trek.
Adam Torres
Real space isn't full of plants, aliens and interesting space anomalies though.
It's vast and bleak, with insurmountable distances and radiation. Send probes and forget about it.
Noah Murphy
...
Julian Ross
I believe that Al Gore shouldn't be the only person to take hot showers.
tfw The Left announces that "they" will "disrupt" Big Murka by transforming us into India (where they take cold showers).
Thomas Collins
The biggest problem with nuclear is what happens when there are problems. I know it's extremely unlikely with modern nuclear reactors, but it is something that you can't fully prevent.
Christian Turner
How sure are you? I mean… There might be aliens 97 light years away… Some russians got a signal…
However, exept for actually making stations to launch easier, there is no reason to leave earth en mass, yet.
Oh, and by star trek, I meant the ideology behind space exploration.
Brandon Torres
Yes, it really IS something you can fully prevent.
Chernobyl couldn't have been designed better to melt down. Keyword: positive void coefficient
Uh oh. Active safety mechanisms. Better hope the auxiliary power doesn't fail.
Modern designs could lose power then be hit by a meteor and still safely shut down.
Hunter Barnes
The universe is so ridiculously large, alien civilizations could rise and fall outside our future light-cone.
Ian Wood
If adding together all energy consumption including transport, and use the efficiency of the current nuclear reactor "fleet", currently estimated nuclear reserves would be completely exhausted in less than 5 years if everything was switched to nuclear. Nuclear is a scam.
Most of the usual meme sources of nuclear fuel, like thorium, seawater, and granite, would require more energy to make into reactor-grade fuel, than a conventional (non-plutonium breeder) reactor could extract from it.
Ethan Adams
Using western companies, no less. China can't produce anything on it's own partially because of their bad pollution causing everyone with talent there to move to the west.
waste isn't a problem, and if you think it is you're holding back humanity
Julian Kelly
it is not clean, it produces fissle waste which lasts thousands of years vs carbon dioxide which disapates in seconds.
Its a massive boon for porky to make a problem that requires a solution which has to be paid for by the masses (for thousands of years).
Manufactured Global warming only adds a tiny layer on top of what is natural climate disturbance, jeremy corbyns brother attests this who is a scientist which has been shut up by the establishment.
No nuclear power station has been built WITHOUT federal subsidies
denmark,iceland and germany have proven this false with large renewable programs which not only produce energy cheaper than nuclear power (which is the dirtiest energy) but at less cost.
Alot of the costs associated are green profiteering, which could be cut out with government involvement (which governments are keen to do with nuclear plants).
France and the soviet union did nuclear along with the united states because they do not value their citizens quality of life all that is important is the state hitting targets which is fascism not socialism because without caring for the society socialism cannot exist.
many people were mislead into dangerous technology during the world wars that did and continues to kill people to this day.
many people call that an unacceptable loss i don't.
Marcel Paul was a gaullist at heart who had no time for the poor as long as the state was seen to be doing well.
Such is the shit state of politics in france.
Jack Anderson
Fucking bullshit. How much money did Exxon give you to spout such ridiculous lies here?
Alexander Jenkins
yes and all three are irrelevant countries who don't actually produce anything or have any heavy industry. The US, like Russia and China, do. These are countries with far larger power demands, which is where the inefficiencies of renewables prohibit it from replacing fossil fuels.
Brayden Gonzalez
Well, in fact we actually agree. We don't need to go anywhere, or FTL or whatever. We can do everything roboticly.
We can start sending drones and singals and so on… We can send infomation back in time with lazers… But nothing of all these is viable under capitalism, as they won't be creating profit.
Ryan Price
Look at the second pic, by "waste". What I mean isn't "fuggin borgwazay drivan in his piggub trug and air conditionig his house", I mean "your car spends several times more energy making warm stinky air than it does making the wheels spin".
Joshua Murphy
The exclusion zone around Chernobyl is now a wildlife sanctuary.
