Solar vs Nuclear

There are alternatives to uranium that can be used as fuel in reactors

Considering how spent solar panels become highly dangerous and can't be moved, so must be stored on the roof, the stacks of them becoming ever more dense and unstable decade by decade, each installation leading to an inevitable, devastating ecological catastrophe when the chickens inevitably come home to roost, the choice is clear. Nuclear, being inherently safe and idiot-proof, and containing no dangerous chemicals, should be widely deployed. Especially in your neighborhood.

Which one of these doesn't threaten mankind in the long term when placed in the hands of backwater eastern European drunks or even worse, niggers?

Volumetrically? Nuclear.
Conversion efficiency? Nuclear.
Cost effectiveness? Solar, due to subsidies. Otherwise nuclear.
Reliability? Nuclear.
Around the clock availability? Nuclear.
Recycling? When you consider the facts that solar panels aren't built to be taken apart and that nuclear waste can be repurposed in breeder reactors for cancer treatment and power production in thorium reactors, definitely nuclear.

Panels only last 10-15 years, and you can't upgrade them. You can only swap them out for more efficient panels.
Nuclear power plants don't leak radioactivity. That's what the big cooling tower is for in conventional designs, and there are known materials with which you can build a complete encasing for liquid salt thorium reactors in case the salt gets a bit low.

Solar is as finite as nuclear, considering the fact the sun is one big fusion reactor.
Another thing to consider is that a reactor can last 40-50 years while solar panels run out of juice after only 10-15, and those lose efficiency over time unlike reactors.
The only reason solar parks are so "popular" is that the gouvernment subsidises it and state-funded media push the tech as "absolutely critical".

just put them on roofs like sane people. if every house has solar panels on their roof, you can cover the need for elecricity of the entire nation.
just with the panels on my roof, i power my whole neighbourhood. I don´t have to pay for my electricity and even get a little money out from the stuff going to my neighbours, wich i use to pay the credit i took for building them. It pays itself in just 15 years.
Why would anyone think this is a bad thing?

Attached: 64.jpg (610x328, 61K)

>With solar you don’t need to mine for resources
Are you retarded? Mercury, Lithium, Gold and Silver

> you have to do something with the waste
You can literally sit it on a concrete parking lot pad and it will remain there. Or you can put it back in the reactor and make more power

>which is better

Nuclear. Solar shills KYS

>With solar you don’t need to mine for resources
wut?
Also, how do you propose connecting them all, and then storing that energy?

>nuclear is finite. solar is not.
LMAO!
Didn't Der Speigel do an expose recently about how fucked you idiots are now that you're shutting down all your nuke plants and relying on Russian oil to provide your electricity because 'renewable energy' doesn't work?

>Or you can put it back in the reactor and make more power
i have bad news for you

Chernobyl is the thought that lingers and will linger for a very, very long time. What political upheaval in the local government would it take to create a second chernobyl? What corner can be cut? What money could be saved into some businessman's pockets?

>i have bad news for you
You're stuck in the 50s?

Stupid kraut still only thinks in gen1 reactors.

You tell em Sven

Nevermind him, Germans are deluded beyond help about renewables.
The best theoretical efficiency for solar panels is 40%. Then you have to put a fuckton of them into sunny places( they take 75x more land per same power output compared to nuclear). Then you have to build an insane grid to transfer the power to not sunny places. Then you gave to store the energy for night. So in best case scenario you fill a bunch of land with solar panels and you get super expensive electricity, grid costs are already higher than the energy itself. Forget about industries that require high energies.
With nuclear you install the plant wherever you need the energy. There's enough thorium in one cave to power the earth for 4000 years and with new generation reactors there's hardly any waste.
The only people who advocate for renewables are either stupid or politically inventivized.

>Chernobyl
If the Commies weren't trying to covertly create munitions grade uranium it would have been fine.
It's like retards have never heard of nuclear powered submarines. Nuclear power is extremely safe now. We've had the technology for over 70 years now.

Nuclear Fission waste is easy to dispose of, its not like its some enormous thing, you just find an area for it and put it there (obviously blocked off to the public). Solar is getting better and better, but ultimately once Nuclear Fusion arrives it won't matter. One Nuclear Fusion plant could power the entire country and then some, its basically a mini-sun. And if people ever are going to live on Mars solar would be far less efficient there than here (and not just because of the further distance from the sun).

