Thanks to SF6 (Sulfur hexafluoride) gas...

Thanks to SF6 (Sulfur hexafluoride) gas, alternative energy sources like wind and solar cause more global warming than coal plants. Nice job, lefties.

yahoo.com/news/germany-emits-more-most-potent-greenhouse-gas-2014-081559937--sector.html

Attached: s-l1600.png (1326x1196, 2.1M)

Other urls found in this thread:

bbc.com/news/science-environment-49567197
americanthinker.com/articles/2018/11/green_energy_is_the_perfect_scam.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Warming up the planet is good for humanity thanks based Germans trying to save the world yet again.

Ah yes, literally all the scientists and even the energy companies investing in these technologies are all wrong.

Attached: 1546575741899.png (664x616, 25K)

THORIUM NOW
I'M FUCKING SICK OF ALL THESE RENEWABLES DRIVING UP ELECTRICITY PRICES
REEEEEEEEE

Attached: 1fb.png (600x583, 340K)

Financially, maybe not. But environmentally, yeah. They didn't count on all the extra electrical technology that would need SF6 for insulation and how much of it would leak. The shit is 22,000 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. And that doesn't even cover the pollution from all the batteries. And more expensive, as points out. It's all a lie.

Do you even know how to read?

Releasing less of a more potent gas might still be better than more of a less potent gas and you source makes no comparison between the total severity of the hexaflouride versus your regular greenhouse shit.

And this article is from *2015*!

CO2 might be (plants love it!), but SF6 is just inert.

CO2 is already in excess they do not benefit.

Here's an article from today

bbc.com/news/science-environment-49567197

Fuck

Sorry.

Don't be, I'm glad you did this.

Get a room you two

can i join in?

>Financially
From a feasibility point of view, nuclear power amortise itself far earlier than solar/wind. Both have high initial cost but the power output is insane. Not to mention, to have a proper electric grid, you need a steady source of power.


It's not even the environmental impact of nuclear power that's standing in the way of development. It's the fear that a third unpredictable party may get their hands on enough nuclear material to make a dirty bomb.

Hey, it's BBC and normally I would have thought "fake news," but it goes so much against their usual bullshit that it was hard to not believe it.

Get in here, ya big lug.

I have heard wildly contradictory information on this.
And yet we completely banned CFC's to the greatest extent possible for the exact same reasons.

They actually do. Forest and flora growth rate took a huge upward spike with increasing co2 in the atmosphere.

Problem is, soil doesn't have the minerals to support that biomass. That's what's throttling growth at the moment.

Can confirm as someone who works in power distribution. The whole last decade is people moving away from sf6 ( Vacuum interrupters etc ). It's not easy keeping the gas contained in middle of bumfuck nowhere with lightning strikes exploding your equipment.

Wait until you learn how toxic the production of lithium batteries for the environment is, or what it takes to recycle paper.
It's almost as if it's a (((globohomo))) zeitgeist.

Attached: 1324235345667.jpg (184x184, 13K)

I'm not a chemist or an ecologist. All I know is some shit I heard on the BBS World Service. It could all be bullshit. But, if it is true, it's a pretty big story that isn't being covered anywhere else.

I stopped recycling because a) there's enough fucking trees, b) there's enough fucking sand, and c) I'd rather the plastic I use be buried in a landfill than shit overseas to some shithole that is just going to dump it into the ocean anyway. I just try to cut down on waste.

>kills all the birds
>muh sustainability!
>not just abandoning post industrial standard altogether
>not returning to agrarian society with no jewish electronic influence

Germans are npc fuckheads.
>Ja ja, Karl, vee have zee green economy now
>Ja ja, Friz, zee Amerikaner ist in zee stone age fuel technology.
>Ja ja, Karl, vee so important and vee fake our VW emissions to makes zee standards... no one vill ever knowing zhis!
>Vee have zee vind turbinez too... create much greenz energy.
>Ja ja, vee scared tsunami destroyz our nuclear pover plants, so vee shut zhem downz.
>Oh noezz vee have no electric povers for zee industries, now.
>Vee needz more coal from zee minez!
>Ja ja vee use zee coal now and zee wind, but vee lie but being zee green energy!

Attached: 1564317527726.jpg (660x440, 50K)

Who would have thought? Incredible! americanthinker.com/articles/2018/11/green_energy_is_the_perfect_scam.html

I hate that the things that well intentioned people do, just make it worse.

Absolutely, they learned from the best after they lost the war.. oh the drama

To be fair it's like the first internal combustion engines. They are hoping if it becomes more efficient it would be viable.
If the crisis is that big we should be going for nuclear first then gradually change to 100% renewable. That being said, with today's available renewable energy, we'd probably be able to support the world ... If the population was a billion instead of eight.

Renewable energy is already cheaper than nuclear though. Nuclear is fucking garbage.

People only like nuclear because it means they can be against renewables without being for coal. Nuclear makes no sense.

Renewables with a gas spine is what we will end up with. It won't be zero emissions but that's fine, because we can offset that. Or renewables will get good enough that they don't need support for baseload power, but that's unlikely.

So, just let it go then?