|
Yeah it's dumb, but modifying sounds is pretty common anyway. Harley Davidson motorcycles are specifically engineered to produce that aggravating loving noise (which they patent). Dumb people like dumb car noises.
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:57 |
|
|
Illuminti posted:does and electric battery/engine combo exist that could shift a bus around? Plus the great black cloud of fumes the older buses often leave in their wake are very unpleasent too. Not only does it exist, but we can do some pretty cool things with electric buses: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-08/08/olev-buses-south-korea
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:I get what you're saying. And it has deflated me. Does anyone know what the feasabilty is like for electric buses and trucks. I used to live next to a bus stop and the noise from those as they pull away is very loud and disturbing. does and electric battery/engine combo exist that could shift a bus around? Plus the great black cloud of fumes the older buses often leave in their wake are very unpleasent too. I don't know about where you're from, but where I've been most of the noise from that is air brakes filling/releasing, and that'll never really be quiet.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Vancouver uses mostly electric buses. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2-N6LOYOag They're pretty quiet but still produce a good hum.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Phayray posted:Not only does it exist, but we can do some pretty cool things with electric buses: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-08/08/olev-buses-south-korea That seems much less practical than the ones that use capacitors and quick charge stations at bus stops. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capa_vehicle
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:I don't know about where you're from, but where I've been most of the noise from that is air brakes filling/releasing, and that'll never really be quiet. Mmmm, while that does make noise I can't understand how you would think that was making most of the noise over a 11 litre diesal engine. They are incredibly noisey http://www.soundsnap.com/tags/bus_engine
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:I think this is the thread to post this into. I read a paper on their work recently. The system they're developing is technically a chemical pseudocapacitor, albeit an unusually strong one. The actual chemical reaction involves lithium (Li) and hexafluorophosphate (PF6), with the graphite electrodes playing mostly a current-collecting/intercalating material role for those two species. When you charge the battery, lithium and PF6 ions are stored in neutral form in the anode and cathode graphite, respectively, and when you discharge it those two are released as ions and join in the electrolyte to stabilize each other. LiPF6 is typically used as an electrolyte salt in lithium ion batteries due to the very high potential required to dissociate it, which is exactly what they're taking advantage of here to produce their batteries with high cell voltage. Add to that the cheapness of LiPF6 and graphite, along with the respectably high charge capacity of the system, and you have a pretty good energy system for vehicles. I think they still have problems with energy efficiency at high cycling rates, however, and I imagine the actual production of the graphite electrodes is very involved (they were talking about perfecting the morphology of their electrodes, which is something of an art form in battery chemistry). But unless there's some catastrophically bad defect with the system that they haven't talked about, it looks like a good contender for LiFePO4 and LiCoO2 batteries in cars. Evil_Greven posted:I saw this video on Thorium (it's... not the most visually appealing video) and it has some crazy information in it. I don't like the title of that video. The thorium car is a complete hoax and it's a good idea to stay far away from it. The military isn't all that concerned about efficiency, unless it leads to higher practicality. They only care about size, weight, power, and practicality when it comes to energy systems. Pressurized water reactors, fueled with highly-enriched uranium, fulfill all those requirements and then some, so there's little reason to develop anything else at the moment unless they'll get major improvements out of it. For commercial applications where weight and size are less restricted and power is much less of an issue, PWRs quickly lose what makes them great for Navy use. Nixon actually did kill off thorium research for the most part by axing the molten salt reactor experiment, starting with shutdown in 1969. Before then, the MSRE accumulated 9000 hours at full power on U-235, followed by 4100 hours at full power on U-233 (the fuel isotope derived from thorium-232). Nixon killed it because he wanted to funnel attention towards his pet project liquid metal fast breeder reactor, which was subsequently axed by Carter in the 80s. China is developing thorium molten salt reactors with a small army of researchers and engineers (700+ people), and it's still going to take a couple more decades before they reach commercial status on their design. India is also looking into thorium in solid-fuel reactors. And then you have some other companies here and there in western states that are taking "baby steps" towards thorium in molten salt systems by trying to use it in existing reactors with some modifications, trying to develop molten salt coolant loops, etc.. Political apathy towards nuclear R&D is pretty much the reason that thorium, and uranium-238 for that matter, aren't getting any development in the west these days. Illuminti posted:from what I have reasearched on these guys since I saw this, the scientists and companies involved seem to be legit, and without a history of making overblown claims they can't back up. But of course at the end of the day it is a marketing video and they are probably looking for investment. My main concern is I've seen claims that these things will usurp baseload generators like coal plants, which isn't going to happen without the successful development of really good load-leveling systems. My secondary concern is that the cost of solar panels in roads instead of asphalt is probably ridiculous, both from an installation and maintenance standpoint. Office Thug fucked around with this message at 18:18 on May 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