Attached: IMG_4920.jpg (1600x900, 160K)

Honestly, you still need energy when the sun goes down or you have multiple days of bad weather. More importantly and in regards to economics: In Australia, Indians are able to open new businesses and flog off cheap and low quality solar systems and get them installed by questionable Arabic guys, it’s a mess of an industry where people are getting taken advantage of
>t. Goy who works in renewable energy

see >The only people who advocate for renewables are either stupid or politically inventivized.

so how was my desicion to use solar stupid?
I get paid for doing nothing and have free electricity.
How would my situation improve if my town get a nuclear plant and me throwing away my panels?

Obligatory message to trigger the commie bastards that hate my country and my flag on this board.

To everyone else, please ignore.

>With solar you don’t need to mine for resources

OP doesn't know what he is talking about

>To meet the demands of the Green New Deal, which proposes to convert the US economy to zero emissions, renewable power by 2030, there will be a lot more of these mines gouged into the crust of the earth. That’s because nearly every renewable energy source depends upon non-renewable and frequently hard-to-access minerals: solar panels use indium, turbines use neodymium, batteries use lithium, and all require kilotons of steel, tin, silver, and copper. The renewable-energy supply chain is a complicated hopscotch around the periodic table and around the world. To make a high-capacity solar panel, one might need copper (atomic number 29) from Chile, indium (49) from Australia, gallium (31) from China, and selenium (34) from Germany. Many of the most efficient, direct-drive wind turbines require a couple pounds of the rare-earth metal neodymium, and there’s 140 pounds of lithium in each Tesla.

> In exchange for these terrestrial treasures—used to power trains and ships and factories—a whole class of people is thrown into the pits. The warming earth teems with such monsters of our own making—monsters of drought and migration, famine and storm. Renewable energy is no refuge, really. The worst industrial accident in the history of the United States, the Hawk’s Nest Incident of 1930, was a renewable energy disaster. Drilling a three-mile-long inlet for a Union Carbide hydroelectric plant, five thousand workers were sickened when they hit a thick vein of silica, filling the tunnel with blinding white dust. Eight hundred eventually died of silicosis. Energy is never “clean,” as Muriel Rukeyser makes clear in the epic, documentary poem she wrote about Hawk’s Nest, “The Book of the Dead.” “Who runs through the electric wires?” she asks. “Who speaks down every road?” The infrastructure of the modern world is cast from molten grief.

Attached: 1559243077514.jpg (416x304, 139K)

Nobody cares what kind of energy you use to watch Netflix at home with your ugly wife. Cheap and stable energy is necessary to build energy intensive industries and go forward with the evolution of mankind.

nuclear power is great if you dont mind having your face melt off or if you think thyroid cancer is sexy

>just with the panels on my roof, i power my whole neighbourhood.
No, you don't, that exceeds the known capabilities of solar.

Nuclear for the baseload, solar for the mid-day demand spikes.

It's as simple as that, but the niggers are trying to make it sound complicated.

Trick question. Solar is nuclear.

Attached: 1497129193590.png (700x490, 265K)

Nuclear only looks at energy in:out given refined uranium. The fuel refinement process takes a shit ton of energy, usually from fossil fuel.

The next generation of nuke plant may mitigate this problem.

both would be good but solar is now the cheapest, especially when paired with wind and storage. nuclear often requires crazy government subsidies and the initial constructions costs and insane.

Attached: Lazard 2018 Numbers-1_730_426_80.jpg (730x426, 44K)

How much did you pay for them and what is the ROI?
Did the government subsidize it?

youtu.be/BJWq1FeGpCw

You can also convert pretty much all of it into Pu-239 isotope, which can also be used as a nuclear fuel.

Solar doesn't work.
We've spent hundreds of billions on it over decades and it's done nothing to solve the problem they said it would solve.

