Greenies and anti-nuclear energy environmentalists B T F O

>and-its-a-good-thing

Attached: 1560032037816.png (407x517, 87K)

Even if that happened you still can run exclusively on renewables. The sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow 24/7. You cannot store sufficient energy with current battery technology regardless of how many solar panels and battery hubs you build.

I would just like to point out that Michael Shellenberger is NOT a jew, he's an ex-Mennonite.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruachan_Power_Station

This reservoir is essentially a battery that uses potential energy rather than chemical energy. The nearby nuclear plant pumps water up during low demand then releases it during high demand. If we could replace the nuclear for renewable then that would be ideal.

Peter is a badass.

Shidao Bay should go online this year.

Attached: TPbjc20160320258_600.jpg (600x400, 55K)

Modern techniques can make meltdowns literally impossible.

Attached: Thorium.png (938x4167, 2.46M)

I would bottom for Peter any day.

there are two nukular reactors 15km from me (and another four 30km away), and can only confirm it's absolutely great

Attached: 1540739485864.jpg (1024x886, 107K)

STOP FUCKING TELLING ME WHAT A GOOD THING IS YOU GOD DAMN NORMIES REEEEE

>When nuclear goes bad
It doesn't go bad unless you make it "go bad". All modern reactor designs are self-regulating. Every accident with nuclear power has been the result of human error or gross technical neglect. And even in those circumstances the deaths and injuries from those events haven't been anywhere near as bad for people or the environment as those from a multitude of other fuel or energy sources.

California has fucked up Natural Gas power production multiple times and caused a worse environmental footprint than they've ever managed to offset. And they had to dump piles of money into it because their implementation of solar and wind energy was so poorly thought out that it made their energy demand curves more severe than they were before they were added.

There is no greenies, because it’s not there, comrade! You didn’t see greenies!

Attached: 38A977ED-3E6A-4EE6-B3FD-DDE8CF49FDFF.jpg (1200x800, 78K)

The two-part issue with power production that people don't understand is the difference between base production, and peak production.
You need base production to hand daily average demand. But if all of your energy production were stacked in the "Base" category you would be producing "wasted" energy during the parts of the day where demand is lower than available supply. So you need a secondary production method for peak hours that allows you to throttle the supply of energy up or down throughout the day.

Nuclear is an ideal Base production method. But its output is pretty static and cannot be easily spooled up or down. It is however very cost effective per kilowatt hour produced and it's very reliable. So it pays for itself over time if it never overproduces energy.

Problem with renewables is that their production varies with the time of year and day. Day/Night storage is relatively simple, but Winter/Summer storage is complex as fuck. At a certain point either you need to build your solar infrastructure to account for winter production and thereby waste excess summer production which is seriously expensive OR you need long term storage which is a hell of a lot of storage plus there is leakage.

Pumped Storage where you pump water up a dam when you have excess power is a potential solution, but leftists hate Hydro-electric dams more than they hate nuclear

Cant find anything on that things efficiency. Even if its as high as 50%, which I doubt, that would still mean that you need twice the area covered in solar panels or windmills to provide for shortages, and those areas are already significant portions of the land masses if you want to be serious about renewables. And the other problem with water reservoirs is the dependency on a fitting location, much like geothermal or straight up hydroelectric energy.
The one you posted also merely has a capacity to produce 400MW of power, so you need around 5 of these to replace one typical nuclear plant, just to give you some perspective...
The reality is that no one has an idea if and how we can make renewables work, and as long as we cant have 100% renewable energy anyways, no one has to care yet and they just hope that something in battery technology gives or people worry about other things...

>Leave tons of nuclear destructive waste for future generations for a few shekels and easy electricity now

fucking boomer mentality on these fucking retards here.

Attached: shitskins.jpg (600x450, 78K)

There's only about 100-200 years of conventional nuclear fuel that could be exploited. To go full nuclear you have to go Thorium and dismantle the hold nuclear weapons producers have on nuclear development in the country. Good luck.

>2018 article
ummm no sweetie, we all watched Chernobyl recently
fuck Trump and fuck nuclear

100-200 years buys enough time to think of something else
don't let perfect be the enemy of good. the level to which we are already screwed at this point can not be overstated

The leftists who have this obsession with immediately transitioning to a 100% renewable power grid are fiddling while rome burns

Breeder fast reactors literally consume what is considered nuclear waste, but in reality has literally only been depleted to roughly 96-97%. These breeder reactors can literally take this shit down to the point where it is almost non radioactive. Argon national labs built one in the fucking 70s or 80s but got cucked to death by hippies

wtf is this a based Jew?

Great, now we'll have nuclear pebbles lying about in pools for 10 000 years, just to boil a fucking big kettle. Light a fire you cunts and get over yourselves.

Nuclear is literally the only feasible way of turning our power green and the lefties are doing their best with stuff like Chernobyl to make sure it doesn't happen. Why can't they compromise? Is their only solution just sending us back to 1800's quality of living?

Mormon. And yes pretty based.

Modern mining techniques, transport as well as first world designed thermal coal fired power stations are all that's required, all this shit that's happened is based on the globalist fraud of global warming which is based on the ability of a trace gas measured at about 400 parts per fucking million on top of an active volcano.
So tired of this shit, we need a big impact from a comet or something.

The wonder is about to happen:
Look at ITER. It's the future. Fusion power.

daretothink.org/numbers-not-adjectives/how-long-will-our-supplies-of-uranium-and-thorium-last/
More like 100000 years at increasing costs of mining of course. This article doesnt take into account breeder reactors that can recycle "used" fuel to go beyond the roughly 0.5% of the potentially obtainable energy that conventional reactors manage to get us. With this considered out terrestrial sources of uranium and thorium will last us till way way waaay after the sun dies...

And the waste is hot enough to be used as a cheap ass power source too.

That depends heavily on the reactor. Naval reactors constantly go up and down in power, but they're also pretty different from civilian civilian reactors.