Transfers your data

Wouldn't this thread be more fun without the filenames?

Gold looks like THAT?

>becomes your electronics

Attached: sand.jpg (1000x1333, 355K)

>implying

Attached: 1538270576547.png (701x624, 974K)

>explodes in your pocket

Attached: lithium.jpg (255x198, 10K)

I'ma hitt'em with it.

r/whoosh since you're obviously a redditor.

Dayum gold be like dat

>transmits your data, but faster

Attached: light.jpg (500x480, 14K)

I still can't fathom how fucking sand can become glass

Sand is just ground down rock
So when you grind down sand you get such tiny sand that it becomes invisible
Then you make a glass out of it

>solves global warming

Attached: image.jpg (735x400, 70K)

Copper is botnet

Attached: wat.jpg (1534x1452, 466K)

>mineral thread on Jow Forums
never thought I'd see the day

was going to ask but decided to google it.
never knew crystalline gold was a thing. Thank you for that.

pretty rocks

Attached: 1556515054582.jpg (300x300, 24K)

Yeah. For about a day. Before it develops a dull patina and requires polishing.

Is copper actually found in huge chunks in nature? I thought only gold was like that

All those wikipedia images are purified clumps of the elements formed X dust (in this case copper dust) by various scientific processes. None of them are found like that in nature.

But, yes ,copper ore in relatively high concentrations (equivalent to the gold ore) can be found in huge chunks and it's far more common. Gold nuggets are extremely rare. Usually it's just gold dust.

is copper best metal for building utilities and construction where you don't want to use much metal?

i don't get it

have fun in prison

This

A glass is just a really big sand.

i got carbons in me bruh

Gold gets found pure like that because it doesn't react to anything in the environment.
Copper reacts with oxygen, so you won't find pure copper just laying around you'll find copper-oxide.

It's mikey mouse bending over what looks like a duck, donald duck perhaps.

Gibbon or some type of monkey sitting on a rock, it looks like he's holding a head of lettuce but my first thought was he's holding a head

That just looks like coal and quartz, just rocks.

A samurai attacking a tree. (rotate 90 degrees right)

Toe print print close up.

Sea sponge.

Triangular face on the left, he's watching someone from behind whatever that is.

>whatever that is.
Thorium

>noooo not renewables! muh atom!

Attached: 1563128457477.png (524x594, 675K)

There are wind turbines everywhere in my country.
But they still only make up 0.2% of the electricity need.
Nuclear is the only way to make any real difference.

>there are hospitals everywhere in my country but people still die, clearly the solution is not to build more of them and staff them better but to consider hospitals unviable and drop modern medicine for something inferior

It like he's looking around a old twisted tree with vines all randomly but it could be a cliff with roots so yeah I see that.

Hospitals are effective.
If people were still dying in the streets I would replace them with something better.

Wind and solar is fine, but they are never going to fill our demand.
They are the equivalent of providing first aid, but they aren't hospitals, nuclear power is the only hospital.
What do you have against nuclear power?

>What do you have against nuclear power?
In most cases it is less cost-effective than renewables.
I'll be dead before any investment in it starts paying off.
It has a massive political cost, such as having to establish fuel contracts and allowing retarded countries to have nuclear proliferation technology. "B-but thorium doesn't" - thorium isn't viable and all shilling for nuclear involves shilling for uranium and will continue to do so for at least a decade.
It convinces retards not to invest in renewables and to vote against renewables. Then fantasies meet reality and high cost of nuclear just makes politicians shill for fossil fuels.

A vote against renewables is always a vote for fossils.
I'd be fine with nuclear, but fedoras who pretend it's the clearly best option around are ignorant, retarded or deluded.

In b4 strawmen like
>if we switched to 100% renewables overnight, then [bad things]

...

t. NEET faggot

beeing this new

>thorium isn't viable
Yes it is.

China and Indonesia are already building thorium reactors.
America and Europe just don;t want any because "muh precious coal and gas industries"

>A vote against renewables is always a vote for fossils.

And again: I'm not against renewables.
It's just a drop in the ocean, that's all.

Being against nuclear is definitely a vote for fossils.
Without nuclear there is not a chance in hell we would ever stop global warming.

Not that I really care - I'm 40 now and will be long dead before you ignorant kids have to deal with the consequences of rejecting the only solution to YOUR problem.

hehe better find some way to get rid of me

Attached: 171879main_LimbFlareJan12_lg.jpg (1014x712, 491K)

get to the copper

Not funny. Kill yourself kid

>ruins your thread

Attached: shit.png (720x720, 49K)

Those who complain about reddit the most tend to be reddit themselves.

>In most cases it is less cost-effective than renewables
Renewables like hydro and geothermal are fantastic and should be used as much as possible. Unfortunately, they can't supply all our energy.
Renewables like wind and solar have an extreme cost that's only seen at high utilization. We can't just roll it out by the GW. In order to get a reasonable capacity factor from them, you need to build out 2-3x your desired capacity, and smooth the output with nearly a day of battery capacity along with high voltage DC spanning countries to allow grid balancing. Doing this is more expensive than nuclear by a pretty large margin.

Nuclear internalizes essentially all its costs, so it looks expensive. It isn't, though. It's very competitive, and is rock solid safe technology. Anyone who disagrees has been listening to the news instead of looking at the actual figures. The best part about nuclear, is it could be even cheaper than it is now if we approved new gen designs, stopped hamstringing installations, and allowed the fuel to be stored in a central location.

Attached: Projected_LCOE_in_the_U.S._by_2020_(as_of_2015).png (1280x840, 124K)

>Projected LCOE as of 2015
why not post the actual LCOE as of 2018?