>
Consolidating scientific opinion, the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report projects that biofuels are going to be used in these cases—for construction, for industry, and for transport, wherever motors can’t be easily electrified. Biofuels put carbon into the air, but it’s carbon that was already absorbed by growing plants, so the net emissions are zero. The problem is that growing biofuels requires land otherwise devoted to crops, or carbon-absorbing wilderness. They are among the least dense of power sources. You would need a dozen acres to fill the tank of a single intercontinental jet. Emissions are only the most prominent aspect of a broader ecological crisis. Human habitation, pasture and industry, branching through the remaining wilderness in the most profligate and destructive manner, has sent shockwaves through the plant and animal kingdoms. The mass die-off of insects, with populations decreasing by four-fifths in some areas, is one part of this. The insect world is very poorly understood, but scientists suspect these die-offs and extinction events are only partially attributable to climate change, with human land use and pesticides a major culprit. Of the two billion tons of animal mass on the planet, insects account for half. Pull the pillars of the insect world away, and the food chains collapse.

To replace current US energy consumption with renewables, you’d need to devote at least 25–50 percent of the US landmass to solar, wind, and biofuels, according to the estimates made by Vaclav Smil, the grand doyen of energy studies. Is there room for that and expanding human habitation? For that and pasture for a massive meat and dairy industry? For that and the forest we’d need to take carbon out of the air? Not if capitalism keeps doing the thing which it can’t not keep doing—grow. The law of capitalism is the law of more—more energy, more stuff, more materials.

Attached: 1550529012653.jpg (736x373, 74K)

well not entirely. but i get a cut from their energy bill. if everyone had panels on their roof, noone would need to pay, only the energy-heavy industry.

>stable energy is necessary
that´s why u need a mix. solar alone is not the answer. But add wind and biofuel to it and u got energy 24/7 all year

i work for a solar company owned by an oil company and make this joke a lot

Attached: 1509229393519.jpg (592x360, 48K)

Nuclear fission by a LONG shot. Nothing apart from fusion (which probably won't be viable for another 30+ years if ever) comes remotely close to nuclear in terms of energy density and power-vs-cost.

The fact that the only major accidents in the last century were the mother of all Soviet clusterfucks and the convergence of the largest earthquake, tsunami, and power outage in Japan's history says it all.

It's still so much more efficient than anything else and we're only scratching the surface

>It’s easy to get lost in the weeds here and lose sight of the essential. In each of these scenarios, on each of these sad, warming planets, the Green New Deal fails because capitalism. Because, in capitalism, a small class of owners and managers, in competition with itself, finds itself forced to make a set of narrow decisions about where to invest and in what, establishing prices, wages, and other fundamental determinants of the economy. Even if these owners wanted to spare us the drowned cities and billion migrants of 2070, they could not. They would be undersold and bankrupted by others. Their hands are tied, their choices constrained, by the fact that they must sell at the prevailing rate or perish. It is the class as a whole that decides, not its individual members. This is why the sentences of Marxists (and Marx) so often treat capital as agent rather than object. The will towards relentless growth, and with it increasing energy use, is not chosen, it is compelled, a requirement of profitability where profitability is a requirement of existence.

Attached: images (3).jpg (327x154, 10K)

Creating the panels creates a lot of toxic waste and nuclear powerplants dont emit more radiation than background.

Somebody has to pay taxes so you can nigger around with your toys.

This. What a retards.

Even uranium is good for the next couple thousand years as long as you use a couple of FBRs

>If you tax oil, capital will sell it elsewhere. If you increase demand for raw materials, capital will bid up the prices of commodities, and rush materials to market in the most wasteful, energy-intensive way. If you require millions of square miles for solar panels, wind farms, and biofuel crops, capital will bid up the price of real estate. If you slap tariffs on necessary imports, capital will leave for better markets. If you try to set a maximum price that doesn’t allow profit, capital will simply stop investing. Lop off one head of the hydra, face another. Invest trillions of dollars into infrastructure in the US and you’ll have to confront the staggeringly wasteful, slow, and unproductive construction industry, where laying a mile of subway can be twenty times as expensive and take four times as long. You’ll have to confront the earthen monsters of Bechtel and Fluor Corp., habituated to feeding at the government trough and billing fifty dollar screws. If this doesn’t chasten you, consider the world-historical inefficiency of the US military, the planet’s biggest oil consumer and, unsurprisingly, also the planet’s main oil cop. The Pentagon is an accounting black hole, into which the wealth of the nation is ploughed and from which no light emerges. Its balance sheet is a blank.

communemag.com/between-the-devil-and-the-green-new-deal/

Attached: 1546221220642.jpg (4800x7200, 3.76M)

Youd need to use electrolysis to make the hydrogen and now you're just back to needing electricity again.

