>nuclear as the base power system
>supplemented by solar in the southwest, offshore wind on the coasts, and hydro at dams
>fully electric cars
what is the argument against this? the USA could be fully energy independent within 10 years and we wouldn't have to pollute our own country to do it
Slave labor, toxic waste from electric cars, ((green energy))
nuclear waste can be recycled, USA just doesn't do it because we're retarded
electric cars can be disposed of "cleanly". just dig a big hole in somewhere uninhabited with no wildlife (like the desert) and stick it in there
dont care about green energy, just dont want to live in a polluted shithole country
so israelites
by what measure?
nuclear is clearly the base source for power. hydro is also super good, but like you said it's limited where you can put it.
solar and wind wont work everywhere, but there are huge uninhabited places that get a ton of sun like the southwest that you could put solar farms and have them be worth the price/installation. same with offshore wind
as a prepper, I think solar is also good for personal independence when the shitty US power grid goes down
>electric cars can be disposed of "cleanly". just dig a big hole in somewhere uninhabited with no wildlife (like the desert) and stick it in there
I can see the dumbass Natives in arazona/nevada/new Mexico bitching that their uninhabited desert is a cultural heritage site and no toxic waste nonsense.
What are the actual ways to recycle nuclear waste? Is it a refinement process and then using it again or something else?
new reactors produce almost no waste retard. Also untill very recently electric car batteries could not be recycled, they would explode
Neat,I vaguely recall there being an issue with water temperatures because of how the steam process works but I assume that can be negated with proper planning and cooling channels.
Why are you lying?
They do produce waste but that waste can be reprocessed down into safer elements while extracting more power from it. Do this enough times and you end up with something fairly harmless.
Sure, that's why ORNL's the only one currently reprocessing and every other facility was shut down.
That's why the only reactor design that can push through the negative reactivity poisoning has half of its construction and operating cost in its moderator too.
Retard. Go ahead and look at the half life and barns of each daughter of the most common fission products. Show me where they'll be producing energy if isolated. I'll wait.
compare that to the amount of waste of a coal plant tho, its literally nothing
we have giant underground storage complexes filled with shit in america. If we used only 1/100th of that space, which already exists, for nuclear waste it would last us thousands of years at least, even if we generate 100% of electricity on nuclear.
waste is a non-issue
See
You're shifting the goalposts from no waste to "bury it!" and using whataboutism to justify it.
You're not going to convince me, nor do you need to try. You need to convince people who use "bussin" in casual conversation, raised by a generation who was programmed to think the magics of green energy and diversity are the solution to everything, that they need to stop being retarded. You'll have an easier time just getting them to ignore coal because they're lazy. Even still, they can argue a point better than you. How fucking embarrassing.
America has enough resources in it, even with leech states like California. We had the pipelines coming online with Texas and Alaska ready to go. Then that was canceled for ~~*reasons*~~ while solar companies get gov subsidies to sell overpriced panels to consumers who can't afford them.
Oy vey waddaya mean you can't pay for those solar panels we sold you? Guess we're going to fuck your credit score and scrape those retrofitted pieces of shit off your roof goy.
You're entire argument falls apart with your first attempt at dialogue.
> dig a big whole in the ground and bury car waste?
>nuclear waste can be recycled?
Lets add to this :
> Nuclear = complete world destruction if cataclysmic event occurs. i.e Fukashima (baby wave did this)
>no non biased research into waste output from solar production and other forms of clean energy
>advances in clean coal burning due to vortex mechanics
>advances in efficient gas powered engines. i.e cylinders that move opposite directions of each other to remove inefficiency due to shake
as long as the shit wont leach into ground water, this is actually a good solution until we figure out how to recycle cost effectively.
>what is the argument against this
finance
aren't the countries that shut down their nuclear plants in favor of "renewable" energy using more coal now than they did 40 years ago?
We were also energy independent 3 years ago.
But the answer you're looking for is israelites. Listen to Galen Winsor.
I don't trust any of you 'diverse' homosexuals to be able to run nuclear without killing millions of people from stupid mistakes. Just gonna use gas lol.
Nuclear provides clean, reliable energy and that spits in the face of the climate agenda.
They can't use the climate as a stick to push you into accepting lower standards of living if it becomes a non-issue.
