Except that Nuclear actually is the greenest energy we have. The impact from solar and wind is far greater than most realise. Solar requires ridiculous amounts of mining for all the silicon needed in solar panels and to be replaced every few years, and wind turbine blades cannot be recycled and need to be changed out every 5 or so years IIRC.
By contrast, thorium salt reactors cannot go into meltdown (because by design the operation is already in "meltdown"), there is enough thorium on Earth that if we switched solely to thorium salt reactors it would last hundreds of generations (even accounting for population growth) and thorium is pretty abundant in space as well. On top of that, old reactor designs were highly inefficient. For one, uranium was used because it provided by-products that could be used for making weapons. But secondly, it only burned about 30% of the material before it needed to be thrown away and stored underground. However, there are modern reactor designs that can burn ~80% of the material making it far more efficient, AND there are waste burners that can use the vast majority of that remaining 20% (as well as the old stuff that's been stored underground and elsewhere, which would mean that efforts could be made to get rid of/heavily reduce already stored waste and clean up those areas for environmental rehabilitation).
On top of this, any nuclear emissions are just steam, as water is what is heated to turn the turbines in a reactor. In fact, coal burning actually produces more radioactive emissions per kW than nuclear due to imperfect burning.
And lastly, on top of all of that, Nuclear Energy is also the safest. Including tragedies, there are significantly less deaths per kW produced than any other power generation due to the dangers of material collection and worksite safety.
There is a reason that both coal/oil/gas and "green" energy suppliers lobby against nuclear, because it's a major threat to them.
If you didn't have any other reason to be skeptical of climate change alarmism, their opposition to nuclear power alone would be more than enough to call their motives into question.
Nuclear energy is one of the most significant accomplishments of our time and they oppose it debateably even more strongly than they oppose fossil fuels.
To be fair to normies that are against nuclear, a big part of that is Green Scare Propaganda, where they're told of the horrors of things like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, even though one of those was a direct failure of the state cutting corners, and the other resulted in no deaths and minimal natural impact.
I cannot truly blame people who are ignorant of topics that aren't something that would impact their day to day life. It would be weird to expect normal people to know the pros, cons and inner workings of different energy generation methods, because unless you're working in the industry or something adjacent to it, there's little need to know anything about it.
That said, advocates (particularly those that have political presences) are another story. And I don't just mean someone who's ultimately a normie but has been lead to believe "renewables" is the way, but those that DO know more than the average person on nuclear and STILL kneejerks against it because they refuse to understand the technological advances that have been made. For fucks sake, the handwringing is almost exclusively about Chernobyl, a reactor that was notoriously poorly built, but beyond that was first started construction in '72, meaning that most of the designs were from the 60s. And it's baffling that people cannot comprehend that humanity as a whole has made significant scientific advancements in nuclear energy production over the course of over half a fucking century. And that's with massive stigma and uphill battles to secure funding for this research.
So again, I understand the ignorance from normies because there's no reasonable expectation for them to know the knowledge, but it's certainly not excusable by people that claim to have some sort of knowledge on the topic. We cannot survive creating a world reliant upon batteries and renewables that barely last a decade before needing to be replaced and then the old ones can barely be recycled if they can be recycled at all.
Not much on hand, to be honest. But a good place to start is to simply read up on Thorium Salt Reactors in the first place, and generally a lot of these topics will be covered or natural leads into those other points. That said, if there's anything specific, I could try to go through some of my shit to find if I ended up saving it or not.
This is only a gesture meant to calm down the plebes.
In reality, nuclear projects were risky even before due to the massive upfront investment required, and now, NOONE is stupid enough to try and start building new nukes when the EU could do another 180 at any time and tax them to death again. All that changed is that now the communists can go all "See? We allowed nuclear energy but the free market doesn't want to build any!" and smugly ride away in their Tesla paid for with your money while you freeze to death.
It's also already too late for some countries like Germany. Can't restart or extend existing nuclear reactors because the fuel, parts and manpower isn't there anymore.
At least the Fridays for Future and Green retard crowds are seething on twitter. That's worth something.
you theroreticly could harvist the electical signal from the brain to the spine to generate meager amounts of power matriex was not blowing smoke there
Oh, they're going to lose big in this conflict with Russia. Peace will come, but the EU will end up paying through the nose. I now see why they drape themselves in blue and YELLOW.
Natural gas is green-ish (for whatever that matters). H-C bonds in natural gas have more bond energy and less carbon than the mostly C-C bonds in coal.