Attached: Screenshot_2019-04-09 Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis—Version 12 0 - lazards-levelize (1202x929, 98K)

Because it was convenient, I had the image on hand.
Your pic doesn't include costs related to grid storage and long distance transmission required to use wind/pv at a large scale. It's like the "too cheap to meter" claims on nuclear fifty years ago. There are costs not being accounted for.
greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-truth-about-renewables-and-storage-in-lazards-cost-analysis

I should say, my pic didn't include those things either. It was just to show that nuclear is competitive even though the cost is artificially drive to the moon by NIMBY fucks who don't know it's actually absurdly safe.

>1 day before 3MI Nuclear is insanely safe we don't need any regulations
>1 day before chernobyl nuclear is insanely safe we don't need any regulations
>1 day before Fukushima nuclear is insanely safe we don't need any regulations
It's almost like there's a pattern...

based cute frogposter

PV+storage is still cheaper than nuclear, and unlike nuclear is getting much much cheaper every year, and is also deploy-able extremely quickly. A nuclear plant takes something like 20 years to go from the planning phase to actually producing power, renewables take less than a year.

Attached: unsubsidized-levelized-cost-of-storage-comparisonγçoe-mwh-100.jpg (956x860, 87K)

>

pure (or very close) crystals of it
this give me inorganic nightmare flashbacks

hey you managed to make a worse analogy than the typical food or car analogies
nicely done

>3MI was literally nothing.
>Chernobyl was the result of Soviet Russia being Soviet Russia.
>Fukushima killed one person, probably.
Over 70 years we got one bad accident in countries not run by commie retards? And that bad accident was really just an economic problem? And that accident killed one person while the tsunami which caused it killed ten thousand?
I'd say nuclear is pretty fucking safe.

steals your gf

Attached: large-bismuth-crystal-640x533.jpg (640x533, 167K)

the cost of the fukushima cleanup exceeds the value of all nuclear power ever generated in Japan, in our world economics is much more important than human life. Something that nuclear utterly fails at.

>I'll be dead before any investment in it starts paying off.
The same could be said of renewable energy in general.

>PV+storage is still cheaper than nuclear
That graphic is no a citation. I've seen figures which disagree by a large factor.
>getting much much cheaper every year
Price reduction per panel has been slowing. Never count on exponentials lasting forever when considering your future.
Much of the true cost of PV comes from its low CF and erratic CF in many climates. Building out 2-3x capacity and a day of battery is needed when you start to rise into the big boy percentages of total grid capacity.
>deploy-able extremely quickly.
That must be why Germany and Japan's electricity prices keep going up following their full retard decision to ice all nuclear. They said they could deploy wind and solar fast enough. They couldn't.
>20 years
The gooks manage to do it in 5-10
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kori_Nuclear_Power_Plant
The chinks manage to do it very reliably in 5 years
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangjiang_Nuclear_Power_Station
They're averaging 550 MW of capacity per year at this one station. They're rolling it out because they're smart, and they don't let chicken little dictate their energy policy.

Not by my count. What figure are you using?
Besides, you're saying that because one absolutely ancient plant, using technology with little passive safety, installed with an insufficient sea wall, and with generators put in the basement instead of the planned for high elevation generator building, got hit with one of the worst natural disasters recorded, and failed catastrophically, that means we should abandon nuclear. That's like saying that air travel is just unacceptable because sometimes we lose a plane full of people.

>there are homeophathy clinics everywhere in my country but people still die. The solution is to build more of em instead of that horrible industrialized brutally mechanical oppressive things that are the hospitals

Futurama?

>prancing lala homo bismuth taking anyone's girl
lolno

jesus christ user they're minerals

Attached: jesus face palm.png (289x335, 190K)

You are legit a schizo or a psychopath. Go get your head checked.

Nigga I’ve been wearing a gold band for 2 years and it only has little scuffs looks as shiny as the day I got it.

>golden jewelry is 100% gold

Attached: 1564829353738.jpg (700x557, 41K)

You have to go back.

>i need more resources for one solution so it is clearly superior
Literally die.

When they built Fukushima 1 they didn't anticipate earthquakes and tsunami that large. It wasn't until far more recently that the danger was realized.

>stores your data

Attached: AdobeStock_52603829.jpg (3600x2400, 2.96M)

You require more minerals

these retard wojaks are really getting out of hand

It's transfering furry porn in that picture?

retards on Jow Forums are really getting out of hand

Attached: 0135794038.jpg (210x240, 8K)

>lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2018/
Here you go
and according to LCOE reductions haven't even started to slow down meanwhile nuclear only gets more expensive and less attractive to investors

always excuses, Japan would have been better off if it had never adopted nuclear power nothing you can say will ever change that

Attached: 1512685228782.png (1296x1458, 217K)

Consider suicide

Future mama

This.
>>>/plebbit/

>For Auir!

Attached: 1564464935901.jpg (419x366, 24K)

Attached: 1563755379044.jpg (960x1706, 135K)

>haven't even started to slow down
Are we looking at the same graph? And that doesn't include storage and the heavy grid modifications required for such a distributed and ephemeral source.

I'll consider solar and wind to be viable for base load replacement when I see it at 70% capacity. Kinda like France already did with nuclear at a perfectly reasonable cost.

Still waiting on those cost figures.

>New York would have been better off if it had never built the world trade center.

Attached: retarded_Wojak_gas_cigarette.png (1073x535, 86K)

>who are you?
>im you but s t r o n g e r

it is definitely not a chunk of carbon

this, only reddit users would be able to recognize things from reddit, or point to specific places on reddit