>Nuclear provides clean, reliable energy and that spits in the face of the climate agenda.
well, nuclear fission has it's own problems.
nuclear fusion is what we need.
>Meme flags with pipe dreams
Breeder reactors can burn waste. Thorium reactors are hard to make plutonium with. The only thing stopping it is investment in the technologies.
turn off your vpn then i turn off my memeflag.
>The only thing stopping it is investment in the technologies.
how much did you invest in those?
Zero, because our oil lobby is very powerful. Also, I'm American AF and you're just a kike.
>Zero, because our oil lobby is very powerful.
You don't even believe yourself anon...
>Also, I'm American AF
I'm European AF.
>The only thing stopping it is investment in the technologies.
No, retard, its the regulations against nuclear power. How many new stations were approved for construction in the last 25 years?
>Thorium
oh, a retard. Hey buddy, look up a few terms for me. Telluride cracking, binding energy per nuclei, fission yield coefficient, resonant absorption, and macroscopic cross section.
We can continue a nuclear conversation when you're done parroting Kirk Sorensen and his grift.
Fusion would be better, but fission's problems have been SOLVED for decades.
>Fusion would be better, but fission's problems have been SOLVED for decades.
really? how do you clean up nuclear waste other than burying it for 100k years? how do you fully prevent sabotage or acts of war?
>really? how do you clean up nuclear waste other than burying it for 100k years?
You reprocess the spent fuel in other reactors until you're down to byproducts with half-lives shorter than a human lifetime.
Electric cars are shit and VERY disposable. They are being pushed so that they can shut off your freedom of movement with the flick of a switch.
Solar sucks and wind really blows!
But no seriously nuclear energy is by far the best for powering an industrialized nation. Hydro is limited by where you can build it so we can't make that many hydro plants.
And how is a modern ICE with all it's ECUs and places to hide kill switches any different?
An electric car doesn't need to be any more than a battery, charging controller, motor controller and motor. You can buy off-the-shelf units of each.
What about the shelf life and reliability of those things?
The simple fact that the take hours and hours to charge where as an ICE vehicle can travel across the nation in days.
Only with some type of battery swapping system like what we do with forklifts would work.
That is a concern, yes. Hopefully battery tech improves.
thats why i like H-fuel cells.
takes no longer to fill than gas.
>Electric cars are shit and VERY disposable. They are being pushed so that they can shut off your freedom of movement with the flick of a switch.
quite the opposite, they are being pushed so you can keep your freedom of movement. otherwise you should stay at home or if really needed use public transport, that's the most eco friendly.
Huh???? Keep my freedom of movement with really expensive cars?
As opposed to buying a decent used car and taking care of it for a fraction of the price?
Oh wait cash for clunkers killed tons of use-able vehicles and left us in a worse state.
>Huh???? Keep my freedom of movement with really expensive cars?
Buy a used car, noone is forcing you to use an electric one. They will be cheaper if mass production ramps up. 2.5-3 generations max.
The left is indeed trying to force us to buy electric.
>The left is indeed trying to force us to buy electric.
i see no electric mandate, just zero emission anon.
Seems like Europe is mandating everyone huff paint today?
Batteries don't last forever, are made of rare-earth minerals, and can't really be recycled like steel can.
Battery materials can be sourced in North America
Nuclear is NOT clean. You can clearly see the radiation smoke coming out of the reactor towers
That's steam, retard.
Are you literally retarded? You can clearly see it with your own eyes. That’s pollution.
low effort troll, here's your (You).
Nuclear uses the heat from the nuke reaction to boil water to turn turbines.
That's just hot water going into the air, there is no radiation anywhere in the plant outside of the hot pocket they have submerged in water.
Like imagine if all the fire from any other power plant didn't make smoke and could be contained in a room. That's nuclear energy.
look at the polluted sky!!!
> what is density
that's a new one for me, love it. thanks for the chuckle, anon.
The post is bait anon.
lol that is steam. Its not 'nuclear smoke'. And yes nuclear is the cleanest and most powerful form. It only becomes a problem if it melts down, but if run properly and built properly they are the best power plants.
>what is the argument against this?
The US not existing in 10 years.
USA is going anywhere anytime soon. You are watching the downfall of Rome, which took 250 years for complete dissolution. US is bigger than Rome and has its own continent. The only way to get rid of the US is to nuke the world you crazy Russian
You're watching the downfall of the Republic.