Do you hear this? If you listen closely no matter where you are you can hear the screeching of the greens in Berlin. Those retards prefer to cut down ancient forests to build wind parks over nuclear.
In the 80's I had a german roommate who explained that under German protections it was not allowed to pick up dead wood off the forest floor, against the law. I don't know how they're cutting down actual trees?
I've not heard of the picking up dead wood part(might be really big wood that's laying about in some forests, that's obviously owned by the foresters I'd think) but yes, they do cut down trees and they are working to destroy the Rheinhards forest with a wind park.
Don't know where to get an english source, I tried to find anything but alas...anyways this is talking about it being approved. the really disgusting thing to me about all of this is that tons of nature protections organisations here in Germany approve of this because "muh climate change". This forest is an ancient forest that was also the forest the brothers grimm lived around and collected tons of stories for it. There is inititives to fight against this madness but don't think German courts are any better than courts elsewhere. They will force this for "muh climate change". The greens are also all for it, surely because there's some vested interests in wind energy but don't you dare say that.
Funny that, years ago the climate protesters were chaining themselves to trees to stop a forest from being cut down to make way for more coal mining...where are they now? Could it be that this is fine since it's the "correct" side doing it? I am almost 100% sure of that. Nature protection is not a thing when it's offering it to the climate god.
I've actually recently learned that in Poland state forests' brushwood belongs to State Forests Administration. You can pay per weight (or volume) to pick up some.
It was actually promoted recently due to inflation. Now if only the government didn't previously subsidize modernizing heating installations to eco-variants that didn't accept wood.
Why would anyone invests, build and startup nuclear facilities/reactors.. knowing that next year they will ban it. Same situation with oil and oil refineries. No one is building more because dumbass biden and democrats can ban oil any moment.
Except that Nuclear actually is the greenest energy we have. The impact from solar and wind is far greater than most realise. Solar requires ridiculous amounts of mining for all the silicon needed in solar panels and to be replaced every few years, and wind turbine blades cannot be recycled and need to be changed out every 5 or so years IIRC.
By contrast, thorium salt reactors cannot go into meltdown (because by design the operation is already in "meltdown"), there is enough thorium on Earth that if we switched solely to thorium salt reactors it would last hundreds of generations (even accounting for population growth) and thorium is pretty abundant in space as well. On top of that, old reactor designs were highly inefficient. For one, uranium was used because it provided by-products that could be used for making weapons. But secondly, it only burned about 30% of the material before it needed to be thrown away and stored underground. However, there are modern reactor designs that can burn ~80% of the material making it far more efficient, AND there are waste burners that can use the vast majority of that remaining 20% (as well as the old stuff that's been stored underground and elsewhere, which would mean that efforts could be made to get rid of/heavily reduce already stored waste and clean up those areas for environmental rehabilitation).
On top of this, any nuclear emissions are just steam, as water is what is heated to turn the turbines in a reactor. In fact, coal burning actually produces more radioactive emissions per kW than nuclear due to imperfect burning.
And lastly, on top of all of that, Nuclear Energy is also the safest. Including tragedies, there are significantly less deaths per kW produced than any other power generation due to the dangers of material collection and worksite safety.
There is a reason that both coal/oil/gas and "green" energy suppliers lobby against nuclear, because it's a major threat to them.
Or in short, the only true green energy is the loving green glow of clean nuclear.
If you didn't have any other reason to be skeptical of climate change alarmism, their opposition to nuclear power alone would be more than enough to call their motives into question.
Nuclear energy is one of the most significant accomplishments of our time and they oppose it debateably even more strongly than they oppose fossil fuels.
To be fair to normies that are against nuclear, a big part of that is Green Scare Propaganda, where they're told of the horrors of things like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, even though one of those was a direct failure of the state cutting corners, and the other resulted in no deaths and minimal natural impact.
I cannot truly blame people who are ignorant of topics that aren't something that would impact their day to day life. It would be weird to expect normal people to know the pros, cons and inner workings of different energy generation methods, because unless you're working in the industry or something adjacent to it, there's little need to know anything about it.
That said, advocates (particularly those that have political presences) are another story. And I don't just mean someone who's ultimately a normie but has been lead to believe "renewables" is the way, but those that DO know more than the average person on nuclear and STILL kneejerks against it because they refuse to understand the technological advances that have been made. For fucks sake, the handwringing is almost exclusively about Chernobyl, a reactor that was notoriously poorly built, but beyond that was first started construction in '72, meaning that most of the designs were from the 60s. And it's baffling that people cannot comprehend that humanity as a whole has made significant scientific advancements in nuclear energy production over the course of over half a fucking century. And that's with massive stigma and uphill battles to secure funding for this research.