So, you flat out lied.

Fuck off, Hans, you filthy liar.

Wind doesn't add stability.
Growing crops for energy is not reasonable.
And again, with wind and solar you need a much more expensive grid so the grid cost will make it all pointless.

Solar is good for about 10-15% of your electricity demand. You can power about 75% of your demand off of nuclear and fill the rest of the demand with gas and hydro. Boom, electricity production problem sold.

Yet why the fuck am I telling this to G*rmans, it's not like they've been decommissioning nuclear plants for 5 decades now.

The problem is that sustainable fusion is still very much an "if" not a "when". The fusion research community has actually put itself in a corner by supporting an approach of "just build it bigger, more powerful, and more expensive until it works" because they're now they're in a position where if a project like ITER fails they don't have a ton of smaller projects to fall back on and they probably won't be able to get funding for something on a bigger scale than that.

Fusion research needs to go back to the drawing board, but too many researchers have too much riding on the hope that each of their ad hoc solutions will be the magic bullet that solves fusion.

>Some will tell you that renewables can compete with fossil fuels on the open market. Wind and hydroelectric and geothermal have, it’s true, become cheaper as sources of electricity, in some cases cheaper than coal and natural gas. But they’re still not cheap enough. That’s because, in order to bankrupt the fossil capitalists, renewables will need to do more than edge out fossil fuels by a penny or two per kilowatt-hour. There are trillions of dollars sunk into fossil energy infrastructure and the owners of those investments will invariably choose to recoup some of that investment rather than none of it. To send the value of those assets to zero and force energy capitalists to invest in new factories, renewables need to be not only cheaper but massively cheaper, impossibly cheaper. At least this is the conclusion reached by a group of engineers Google convened to study the problem. Existing technologies are never going to be cheap enough to bankrupt coal-fired power plants: we’d need stuff that is currently science-fiction like cold fusion. This is not only because of the problem of sunk costs, but because electricity from solar and wind is not “dispatchable” on demand. It is only available when and where the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. If you want it on demand, you’re going to have to store it (or transport it thousands of miles) and that’s going to raise the price.

Attached: 1549335408624.jpg (1805x2239, 3.13M)

However, neutron embrittlment puts an insurmountable limit on the life span of a reactor, even liftr. And the shielding needs exotic elements which are very scarce and also needed for other applications.

>Most will tell you that the answer to this problem is taxation of dirty energy or an outright ban, alongside subsidy of the clean. A carbon tax, judiciously applied, can tip the scales in favor of renewables until they are able to beat fossil energy outright. New fossil sources and infrastructure can be prohibited and revenue from the taxes can be used to pay for research into new technology, efficiency improvements, and subsidies for consumers. But now one is talking about something other than a New Deal, blazing the way to a more highly productive capitalism in which profits and wages can rise together. There are 1.5 trillion barrels of proven oil reserves on the planet, according to some calculations—around $50 trillion worth if we assume a very low average cost per barrel of thirty-five dollars. This is value that oil companies have already accounted for in their mathematical imaginings. If carbon taxes or bans reduce that number tenfold, fossil capitalists will do everything they can to avoid, subvert, and repeal them. The problem of sunk costs again applies. If you slaughter the value of those reserves, you might, perversely, bring down the cost of fossil fuels, encouraging more consumption and more emissions, as oil producers scramble to sell their excess supply in countries without a carbon tax. For reference, there is about $300 trillion of total wealth on the planet, most of it in the hands of the owning class. The global Gross Domestic Product, the value of all the goods and services produced in a year, is around $80 trillion. If you propose to wipe out $50 trillion, one-sixth of the wealth on the planet, equal to two-thirds of global GDP, you should expect the owners of that wealth to fight you with everything they have, which is more or less everything.

Attached: 1545657189848.jpg (1458x1458, 204K)

>Growing crops for energy is not reasonable.
no we use the shit from the animals we have anyways.