What do you use for peak energy hours?
We already use all of those things, they aren't enough during peak usage.
The united states has some of the largest reserves of natural gas in the world. The same energy source German used not long ago to claim to be totally carbon neutral. But for some reason that's not good enough for the left anymore and they'd rather import oil from Saudi Arabia again.
We use pretty much every source of energy. if you want to lower carbon emissions, why not pipe in what we can't produce domestically from Canada? Its a cleaner fuel that doesnt need to be transported by ship over the ocean.
>We already use all of those things
We barely have any nuclear power in this country. see
>The united states has some of the largest reserves of natural gas in the world.
the USA also has a ton of uranium
We have 92 nuclear power plans. almost 2 per state. Its not the amazing magic bullet you're making it out to be.
Nuclear not bad but there is a greater liability, the consequences for mistakes are higher. Any plant to day would no doubt have to make sure their hiring practices are "equitable" and "promote diversity"
maybe we need a nuclear meltdown to end this diversity shit. imagine the lawsuit after a nuclear meltdown claiming the company was negligent in hiring practices by promoting diversity over competence
This is unironically why I quit. You'll have 20 people on shift, and only 3 who can actually work.
I was hoping that the diversity hire that fucked up the silicon valley bank would cause change, but unfortunately not it seems
>if you want to lower carbon emissions
That is a retarded scam by oil monopolies and some oligarchs.
CO2 , at most is 3% of greenhouse gas. 95% is water vapor, the oceans. We can't possibly affect it in any meaningful way other that the scammers in gov and TPTB coming up with more taxes. Such as tax on breathing (you breathe out CO2).
>fully electric cars
You were doing ok until this statement. It is impossible to achieve.
This
Your energy infrastructure is already hurting each summer with <5% electric cars. Imagine what will happen if there are 15%.
Switching to nuclear would solve ~~*climate change*~~
Like thats it, then we could stop talking about it forever
Electric cars are actually worse then gasoline cars for the environment. The mining that goes into making those batteries is crazy. Plus once the car is done with you have to figure out how to dispose of the batteries. Plus an all electric car country would mean they could just shut your car off anytime they want. Think how crazy it would get if your retards actually go along with turning USA into a Chinese social credit dystopian hellscape like they are doing in China right now.
>Plus an all electric car country would mean they could just shut your car off anytime they want.
they can do that with current ICE cars as well anon.
>they can do that with current ICE cars as well anon.
Can't hear you over my pre-OnStar sedan anon.
yeah, i said current ones. if you don't trust you don't buy a new car, that simple. noone is "taking away" anything, thanks for backing me up anon!
All cars combined in the US pollute about as much as not even 10 cargo ships bringing you shit from China each day.
geothermal is literally perfect green nuclear power that can be used anywhere. why there isn't investment in DIGGING DEEPER i'll never understand.
Only thinker in this thread. Repurposing old oil wells is trivial for this. Pump water down, steam comes up, natural circulation drives a turbine. GG.
The same homosexuals who love wind and solar also hate nuclear. That's why.
Also if we could build more nuclear power plants we wouldn't need wind and solar, which are far less efficient and require much more space for same output.
Nuclear is dangerous, just ask the folks at 3 mile Island
The UK is currently having a nuke plant built by French and Chinese contractors. It's already way over schedule and budget. One plant is $40B+ and takes 15+ years to build and has a 50% chance of failing. To replace fossil fuels for just transportation is hundreds of nuke plants. Fossil fuels are cheap and still abundant. Solar looks cheap on paper but once you add the grid level batteries it's expensive.
>fully electric cars
Electric cars are a meme that will always be held back by batteries, the real future tech is hydrogen burning cars that produce no byproduct but steam. You can make hydrogen with the cheap electricity from nuclear, and the already existing water infrastructure.
it is not really worth it honestly. the solution to the energy problem overall is nuclear where the cities are, no wind, hydro wherever it goes, tidal power at the coasts, and solar in space.
>what is the argument against this?
They are selling electric cars and forcing electric cooking appliances without fixing the power grid that consists of shit from the 50s.
>China Syndrome
China is here Mr Burton.
Solar and wind are fucking garbage at anything other than providing power to outposts that are logistically too isolated to connect to the power grid.
>supplemented
Nuclear power doesn't need supplementation lol
It does, actually. Transients cause power peaking that takes the reactor a few hours to adjust to. It's easier to just run them at steady state and parallel a gas plant to the grid.
