Why is every green tech backfiring on the users?

Try harder, Rabbi.

Show me a Terawatt wind installation, kike

Therefore we should breathe in toxic air because they do it.

They kill animals constantly, they burn to the ground, and nothing can really be done other than waiting for them to burn out, hoping the fire doesn't spread and damage surrounding turbines. Those turbines have a giant vat of oil up at the top of them to lubricate that spinning shaft. Its just a recipe for disaster.
Wind turbines and solar thermal arrays need to be explicitly banned and dismantled immediately.

stop eating so much and the shit will flow easier

>They kill animals constantly
but this helps to evolve smarter birds since the turbine kills all the dumb ones, soon they will start to talk

Here's how it's going to go:
I'm going to provide proofs
Then you'll call it (((proofs))) and assail the source, oh sorry, (((source)))
You are beneath me for me to even begin that stupid exercise

>fossil fuels
>not backfiring by causing cancer and other diseases
>not backfiring by causing massive instability and wars in the world, killing and destroying the lives of millions

Jow Forums must be down. The retards are out in force today.

then post it you sheeny fuck

Attached: 34bdg4.jpg (500x484, 49K)

>nuclear good, therefore not nuclear bad
Wind is a good substitute for natural gas if you don't pussy out on the infrastructure. It's economically viable since the materials to make turbines are cheap.
The real meme is solar energy.

That wind farm takes up 5 square miles and has a capacity of around 1500 MW.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alta_Wind_Energy_Center

The smallest operating nuclear plant in the US, the R. E. Ginna plant in New York, produced 4.7 TWh in 2017, and had capacity to spare.
Wind farms have poor output and kill multiple people annually on top of their enormous environmental impact.

Nuclear obviously isn't perfect, but the tech is improving. The only real issue we're facing now is that our reactors are WWII era tech that has been incrementally updated. A true Gen IV or V reactor which could begin to burn our waste stores would solve the number one issue that plagues nuclear's public perception. It is genuinely green power. It however is the one thing no one wants to invest in because shit eating Liberal faggot scum would rather fry birds out of the sky with obnoxious arrays of mirrors that stay boiling hot even into the middle of the night.
Everything green is a meme because the people who buy into this shit are genuinely bad people.

why is no one talking about the low flow toilet?

Because they are designed to earn green goodie points, not be efficient. Most products we use today are the end result of hundreds of years of engineering and testing. Green things are just
>How do we make this shittier so we don't use it as much?

Everyone knows low flow toilets are bullshit, it was a running joke back in the early 2000s. People used to say they took twice as many flushes to work, which is true in most cases. King of the Hill even had a whole episode about it.

If you want to fully remove waste from your main line out to street or to a septic tank you need a wave of water to fully carry it out. Low flow toilets aren't providing the necessary fluid volume to float solid waste all the way out. Successive flushes is the only way to address this problem with a low flow fixture.

I recently switched to cottonelle and it clogs my low flow like crazy, but is a good tissue in itself. The fault is more on me for using too much though, you need less than half of the sheets than my previous brand.

I need to go all in on getting whatever counts as a modern toilet with a bidet. I feel like some kind of savage.

global warming is a chinese lie. drill baby drill.

post it kike

And yet when people like Ted Cruz or Ron Paul try to explain this people just call them witches.

They save me money that’s all I care about

You can buy bidet attachments for regular toilets, they are easy to install and as cost as little as $150.

The only thing I worry about is house guests finding out I have a bidet.

>wind farm
>3200 acres
>1500MW

>Diablo Canyon
>900 acres
>2200MW

Try again, Rabbi

what is embarrasing about having a bidet?

The bidet.

>muh cancer
oh noes there were only hundreds of cultures that literally imbibed lead acetate, arsenic, and mercury intentionally and they lasted centuries what ever will we do to save soccer moms from their cancerphobia
>not backfiring by causing massive instability and wars in the world, killing and destroying the lives of millions
shale makes this largely irrelevant unless you are chink russian or continental european(people who should all die) additionally you would only shift to fights over rare earth metals if you went full green the international order is inherently anarchic

Yeah, but Nuclear hazard radius is 50 miles, thus 8000 sqmi vs 5 sqmi.

shit dude I just ate two bananas I have now absorbed more than the ambient of the literal millions of people who live within 50 miles of a reactor site

They've packaged and sold virtue signaling. It's a symptom of having too much wealth as a society.

