Is it true that there's already better energy alternatives to petroleum but oil tycoons won't let them become viable?

theres "better" options but they sure as hell aint cheaper

maybe

but it wont last
its not like this will work with china
a nation that will do whatever it cans to undo its oil dependency

Yes it's called nuclear fission.

youtube.com/watch?v=PpoPnrAc9qw

I've heard the only nuclear reactors that are actually safe are thorium ones, that all others suck and produce a ton of harmful waste products.

It's true the current reactor designs in commercial use produce waste and do have the small risk of meltdown. However they are still much safer and cleaner than coal or oil.
That and the current reactor designs in use are decades old because retarded boomers fell for the solar/wind shilling and we haven't been able to develop and build new designs like LFTR(thorium).

But they cant be used to make weapons. That is the real reason we currently use the very dangerous reactors.

Attached: 1 (you).jpg (3840x2160, 1.46M)

big, if true

you and I, user

Chernobyl, Bikini atoll and Fukashima are permanently uninhabitable. Obama signed a bill outlawing LFTR

We have a whole continent full of currently untapped self renewable black gold.

Attached: inspecting the mercandise.jpg (1000x802, 328K)

Yes. A lot of scientists, inventors and researchers literally got shut down by the government.

Bikini Atoll was a nuclear weapons test site, not a nuclear power plant site.

Chernobyl had no containment structure and was intentionally fucked up by operators because commies.
Fukashima was built right on the shore in a fucking tsunami zone.
Both used old as fuck Gen II reactor designs.

Molten salt low pressure reactors are theoretically safer and more efficient than high pressure water reactors we currently use. Since molten salt reactors run at atmospheric pressure, they aren't prone to massive explosions.

Assuming the fission material is in the salt itself (salt not just used as a heat transfer fluid) it has the benefit of density reduction at higher temperatures, making runaway reactions less likely. Also, molten salt reactors have a "melt plug" that allows the radioactive salt to melt the plug and flow to a cool down area should it get too hot.

Molten salt reactors run at higher temperatures resulting in less waste, more breeding of fissionable materials (where thorium could be used), and online separation of reactor "poisons" (since you are processing a circulating liquid).

Thorium isn't necessarily tied to this difference in tech, however; it can be used with molten salt reactors.

Thorium is interesting because there is enough easily accessible to power humanity's power requirements at current levels for 1000+ years.

Thorium reactors

>haha let’s switch to solar

Attached: E0D556C5-E792-4E3C-A85B-36F80A191D7C.jpg (778x518, 72K)

The others don't suck, but they do produce waste that is dangerous for decades. That being said, there are numerous "solutions" to the waste produced. Usually they are stored for a decade on site in special containers till they are no longer completely dangerous, then they are moved to some god forsaken desert and buried.
It is true, one of the main reason nuclear rose to prominence is because everyone wanted to show nuclear mastery during the Cold War. Nuclear is safe though, the real problem with nuclear is the initial expense of building the power plant to code.

yes, it's called fissile uranium. I swear oil companies fund Greenpeace and other hippie groups just to help maintain their interests in the transportation industry.

No. Do you know how expensive it is to bring oil out the ground? Major oil rigs like pic related cost over $1M a day to operate. If there were a cheaper alternative, those tycoons would buy it up, monetize it, sell it to you at the same price as gas, and keep the profits. But there isn't, so they don't.

Attached: Ocean-Confidence-semisubmersible-GOM-BOEM-702x336-1472136855.jpg (702x336, 62K)

I know all of those things but that does not change the fact that these places are permanantly ruined. Mistakes happen but nuclear never forgives. How much more of these will it take before background radiation becomes so high that humans can no longer reproduce? In other words, how badly can we devastate the world before we kill ourselves off?

Attached: eye of sauron.jpg (1152x864, 127K)

Goodest goy. Best goy.

Thorium ones are a bit safer than uranium ones it’s one of those 1000 vs. 1001 things. Small modular reactors of either fuel type are also much safer; you literally bury them in the ground and if something goes wrong you just shut it all down and seal it up where it is.
And if I’m not insane, the tails from 1950s-era uranium plants, like most of the U.S. fleet, can be fed into modern thorium ones anyway.
The tech to get the U-235 concentration high enough for use in a bomb instead of use in a reactor is really really tough and doesn’t necessarily follow from having operational power plants.

That's why we need to develop and build new 4th generation reactors such as LFTR.

The old generation reactors were never intended to be used for as long as they have been, they were supposed to be stepping stones to newer and safer reactors designs. Nearly all the development has been held up by politics, shilling, and fearmongering though.

the technology to have a heated and cooled home with no fuel necessary has existed for 30K years

youtube.com/watch?v=_3orTPHV9DI

Dude it hit all of 3% of a province and it should be cleared for total resettlement in at most 40 years. The death toll is approximately 150 people maybe being a bit more likely of dying of cancer sometime in their life maybe possibly.

>We'd be doing similar damage doing literally anything else.
radiant energy, you can live without bills, if your local municipality would allow it you could, but they won't, because of building codes

Referring specifically to Fukushima; Chernobyl was a giant clusterfuck because the commies cut every single corner possible while building it and didn’t have oversight because corruption.

you are correct, only liquid salt reactors make sense, but they are prohibited in the USA by law thanks to Obama, so now I guess China will build them, even though the US developed the technology

>the commies cut every single corner possible while building it and didn’t have oversight because corruption.

we did Cherylnobl, it was in the middle of their farmland and 250K Russians died cleaning it

>Thorium ones are a bit safer
it's much safer, this Trump supporter will explain it to you

youtube.com/watch?v=1Y6Cli2odss&t=109s

I work in o&g investment banking in houston. There are a million and one legitimate reasons besides the core tech itself for why renewables aren’t replacing fossil fuels any time soon, mostly regarding infrastrucutre and the unique ways in which such fuels match the way energy demands work. That being said the jews are also 100% pushing it

To truly understand how the big oil companies control your life and control the world you need to watch these two docs.
Part1
youtu.be/ySnk-f2ThpE

Part2
youtu.be/0wlNey9t7hQ

It is not about oil, it is not about money, it is about power. They have more money than they could possibly need. The same groups that ran the oil empire are also running the green initiative and funding climate research into man made climate change.