Won't work. Would still be necessary to use natural gas to bridge the gap. Perhaps with carbon capture and sequestration it could be net zero carbon. And to do all that would still require using a fuck ton of oil to build everything up, would take a couple decades at least. But it might actually happen if we run out of cheap oil which looks increasingly likely.
However there's also the issue of depleting economically viable reserves of natural gas, uranium and rare minerals needed to make batteries, electric infrastructure, etc. Honestly I think we're fucked either way.
Electric cars are a shit idea outside little shitboxes for rentals or rideshare in urban areas. Hydrogen was always the way to go for mobile.
by solar in the southwest, offshore wind on the coasts,
Why?
Why would you mix in more expensive unreliable methods?
>fully electric cars
Fuck that. Batteries are shit.
Just make hydrocarbons at night when the reactors are running at 20%.
>at night when the reactors are running at 20%.
that's not how it works, anon
The net electrical grid load overnight is about 20% of peak demand.
With making hydrocarbon fuels you can ramp up production overnight that will keep the output for the reactors at 100%.
>The net electrical grid load overnight is about 20% of peak demand.
the other anon is right you can't ramp reactors up and down daily like that. Nuclear provides that base 20% load all the time, other sources are brought online to handle peak loads.
>the other anon is right you can't ramp reactors up and down daily like that. Nuclear provides that base 20% load all the time, other sources are brought online to handle peak loads.
Holy fuck you are retarded.
1: Nuclear reactor isn't a single item, any more than internal combustion engine is. Many reactors are happy to scale up and down on command.
2: I fucking said run an alternative energy demanding process at night to keep running the reactors at full power all the time.
>Many reactors are happy to scale up and down on command.
oh yeah, which ones memeflag jackass?
Ones that need the use of the shift key to operate. Sorry you wouldn't understand.
>you don't type perfectly on a mongolian throat singing forum therefore I win
Just fucking use the shift key homosexual.
Anyway any moderator controller reactor. RBMK, IFR, AGR, MKER, ADSR, EGP-6.
>Just fucking use the shift key homosexual.
no
>lists obsolete positive void coefficient bombs
lol, lmao
see Chernobyl for what happens with runaway reactivity after a transient.
Tell me more about the IRF's positive void coefficient, or even better how the fuck you ended up with a void in that reactor.
>pretending the IFR was built
>pretending any subvariant of the IFR could generate power and wasn't just a plutonium generator
here's your (you), but I'm just going to keep making fun of retarded arguments
Explain the positive void coefficient in the obsolete design of the IFR.
see
How does the IFR have a positive void coefficient?
see
Naval PWRs can do it.
I too watched HBO's Chernobyl. However, that is not the only reactor design on earth.
Citation needed. I'll wait. You can't outrun xenon.
this is bait to draw in posts form the "best and brightest" :^)
I get paid by the post bubba, not by the hour.
Nuclear power plants were a means to an end, build nuclear weapons. It's probably a net energy loss factoring in the time to build, cost to run, cost to mine uranium.
This Russia USA thing is really about energy so things should get really hairy. Also, cannot plan any long term projects properly in this climate, get real. Need a budget that doesn't go to shit every quarter. Stability. Modern coal burner is way to go, over Greta Tunemyburgers dead body possibly.
>It's probably a net energy loss factoring in the time to build, cost to run, cost to mine uranium.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/energy-return-on-investment.aspx
Even with shit Light Water Reactors burning up only 0.03% of the fuel they are about 70 times the EROI.
>Nuclear power plants were a means to an end, build nuclear weapons
not exactly true, especially in the west, although Soviet power stations were inherently dual use. It's more that the Navy wanted an industry for their reactor techs to work in once out of the service and there are only a couple of companies that make the civilian fuel rods and they have a nice monopoly they don't want upset by tech like
>The net electrical grid load overnight is about 20% of peak demand.
that will change with the battery electric vehicle
>With making hydrocarbon fuels you can ramp up production overnight that will keep the output for the reactors at 100%.
you don't need to ramp up, they are at 100% already, that's the issue 🙂 also zoom in bit, and see the investment aspect and the constraints of the current tech. americans were "rioting" for the fuel prices already which were lower than what we have rn.