That's neat and all, but that's only while its "safe" in any emergency the hazard radius is >50 miles radius due to high traces of radioactivity. 10 mile radius is the extreme hazard zone. 50 miles is the hazard zone where you need to watch what you breathe/drink/eat as any food/water/air in the surrounding can be highly radioactive.

oh no
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents
kys yourself retard

Oh my fuck
The absolute state of this post

Attached: 1514494345027.png (225x225, 12K)

very tiny picture. I downvoter you

Here in San Diego, they thought the nuclear power plant was too dangerous, and bad for the environment. So they took the unspent nuclear fuel and stored it in concrete blocks on the beach. That's MUCH better. Instead of generating clean energy for decades, now we have unspent nuclear fuel on our beach

anti-nukes are universally the most retarded people on the planet. half of them think a reactor is a literal atomic bomb.

>unspent fuel - uranium, just like the shit that was pulled out of the ground
>somehow more dangerous than actinides with half-life comparable to age of human civilization
I'm not even anti-nuclear, but you "nuclear fans" aren't that much less ignorant than the panicking normies.
Bonus points if you're against renewables and believe that they are unviable and nuclear and/or fossil is the only option.

I'm for nuclear energy. I think it's stupid that anti-nukes think that it's dangerous to have a nuclear plant, but they think it's safer to have it stored in the same place. The same fuel is still there, it's just not doing anything.

And to be fair to anti-nukes, yes uranium comes from the ground, but its made into a much higher concentration

And has a capacity of 23% so it's not 1500MW but rather 345MW. It also takes up 3,200 acres or 5 square miles.
Although given the picture I'm not sure how they are counting to only get 5 square miles, I guess they don't count the sound exclusion zone as part of the footprint.

Attached: 1920px-Alta_Wind_Energy_Center_from_Oak_Creek_Road.jpg (1920x1332, 232K)

deep geological repository🐸

Yeah I'm calling BS on it's reported size.

Attached: windsize.png (910x755, 1.79M)

Wind power is a meme. Shut the fuck up, tranny.

1. You need enormous spinning blades that need to be hundreds of feet away from anything that could possibly be harmed by them
2. They depend entirely on the weather, and not even reliable weather
3. They look like ass, and they look worse when there's an odd number of them strategically positioned to generate maximum power instead of being a symmetrical grid
4. They're only really good for being built in a flat plateau. And because it's a flat plateau, you can see them for miles
5. They're incredibly dangerous. You need to climb 200 feet in the air to repair them, and what happens if something fucks up while you're on it. Use a parachute?
6. They murder birds. Lots of them. Which I guess invalidates that point about them not being dangerous. These things have killed 10x more feathered animals than have ever been saved by having less greenhouse gasses

Wind power is parroted as a tangible solution to environmentalism by moron redditors whose thought process begins and ends at "Wind is natural, so this is good for the environment"
These things then end up getting built nowhere near where they live because they look like sin and occupy undue real estate

>I don't know shit but my Dunning-Kruger forces me to overrate my knowledge

I dunno man that dude sounds like he knows more than you. he may be an expert

Your fortune: Good news will come to you by mail

The only statement that isn't either objectively true or a totally subjective judgement is point 6.
They don't kill that many birds, although the birds they do kill tend to be larger raptors which have more 'value' to people and ecosystems than smaller birds or the more common vermin birds.

environmentalism is anti-capitalist and thus gay

The guy you quoted is lying out of his ass though

I don't even think a single terawatt-scale wind farm even exists right now.

Is it untrue that to repair them you need to climb 200 feet in the air? Who has the gif of the two repair men that burned to death on the top of one?

Was he wrong about them being visible for miles? Because I've seen them, and I recall being able to see them for miles.