Ethan Hughes
Did you forget the part about how we've only got 200 years left of Uranium at current usage, which is 10% of electricity? so if all our shit becomes nuclear, we get 20 years are demand? b-buh, with hypothetical technology, we could start extracting it from seawater, and that would turn it from 20 years to 100 years!!!
maybe if we dump all our money into thorium and fusion, maybe.
Aaron Smith
go back to Holla Forums if you want to be a knuckle dragging retard
Benjamin Fisher
how the fuck am i or anyone who questions the health of the working man holding back society, what great achievements are you going to achieve with massive energy plants?
laying off thousands of workers?
People enjoy work and helping their fellow brothers, you cannot be more socialist than the wobblies.
Lets compare chenobyl to the chinese coal mines both run at an advantage to the state but a loss to the people's health:
1. in china people die of coal dust overburning maybe 5-10 years younger, but the state permits this to prosper.
2. in the ussr ukraine produced nuclear power for a whole region with chernobyl and it blew up.
people are living with massive defects and dying in their 20s-30s
ill take coal ,gas and oil.
plus technology like clean coal (which based germany uses) are much cleaner and cheaper than nuclear.
Matthew Young
mission accomplished
ok you win, I totally agree that we need clean coal and not nuclear.
Adrian Jenkins
silicon valley seeks to use tax evasion and whatever cheap energy they can to rule the people including ones that produce carcinogenic waste.
the oil industry is better than the nuclear industry, the nuclear industry was largely a cover for warhead production since centrifuges need to be hidden somewhere for weapons production, both calder hall and dounreay were openly producing plutonium for british nuclear weapons.
go and search arlit mines niger areva if you want to suck on french neocolonial and big nuclear's cock some more.
Ayden Diaz
mfw clean coal
Hudson Martin
It practically makes all of the shit and its currently developing its knowledge industry at a rapid pace. If you want to go to the silicon valley of hardware, Shenzhen is the place to be.
Wyatt Clark
Guarantee anyone who's never been to China has knowledge 30 years out of date.
So fast.
Tyler Allen
The Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party (Arabic: Ḥizb Al-Ba‘ath Al-‘Arabī Al-Ishtirākī) was a political party founded in Syria by Michel Aflaq, Salah al-Din al-Bitar and associates of Zaki al-Arsuzi. The party espoused Ba'athism (from Arabic: Al-Ba'ath or Ba'ath meaning "renaissance" or "resurrection"), which is an ideology mixing Arab nationalist, pan-Arabism, Arab socialist and anti-imperialist interests. Ba'athism calls for unification of the Arab world into a single state. Its motto, "Unity, Liberty, Socialism", refers to Arab unity, and freedom from non-Arab control and interference.
Nathan Lopez
If you seriously believe clean coal generation is a thing you've been drinking porky kool aid.
Luis Reyes
black lung is caused by poor ventilation during mine shafts often for the sake of saving money with proper regulation this isn't the case.
town gas is easily produced from coal and burn as clean as natural gas and we had that 50 years ago.
There is literally no such thing as a clean fossil fuel. All fossil fuels are ancient carbon sinks and carbon dioxide is a product when burned. CO2 is a greenhouse gas; the more we release of it, the more radiation it traps. We need to switch to renewable and possibly nuclear while we can and if anything create an energy excess so that we can attempt to sequester some of the latent CO2 released during the last century back into the ground before we have a civilization-threatening catastrophe due to sea level rise.
Isaac Rivera
I should probably start learning chinese TBH. Lots to gain for programmers I would think.
Aaron Morgan
That's not bad considering it was one nuclear planet, and one of the oldest operating at the time
As I said here it seems like people pick one or the other solely due to idealogy and fear, but I want see, in our current society, the
And how that will work in a communist society
Doesn't Iceland get all its energy from a volcano? There seems like so many different and creative ways we can get energy but people just fall into different camps like the OP, the tankie, most neocons ive talked to on the internet and most liberals.
Be sensible, what does the science actually say? STEM fags weigh in