Our gas went from like $2.50 a gallon to like $6.50 overnight...
>Our gas went from like $2.50 a gallon to like $6.50 overnight...
exactly. from really cheap to cheap.
>you don't need to ramp up, they are at 100% already, that's the issue 🙂 also zoom in bit, and see the investment aspect and the constraints of the current tech. americans were "rioting" for the fuel prices already which were lower than what we have rn.
Fucking learn to read phone moron.
With making hydrocarbon fuels, a process that you will run all the time but do to a lack of energy can't run at full output during the day. You can ramp up production (of the hydrocarbons) overnight that will keep the output for the nuclear reactors running at 100% even if they are running 100% of the electrical demand.
you have zero knowledge about the process and challenges of making synthetic fuel anon.
>nuclear
>we wouldn't have to pollute our own country
nuclear power is great but it's not pollutant free
In a geologically stable region there's no reason not to simply bury the "waste" if it's not going to be used to additional power.
Utah Salt Mines are a good place
Offshore wind is killing whales and dolphins, otherwise wind just kills birds.
u almost have it. EV batteries require tons of rare earths, EV's are a meme. Liquid hydrocarbons are a far superior energy/weight fuel, and as you burn them you lose the weight instead of always carting around max fuel weight.
The fuel cycle is this:
Mine coal, separate thorium out for use in Liquid Fueled Throrium Reactors (LFTR). These reactors were originally designed for use as aircraft engines and as such produce super hot gases to drive the generation turbines. With the waste heat from these gases, the Fischer-Tropsch process is used on the coal to create synthetic oil which can then be cracked into distillates for fuel, lubrication, manufacturing etc. There is enough coal in the United States alone to do this for 500 plus years, during which time synfuel technologies like biodiesel can advanced, and alternative sources of fertile/fissile fisson fuels can be harvested from earth and space.
All of the tech necessary for this already exists today, your political masters would rather you be a neo-serf in their green-commie nightmare instead though.
>LFTR
forgot to mention, the LFTR's are also breeder reactors that can create more nuclear fuel than they use
The Technology is not efficient, expensive, and puts more pollution in the environment than it takes out. Climate Change is nothing but a cash grab scam.
>solar, offshore wind, hydro
Expensive
>Nuclear power
EXPENSIVE
>Electric cars
Spoken like a true mutt
No argument against. Sounds solid. Just add hydrogen as a way to store peak wind & sun electricity for later use.
Boomers won't let us have anything nice
>what is the argument against this?
Two world's main parties that build nuclear reactors are France and Russia.
Largest supplier of raw uranium is Kazakhstan which is within Russia's and China's spheres of influence.
US barely has anything to do with majority of nuclear energy-related markets, and if these become norm, it will be total loss of hegemony compared to world that runs on carbohydrate power sources.
There's a reason "green" agenda (American economic terrorism) absolutely DESPISES nuclear power, as illogical as it is.
Nuclear energy (Chernobyl) helped bringing down the Soviet Union too, hard to be not a fan of it.
Plants and trees like all the carbon we put into the atmosphere.
>what is the argument against this?
ask that bitch, jane fonda. her scare-mongering in the 1970's with that blatant anti-nuclear propaganda move The China Syndrome made all of us sheep in the U.S. afraid of nuclear power plants.
Nuclear fags are the stupidest on earth.
>Ummm yeah lets let every country on earth including naggers and muslims have a valid reason to enrich uranium, whats the worst that could happen?
Its the most retarded political stance there is, your average brain dead antifa NPC has more intelligence.
If you can't tell the difference between 5% enriched uranium for reactor fuel and 95% enriched uranium for really shitty weapons, you might be an American
Nobody said the muds get to enrich their own fuel, they will be required to buy it from firsties and account for every milligram under my proposal, or else they get preemptively glassed.
Nuclear power requires smart people to run it but America has been using the welfare state + mass immigration as a reverse eugenics program, resulting in a loss of 3-4 IQ points per decade. The deliberate dumbing down of American education is also partly responsible.
Even if a few smart people remain, they will not be enough, and their warnings will be ignored for the endless needs of the welfare state.
Without smart people, nuclear power is an epic long term disaster and curse on the land.
>nuclear as the base power system
>supplemented by
Wouldnt need to be supplemented at all.
Nuclear is the true energy redpill.
>Nuclear is the true energy redpill.