Attached: biogasanlage0.jpg (1110x678, 138K)

is this a serious question? nuclear is by far the most effective energy source on the planet, and would be used throughout the west if not for retards and cronies profiting off of "green" energy (btw- solar panels can't be recycled)

Attached: 462643634634.jpg (605x456, 38K)

Solved*

>Panels only last 10-15 years
disinformation, it's 20-25 years.
Everything you posted is a shill paste, at least you earned your 1cent!

Better question is, why isn't with our technology advances have we not just invested into Geothermal energy? Surely we have machinery that can work at the depth where water turns into steam?

The Chernobyl reactor was so woefully unprotected it may as well have been melted down on purpose. It had no shielding or any kind of failsafe.

Even then, the only people who died were the fee dozen Soviet soldier ordered to brave the heat to bury the reactor in concrete and the scientists in the facility at the time.
3 mile island melted down and 0 people died. If youre still not convinced, LIFTR reactors literally cannot meltdown because the fuel is already a liquid.

>disinformation, it's 20-25 years
too bad virtually every solar panel in existence will be obsolete in 5 years and will all become waste

Be sure to test the nuke shills about LFTR reactors because you'll see how fast they'll discourage any discussion about a reactor that doesn't produce weapons grade material, nor will it meltdown if something goes wrong

Geothermal is only economical in specific locations. Like dams, it's a nice idea that only works when nature hands you the perfect place for it.

Solar is inefficient, wasteful, shitty, an eyesore, and degrades quickly over time and can cause mild thermal pollution while in use.
Fission is potentially dangerous, regulated up the ass, expensive, takes a huge amount of time to begin usage, and can create significant thermal pollution while in use.
Both mean high (and pretty unclean) maintance
Both don't emit carbon during use (but eh), both involve nuclear power (obviously from different sources), and both are futuristic.
Solar decentralizes power production, Nuclear
centralizes power production.
I'd say fission is far better, but the main problem is that it's used up fuel is far more toxic than anything used in solar panels.

The green energy lobby isn't the real problem, they're just useful idiots trying to support what they think is a solution. The problem is the coal and oil lobbies that have been funding anti-nuclear groups for decades.

BUT they still have embrittlment problems.

you were obsolete the day you were born but here you are shilling for an industry, so being obsolete doesn't matter if the panels can still be used, just like you are being used as a puppet when better puppets exist

and?
if one breaks down the area around it doesn't need to be evacuated nor does it have to be encased in concrete for centuries.

that´s why you need to use them all.
it is possible to power a country without any fossils or nuclear sources.
You just need to make a big investment to get it going.

Attached: the mix for success.jpg (760x378, 45K)

That's nice and all, just see how little % it is of the whole system. You would need it to be more than half of the whole pie to theoretically only produce from renewables.

Attached: 6959a0fb-dcfa-412c-a9e9-3c09563d4557..png (1200x848, 497K)

As I said, the nuke shills are programmed to hate LFTR reactors because their jew masters can't make money, or poison the world using them

Well the next step is looking at global usage, and determining if there is enough land to grow enough cowfarts to meet that demand.

it's all speculative at the moment. You just keep your fingers crossed that the producer doesn't bankrupt before 25 years.

I'll leave this here

>here you are shilling for an industry
you mean exactly like you are doing with solar?

>obsolete doesn't matter if the panels can still be used
the whole premise of solar being a viable option rests on the panels being radically improved. as it stands, it isn't even a cost-effective measure without subsidies. honestly don't understand why you're so butthurt when nuclear is so much cleaner than coal + fossil fuels, not to mention way more efficient

>with solar you don't need to mine for resources
are you fucking retarded? high efficiency panels rely on REE (Rare Earth Elements)
>leak
no, you're a dumb person
oh, look, a dumbfuck german that has been fed anti-nuke bullshit their whole life. Enjoy replaced 45 square kilometers of solar every single day and mining every last bit of lithium for storage since pump, et al. are already maxed out
here's your answer - nuclear power is and always has been the only way to a post-scarcity society
solar is infinitely worse. you're just a moron who cannot into geology, physics, manufacturing, ore bodies, breeder/feeder, alpha/beta, material science, brayton cycle

and a long list of other topics you're too fucking stupid to understand but more than willing to pretend
there is nothing wrong with uranium. no matter what fuel cycle you are using you are going to go through uranium in the fuel chain
>i power my neighborhood
that is less than 4000W. you're fucking stupid

anyways, i hate everyone in this thread that is anti-nuke. you are a bulwark to human civilization and should be gassed for being a small-minded as you are.