No, the minute something becomes cheaper and more viable than petroleum everyone will latch on to it.

lmao.I honestly find it hard to believe that actual somewhat normal humans believe shit like this around me.

Attached: energy-subsidies4.png (720x540, 105K)

Thorium-MSR is far better; but old fashioned nuclear is still better than all other options.

Attached: Uranium vs Thorium fission.png (1050x930, 113K)

will watch, thanks

pretty sure the 200 million gallons of crude oil that deep water horizon spilled is still worse than that image, my dude.

what am I looking at here

to get the minerals to create solar panels, huge dig sites have to be dug which leaves those giant holes on the ground where nothing will ever grow again

Would some alternatives work, yes
But they would be very very expensive and would not be cost effective for a growing economy. If you outlawed petroleum today you would have a global economic collapse tomorrow until you can build you economy up again onto of your new alternative fuel sources.

still more cost effective than a complete collapse.

I blame the public opinion on nuclear power for holding energy companies back from investing. The mob doesn't understand shit about nuclear.

OP's mom's vegana

Depends if you factor in damages to the environment as costs.

Yes there is. It's called fusion, and if the next big scale project in the US succeeds oil will eventually be phased out as an energy source for the most part. Then space

Attached: 1487458113910.jpg (736x570, 83K)

It doesn't matter, really. We have a petroleum-based economy, and all the good intentions in the world won't change that anytime soon. If we did get a "Mr. Fusion"-style power grid what do you think would happen to all the interrelated economies the world over? Read the sci-fi story "Roach Stompers" by S.M. Stirling for a really dark take on this subject.

Attached: 798133.jpg (308x475, 33K)

>small chance of meltdown
>safer

Doesn't seem contradictory to me

>oil rigs never stop drilling
REEEEEEEE

>what is natural gas for 600, alex

no, fossil fuels are shit, and will eventually run out anyways; we should move away to a better resource, like solar, wind, geothermal to better our battery tech.

Not really.

Rothschilds aren't big players in the game, haven't been since the IMF days in the 50's. New jews rule the roost, but you have a point. It's all nepotism for them, but when white families work together, it evil capitalist imperial oppression.

No, it's still way too inefficient.

We pay $0.10 per kilowatt hour. Germany pays about $0.35 per kilowatt hour... maybe more like $0.30.

Either way, that's what government mandated Green Energy gets you.

Once it's more efficient it will be able to compete on its own in the market.

Until then, keep R&D'ing, but don't force it on the people or make them fucking pay for it with subsidies, tax breaks or other bullshit.

As for better alternatives...

Duh, nuclear. Fission for now, fusion later on.

Here's some basic anthropology for you. No people or society has ever moved from an energy source that was more dense to an energy source that was less dense.

Solar is a fucking shit meme.

Mining the minerals (cadmium and tellurium) needed ends up strip mining and creating a similar amount of environmental destruction as the oil sands
Processing and Manufacturing the panels creates tons of toxic chemicals
Then you have maintenance required costs which requires potentially more of the above
And you have to replace them every now and then because believe it or not, having panels in areas with wind/particles in the atmosphere etc. damages them
Which means go through the first two again
Its expensive as fuck

Nevermind
>it takes up a ton of space - arguably more than coal/oil/natural gas/hydroelectric/nuclear
>its not efficient enough to meet current needs
>batteries aren't sufficiently enough advanced
>solar mirrors require heat engines/generators in order to convert thermodynamic energy to mechanical to electrical
>all of which cost significant amounts of money, have varying efficiency, require cooling, and maintenance frequently

God forbid they use Gallium Arsenide which is used for high efficiency cells. The name alone should tell you what is wrong with it.

On top of that, you need the infrastructure to redirect all of the energy they are producing into city centers, rural areas, etc. You would also need to produce a large amount of lithium to contain the energy that they would not be able to produce during dusk. Lithium is a toxic product, and its production creates toxic by-product. In the end of solar power you basically have to dustbowl huge swaths of land to cover the area to produce enough energy for the growing population.

if a coal plant blows up, it affects 20-30 individuals. all of them workers.

if nuclear meltdown, it affects 20-30 kilometers. all of it everything.

what is more detrimental? 100 grenade blasts or 1 nuclear bomb?

Best energy generating technology we have is Tidal. The only issue with Tidal is that there are only like 7 tidal dams and 13 elidgible locations in the world for them. Low environmental impact and produce a shit ton of energy.

>nuclear bomb?

A nuclear powerplant is not a nuclear bomb. Even in the most catastrophic disaster, it's nothing like that.

yup

This is copy pasta. When i made this thread i didn't have solar in mind, I'm talking about technology that the average person has never seen because it never saw the light if day because it was a threat to the establishment.

there're*

Solar is a shit idea until we can move it out into space close to the sun.

If we had a Chernobyl every 30 years Nuclear would still kill a lot less than coal.

Here is good article on the subject
nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

we could attach little generators to bicycles and let the homeless power the world but the jews don't wanna pay em