1. Thorium msr > current system
2. Solar sucks
3. Wind is even fucking worse
4. The process of making evehicles is incredibly more damaging than the lifespan on an ice.
5. Evehicle fires burn considerably hotter than ice and you cannot put out the fires conventional. Some even restart days after being submerged.
>He fell for the Nuclear power meme
Nuclear power plants need non-renewable resources to be able to produce power. It's a special type of uranium that isn't that common either so we'll end up running out of those resources eventually too
Technologies in reprocessing existing uranium will make it essentially limitless. We're becoming so efficient with what we have that we'll never conceivably run out.
The sun needs non renewable resources to be able to make power and we'll end up running out of those eventually too.
We have enough nuclear material to run our civilization at any energy level for longer than we can expect to still have a planet. We will either get consumed by the sun or smashed by Andromeda before we run out of materials to use in nuclear fission reactors.
NIMBY fags with high level rad waste, zoomers are incapable of the focus needed for nuclear licensing too, investors can't stand that contractors will make more building a reactor than they will operating it too.
You are correct, however, environmentalists are paid by US oil and natural gas concerns to undercut energy independence in Europe, to keep them on the USG plantation.
Energy independence, on either side, fucks with the "Great Game."
Those water boiler-type solar farms, you know the ones with mirrors, those are the ideal types of solar energy.
Not these "solar panels" made of poisonous, rare materials which can not be recycled.
Why not just use Nuclear and supplement with your natural resources until Fusion comes along (eventually). Do you have any idea how much wind and solar cost? Not just initially but ALSO throughout their lifespan? Not to mention the toxic, non-biodegradable waste products. Electric cars are utterly shit, and the expansion of the grid that would be required to allow car use like now with EV would be absurd. We're talking multiple times as much output as currently. Battery technology means it isn't efficent to use solar and wind because they often don't maximally output when demand is high. EVs have to have their batteries regularly replaced, and those batteries cannot be recycled. The future is hydrogen, not EV. The governments are backing EV due to vested interest and the obvious benefits for the elites. Its like Betamax all over again.
Further, you assume that CO2 production is necessarily bad. The reason all these 'greening' projects work is because of the excess CO2 produced. The fucking deserts are going green at a rapid rate due to this CO2, you get rid of the CO2 and that goes away. The whole greenhouse effect theory is bullshit, most of the temperature fluctuations can be explained as the result of natural processes.
You already are energy independent, retard. Lurk more
All of this hinges on your government wanting things to be cheaper or more advanced for you. There is no argument against it your proposals, but it has a near-zero chance because they want you living in a favela while they get to fly helicopters to work.
Big oil and 'green technology' work for the same people against nuclear energy.
why would i want decreased travel range during the winter?
electric cars are a bad idea, but otherwise this is good
mostly because the batteries are too scarce for widespread use, people want more electric cars but there will be a huge material shortage if they are ever actually adopted
>what is the argument against this?
That at the moment storage isn't capable of adapting to demand and changes in supply. It requires a ton of RMEs if you go with a lithium solution and even stuff like molten salt acid battery has low efficiency.
You can't just store it in hydrogen either because:
a) It has an extremely low energy density
b) storage and retrieval is extremely inefficient
Pump hydro is great for storage but it can't work everywhere.
Electric cars are also extremely heavy at the moment for the size of their batteries and have a lot of kinks which need to be worked out. There's also nowhere near enough lithium if everyone suddenly tried to transition simultaneously.
>the USA could be fully energy independent within 10 years and we wouldn't have to pollute our own country to do it
You could already do this if you wanted to because america is incredibly rich in natural resources (and that's before fracking).
The short term solution is probably more transition to gas and renewables until storage is capable of dealing with changes in supply.
> what is the argument against this?
boomerfags.
because millions will be jobless and hungry in the process
we already have loads of nuclear, you southwest mutts are the only ones that don't because you aren't white.
I can see Three Mile Island from my bedroom window. Pretty neat I guess. I like to look out and pretend I can see Wolverine and Sabertooth fighting Deadpool on top of the cooling tower.
try convincing a bunch of stupid fucking idiots to build nuclear power
i'll wait
nuclear could easily supplement most of our energy needs. solar and wind are only good for small scale power supply (warehouse or single use residential). Hydroelectric isn't as practical due to limited opportunities and functions better as a form of energy storage rather than a direct energy source.