Attached: 5371505699_e53309c946_b.jpg (1024x675, 195K)

>3 mile island melted down and 0 people died.

you can never say how many people died from nuclear "accidents",

and what about the waste? no permanent solution was found to this problem to this day. and if you want to convert all or most power to nuclear then the amount of waste will be unlimited becouse the need for energy is unlimited under capitalism/techno-industrial society.

nuclear waste is active for thousands and thousands of years. it requires permanent management but what happens when western civilization ends like all previous civilizations ended? the planet and the people will inherit a poisonous earth

cool flag. tell me about your country. what energy is popular there?

just answered you.
anyway, here is the official plan for the "Energiewende", the goal we are working for.
Go make fun of it, i am out.

Attached: 600px-RE_Germany_2009_pie_chart.svg.png (600x600, 41K)

Nuclear is the safest, cheapest, most abundant, most sustainable power source available. It is necessary we completely convert to nuclear power. It is the only thing that we carry us into the next centuries and thousands of years.
>they are expensive to build and maintain
They are cheaper than any other in the long run.
>How often do you need to dispose of solar panels
Current ones? In the best conditions like decade or so max.
>don’t the plants just leak radioactivity
NO, this is coal and oil propaganda. You could have a nuclear plant in your neighborhood and the only problem would be the noise and traffic any industrial facility creates.
>nuclear is finite
Not in any practical sense. There is enough nuclear material to power any conceivable needs for as long as civilization continues. Unless you plan to build SOLAR ROADS nothing can compete with nuclear power.

>With solar you don’t need to mine for resources
Holy shit, missed that part. You're absolutely retarded.

Attached: tesla-coils.jpg (646x400, 39K)

Dont you have to mine the materials to make the solar panels? I don't think they grow on trees.
I saw some doc on tv the other day about how nuclear waste can be reused for more energy so if that's true, nuclear is obviously the way to go.

anyone who supports nuclear power after fukoshima to power his dear collection of useless gadgets is insane

youtube.com/watch?v=gCBjcyPTpSw

No no no, that is an outright lie. All "renewables" are slave to their conditions.
All of them operate well only within perfectly optimal conditions which is rare, and since you need such massive swaths of land taken up by the harvesting devices (windmills, panels, etc) they all compete for the resources and (can sometimes) hurt each others output.
Panels could shade each other, but far worse windmills will dissipate the energy of the wind (obviously) that was supposed to go towards another windmill that was inline with it. Such that say you have a line of 3 windmills. If the wind is blowing along the line of the windmills, the last will get nearly none, the second will get very little, and only the windward windmill is actually generating.

> It is necessary we completely convert to nuclear power
Yeah, you can't do that. I'm pro-nuclear but you can at best power about 75% of your grid w/ nuclear. Unless daily volatility in power demand reduces.

what about wind energy combined with solar?

>and what about the waste? no permanent solution was found to this problem to this day
wrong
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Radioactive_waste_repositories

>nuclear waste can be reused for more energy
>listening to some clown on TEDtalk

tesla is a meme scientist

Attached: 236326346342.png (790x691, 1.01M)

>The deluded dream
>reality
You will bankrupt the whole economy and you will have no industry to show for it with much big investment.

Considering most of the place is a 2 mile thick slab of ice, I'd say thermal.

Attached: 1559641671891.jpg (1880x1410, 157K)

t. retard
U-238 can be turned into Pu-239 with an FBR, which can be then re-used as nuclear fuel. Get the fuck off the internet kid.

you need to manage those. "permanent" means you put it in a place and forget about it without the need to manage it, it means that it will be contained and isolated in this place for as long as its remain radioactive, which is hundred of thousands of years. there is no such place. all nuclear waste requires management by advanced technical means. what happens when technological civilization collapses like all previous civilizations have and the means of management are no longer there? the waste will be unleashed. and if nuclear power becomes mainstream then the planet will be left utterly toxic

oh? and how do these sites need to be managed Mr. Expert?

look up Frances nuclear waste problem. they make 70% of their electricity by nuclear means. those nuclear waste sites are always under management

youtube.com/watch?v=uU3kLBo_ruo