Was he wrong about them not being in a grid? I don't recall seeing them in a grid

Was he wrong about about them being reliant on weather? Because I imagine if there wasn't wind, they might not spin.

Was he wrong about them requiring enormous blades? Because their blades look pretty enormous.

Sounds like you're very dishonest if you can't see truth in any of his other points

>hurr lets just ignore all the land that is used for mining uranium

Attached: 1533604616464.jpg (638x558, 63K)

I didn't claim to be an expert, I just claimed to have a basic grasp on how this stuff works.

I've just heard from other sources. "They murder birds" was just kind of the laughable cherry on top of all this crap.

You can ask basically anyone else that's ever been involved in this stuff and what grand bullshit it is.
These things only exist because some moron on city council watched an episode of Oprah about how wind power is good because "wind is natural"

The whole thing is completely retarded - the D-K victim ignores the entire viable technology because [insert meme reason].
If we applied this retarded line of thought to other aspects of society, fire would be considered a meme and we'd still be living in caves.

>2 points "b-but it's dangerous", completely disregarding that safety protocols exist and they aren't build by retard normies and near retard normies, which is reflected in statistically lower rates of death than say, coal
>2 points for "b-but it's ugly"
>1 for weather, which is a big meme since no one advocates 100% wind power with no energy trading
>1 for birds

Basically, those are arguments by retards, for retards. You should feel ashamed not to notice this.

The more dangerously radioactive something is, the faster it disappears.

⚽

>Wisconson's 1TW nuclear plant uses 2 sq miles.
Ontario's 6.2 TW nuclear plant is 3.6 sq miles.

What makes you want to believe that a gargantuan spinning fan that turns when it's windy is a reasonable way to generate energy?
I just don't get it. Were you raised by enormous fans?

>What makes you want to believe that a gargantuan spinning fan that turns when it's windy is a reasonable way to generate energy?
Yeah, we should go back to big fan-like things spinning when coal is burned near them.

Read up on fission products.
Plenty of them have half-lives in orders of magnitude around 1k years, meaning that they'll be more radioactive than uranium for centuries.

>It may not surprise you that Jews are on the forefront of protesting nuclear energy
I fully believe this but source?

Attached: Just look at all these white billionaires.png (625x605, 144K)

You can have more than one of two opinions.

If you're asking what I think is a reasonable source of generating energy, then nuclear power.
The only bad thing about nuclear power is the possibility that you fuck up and turn the area into Chernobyl for 5,000,000 years.
Which has only ever happened like 3 times. I'm willing to put my trust in 50 years of nuclear power existing and believe that they have 12 backup plans before radioactive material pollutes the environment.

They are ugly although this is a subjective objection. I would rather not have these things everywhere. But that's an atheistic option. Much like how I wouldn't want to live in a city of commie blocks even if they look comfy.

Lots of people call for solar and wind only. Which means daily blackouts most of the time and possibly for weeks at a time.
So if you need enough generating power to meet your demand when the wind and solar are low or off, why build all that extra junk winds and solar?
It is dangerous, people die at rates vastly higher than nuclear when working and building wind power.

The number birds killed would get a gas plant or oil refinery shut down over environmental concerns. They get oil producers fined in the millions. Yet wind gets a free pass because actually protecting the environment would make already too expensive wind power even more expensive.

>meaning that they'll be more radioactive than uranium for centuries.
Well given that the most common form of uranium has a half life of 4.4x10^9 years nearly everything is more radioactive than it. That is at least until it decays into something else that's stable.

why do people put nuclear plants in residential areas? how fucking dumb can you be

You put your generating near your demand to cut down on transmission costs and loss.

>Lots of people call for solar and wind only.
Wind+solar is already significantly more robust than either of those alone, especially if on a big scale, with energy trading.
And even then, wind+solar only is a strawman position because even the biggest greens support hydro and geo.

>So if you need enough generating power to meet your demand when the wind and solar are low or off
CONSUME CONSUME CONSUME
Varying power usage during the day, like already done with peaking power plants, is totally impossible!
And again, pretending that you have to turn off all natural gas plants is a strawman position.