>what is the argument against this?
>the USA could be fully energy independent
thats one. thats the last thing globohomo wants.
there are also way too many brainlets that unironically think that shit glows green, it could go critical and explode like a nuke and that the cooling towers emit radioactive waste.
on a side note, our grid needs to be updated.
Ironically, the ecology. Solar panels and wind turbines are unrecyclable (fuberglass propeller blades for sure).
And electric cars create a lot of pollution at the bottom of their supply chain. It has a long way to go before it's truly worth it.
But yeah, I think moving away from fossil fuel is good, just don't go full retard with "cow burps are too much methane!" and measureing carbon footprint of chicken nuggets.
by solar in the southwest, offshore wind on the coasts, and hydro at dams
electric cars
Because solar and wind are not just memes, theyre fucking DEVASTATING to wildlife.
And electric cars are fine, but its be better to use LPG.
Ultimately, the brainlets you can find in this thread are the carbon that needs to be reduced. I bet half signed their death certificate for a donut too.
nigga we cant even keep trains on a track
>what is the argument against this?
Why would the ruling class allow the peasents access to cheap and reliable sources of energy when it is easier, more fun and entertaining to constantly threaten and humiliate them with rolling blackouts or high energy bills?
i just let out a nuclear fart
i'm powered up
Engineer here. When I graduated college some military recruiter sounding fag called me and wanted me to become a nuclear engineer and offered me a job with the government. I declined because I already a job lined out. Pretty sure it was only the fags who graduated without jobs who would have accepted these positions. That's got to be concerning lol
It was probably NAVSEA, they're desperate for even midwits, given most zoomers are operating on 2 digit IQs and every millenial is either too fat, a druggie, a commie, or already employed with someone who pays double.
I did it for 8 years, it sucked.
Millennials have pretty much aged out of military service. It's the zoomers' turn now.
NAVSEA and Naval Reactors can fuck off and die though. Hate those naggers.
My boat's already razorblades and commemorative hull cubes. Trust me, I know. Don't get a degree, you don't need it for licensing if you're already at least EWS/EOOW. Put it in an MBA since that's what every commercial plant wants.
Even at a national lab as a CHP, you'll never be paid what you're worth.
I did my six and got out. Working in conventional civilian plants now. Money is okay, job is easy. Thought about going into a civilian nuke plant but honestly I don't want to live in any of the places where they exist.
Hey wake up. It's 0300, I need you to go do this maintenance in the RC. No don't log in with the RC watch. No don't get the ELT. Just go do the maintenance. Drop the ram trash off the edge of the bridge-tunnel. Felony? Yeah.... If you get caught, it's a court-martial, if you won't do it, you go to mast.
And that's why I got out. Corrupt chiefs, bad leadership, 2 or 3 section duty, five-and-dime watch rotation, and being out to sea 75% of the time.
What, you transported radiacs to the cal lab in a personally owned vehicle? When subs only have access to a single govie in port? Thats a mastable offense, go- I mean shipmate!
I'd call squadron's duty driver for a ride. Squadron would send their crusty ass warrant down to yell at LSC for not doing his job and letting us use the boat's duty driver. It was a different time. Didn't even have to consider using your car.
You ever get to port call in Singapore, and if so was Orchard Tower still banned?
not banned as of 4 years ago
Windmills kill birds, hydroelectric disturbs fish breeding systems, solar destroys ecosystems. Not to mention the poisonous waste byproducts after the hardware expires or the devastation caused by mining for components. They're also inefficient, undependable and ugly on top of everything else. More nuclear yes, the rest are garbage except in very specific situations.
offshore wind farms also produce a lot of noise that travels for thousands of miles underwater and disrupt aquatic life to the point they aren't able to breed.
>solar in the southwest, offshore wind on the coasts
Useless.
Or Just build Thorium powered cars that charge themselves and your home.
it's extremely expensive and only profitable with government subsidies
Or Just brew up tanks of Bio Butanol. It burns just like gasoline and any OBD2 cars wont even set a code.
Just keep driving your ICE collection. Even Brasil makes 80% of its own fuel from sugar cane, and they could get freel oil from venezuela.
Buy a patch of trees and some farmland, make a batch of BioBut every Fall and make your own fuel.
Keeping energy scarce and expensive is one of the best ways they keep you enslaved.