So again, I understand the ignorance from normies because there's no reasonable expectation for them to know the knowledge, but it's certainly not excusable by people that claim to have some sort of knowledge on the topic. We cannot survive creating a world reliant upon batteries and renewables that barely last a decade before needing to be replaced and then the old ones can barely be recycled if they can be recycled at all.
got info docs for those might help some who would like to either learn more or just put an end to the nimby factor even if its just a bit
Not much on hand, to be honest. But a good place to start is to simply read up on Thorium Salt Reactors in the first place, and generally a lot of these topics will be covered or natural leads into those other points. That said, if there's anything specific, I could try to go through some of my shit to find if I ended up saving it or not.
This is only a gesture meant to calm down the plebes.
In reality, nuclear projects were risky even before due to the massive upfront investment required, and now, NOONE is stupid enough to try and start building new nukes when the EU could do another 180 at any time and tax them to death again. All that changed is that now the communists can go all "See? We allowed nuclear energy but the free market doesn't want to build any!" and smugly ride away in their Tesla paid for with your money while you freeze to death.
It's also already too late for some countries like Germany. Can't restart or extend existing nuclear reactors because the fuel, parts and manpower isn't there anymore.
At least the Fridays for Future and Green retard crowds are seething on twitter. That's worth something.
Can we use their impotent rage to generate electricity? That would be worth even more!
you theroreticly could harvist the electical signal from the brain to the spine to generate meager amounts of power matriex was not blowing smoke there
What are you on my dude? We're enthusiastic to build nuclear plants here in Poland, in French cooperarion, at the Baltic coast.
Oh, they're going to lose big in this conflict with Russia. Peace will come, but the EU will end up paying through the nose. I now see why they drape themselves in blue and YELLOW.
I'm actually 100% okay with this. Nuclear is the best option we have right now. I wish more places would go that route.
Natural gas is green-ish (for whatever that matters). H-C bonds in natural gas have more bond energy and less carbon than the mostly C-C bonds in coal.
Do you hear this? If you listen closely no matter where you are you can hear the screeching of the greens in Berlin. Those retards prefer to cut down ancient forests to build wind parks over nuclear.
In the 80's I had a german roommate who explained that under German protections it was not allowed to pick up dead wood off the forest floor, against the law. I don't know how they're cutting down actual trees?
I've not heard of the picking up dead wood part(might be really big wood that's laying about in some forests, that's obviously owned by the foresters I'd think) but yes, they do cut down trees and they are working to destroy the Rheinhards forest with a wind park.
https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article236655625/Hessen-Umstrittener-Windpark-mit-18-Windraedern-im-Reinhardswald-genehmigt.html
Don't know where to get an english source, I tried to find anything but alas...anyways this is talking about it being approved. the really disgusting thing to me about all of this is that tons of nature protections organisations here in Germany approve of this because "muh climate change". This forest is an ancient forest that was also the forest the brothers grimm lived around and collected tons of stories for it. There is inititives to fight against this madness but don't think German courts are any better than courts elsewhere. They will force this for "muh climate change". The greens are also all for it, surely because there's some vested interests in wind energy but don't you dare say that.
Funny that, years ago the climate protesters were chaining themselves to trees to stop a forest from being cut down to make way for more coal mining...where are they now? Could it be that this is fine since it's the "correct" side doing it? I am almost 100% sure of that. Nature protection is not a thing when it's offering it to the climate god.
I've actually recently learned that in Poland state forests' brushwood belongs to State Forests Administration. You can pay per weight (or volume) to pick up some.
It was actually promoted recently due to inflation. Now if only the government didn't previously subsidize modernizing heating installations to eco-variants that didn't accept wood.
Same reason that anyone hunting on "the kings land" is an illegal poacher.
Who changed the definition ? Nuclear is 0 green house gas emission Energy. Natural Gas is massively less greenhouse gas emissions than coal.
Both are actual viable ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
No definition has been changed, just sane people prevailed.
Why would anyone invests, build and startup nuclear facilities/reactors.. knowing that next year they will ban it. Same situation with oil and oil refineries. No one is building more because dumbass biden and democrats can ban oil any moment.