>The number birds killed would get a gas plant or oil refinery shut down over environmental concerns. They get oil producers fined in the millions.
Now that's just pure bullshit.
Wind power doesn't get a free pass here, it only isn't forced to pay for the CO2/particulates, because it doesn't emit a lot of those.

Because modern nuclear plants are completely safe

>Wind turbines and solar thermal arrays need to be explicitly banned and dismantled immediately.
lmao what the fuck

Attached: 1520486054388.jpg (600x600, 41K)

No obviously the top 10 highest GDP countries should ruin their economies in a futile effort to do the impossible

Fuckin this.
We need a nuclear reactor per-house.

Uhh... Good point with that pic ... How the fuck did they measure it to be 5 square miles?

>no one has mentioned the noise
if you want to go deaf by the age of 23 sleep within 5 miles of 1 of these for 2 months.

What makes you think a redditard is capable of critical thinking or discourse?

The fag has been arguing dishonestly from the start, either a troll or a retard who doesn't know what they're talking about, or both.

Don't expect nuclear shills to be honest.

Or to ignore the metal mines for the solar plants, or the fact that windmills also require earth metals to make. They're not made from mud and brick.

Different user.

You know what's better than wind AND solar, doesn't rely on the weather or the sun, uses far less resources, is far safer, and generates shittons more power? Which is more abundant than coal and far cleaner since it doesn't burn?

Thorium Salt Reactors.

Plop one of those bad boys down and you'll be swimming in more energy then you've ever seen in your life, and for cheaper too. The best part? Its safer than Uranium reactors from the 1940's.

>b-but muh nuclear is bad
Do you think nuclear energy just stopped after the 1940's and never advanced since then? Furthermore, of the thousands of uranium plants built and running only 5 have had any major "catastrophe", only 3 of which were bad enough to cause any real or lasting harm.

I don't mind nuclear power plants. They're clean, they're silent, they produce fuckloads of power so you don't need many.

Their waste is a massive problem though.

The waste isn't a serious problem. It's a decent problem. It becomes harmless in a few thousand years, which is less time than it'll take to recover from climate change. By a couple orders of magnitude.

just launch it into sun or something

>muh thorium
Thorium plants are notoriously expensive to maintain in their current incarnation to the point where solar and wind ALREADY beat them in cost efficiency.
>b-but maybe in the future
Maybe in the future thorium will beat current wind and solar. But by then, the new solar and possibly wind will be significantly cheaper than now.

>and for cheaper too
You know what uses fuel cheaper than thorium?
Wind and solar.
They also have lower maintenance costs.

>is far safer
*tips autism*
In b4 you argue that we should use cost values without accounting for "exaggerated" safety costs, but still use safety statistics made possible by said safety expenses.

Why do people spout complete bullshit like this

It isn't supposed to convince the chosen few but to sow doubt in the minds of the masses.
Imagine a boomer reading shit like this, then regurgitating it at the family gathering, "redpilling" other clueless boomers.
Repeat enough times and suddenly facts are overridden by social pressure.

Disinfo against renewables pays well.

LEDs are more efficient and gave longer expected lifetime. They are not considered more green solution because of materials they are made of. It's because they use much less power and have to be replaced once in never, indirectly lowering the total amount of byproduct in e.g. coal mines and in production of new bulbs.
At least that's the idea, the reality might of course differ.

The less the competition the more any tech backfires, in any sphere.

They make wind out of air and magic?
Where do they get the materials to make wind farms user?

Nuclear accidents caused by plants have killed around a 100 people (including subarines and accidents from mishandling materials) sine nuclear reactors existed

It's actually amazing the difference in danger between nuclear and everything else

We could have had a chernobyl literally every single fucking day since chernobyl happened and still not come anywhere near the deathtoll of oil/gas/coal.

Unlike a nuclear power plant?

That would be insanely expensive

nuclear is for homos

Your fortune: You will meet a dark handsome stranger

reactors can be scaled down to be smaller unlike wind or solar
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor

nuclear is the best yea, "green" is overpraised as fuck, and has 0 advantages over nuclear