Office Thug posted:My secondary concern is that the cost of solar panels in roads instead of asphalt is probably ridiculous, both from an installation and maintenance standpoint. This is what I'm most concerned about. What is the actual cost per unit if they got to mass production and how long does any given unit actually last on average. And then how many units to make one lane * mile.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Also, around here anyways, roads tend to be fairly shady places. You've either got buildings or trees. It seems like a really stupid ted-talk level dumb high-concept idea that isn't at all practical. Solar is already bloody expensive and has enough problems and there's no shortage of real-estate for solar. I can't imagine a point in the future where we've become so desperate for solar power that after coating every roof and well-lit surface in a city with solar panels we're turn to our shady dirty roads and sidewalks.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Also, around here anyways, roads tend to be fairly shady places. You've either got buildings or trees. It seems like a really stupid ted-talk level dumb high-concept idea that isn't at all practical. Solar is already bloody expensive and has enough problems and there's no shortage of real-estate for solar. I can't imagine a point in the future where we've become so desperate for solar power that after coating every roof and well-lit surface in a city with solar panels we're turn to our shady dirty roads and sidewalks.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:This was already stated in the climate theead but piezoelectric roadways can also be used, and since they lie under the road maintenance for them shouldn't be too bad. Energy-generating roadways appear to be an idea just gaining ground so it should be given a go in testing before it gets thrown out as another fad tech. The biggest problem is that most roads are lightly traveled and far from civilization. Anything valuable is going to get stolen in fairly short order. Stuff as cheap and useless as road signs are stolen regularly for their novelty or scrap value. I can't imagine anything of any value that isn't set in six feet of concrete is going to last very long.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:This was already stated in the climate theead but piezoelectric roadways can also be used, and since they lie under the road maintenance for them shouldn't be too bad. Energy-generating roadways appear to be an idea just gaining ground so it should be given a go in testing before it gets thrown out as another fad tech. Using piezoelectric roadways is kind of a dickmove, since it lowers the efficiency of the cars travelling on them. It's not free energy, it's an inefficient energy conversion that still uses fossile fuels. Using electric cars makes it even worse.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:This was already stated in the climate theead but piezoelectric roadways can also be used, and since they lie under the road maintenance for them shouldn't be too bad. Energy-generating roadways appear to be an idea just gaining ground so it should be given a go in testing before it gets thrown out as another fad tech. Yeah, I don't see what problem this solves. Piezoelectric roadways are...a way to use fossil fuels to produce energy. I don't think that's anything to write home about. As for solar roadways, is it just "we have to maintain roads, may as well install solar panels while we're there?" Why would you want your solar panels to be driven on? Even building rooftops make more sense than that to me.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
Nm.
America Inc. fucked around with this message at 02:50 on May 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:Yeah, I don't see what problem this solves. Piezoelectric roadways are...a way to use fossil fuels to produce energy. I don't think that's anything to write home about. As for solar roadways, is it just "we have to maintain roads, may as well install solar panels while we're there?" Why would you want your solar panels to be driven on? Even building rooftops make more sense than that to me. I believe the idea is that "We already have all this artificially installed land set aside that we keep flat and cleared and have to regularly paint and repair, we might as well make it easier to maintain and possibly net us bonus energy generation." That said I find it hard to believe that whatever the amount we save in snowplowing, repainting lines, and possibly 'free' energy comes anywhere close to balancing the cost of installing and maintaining those hardened programmable glass hexes (of the solar roadways project specifically). It's an intriguing way to use up some waste materials and make supercool high-tech roads and flexible lots, but it doesn't really look all that implementable en masse. Are there any engineers in the thread who can give a better informed reaction? Particularly stuff like this: Nevvy Z posted:This is what I'm most concerned about. What is the actual cost per unit if they got to mass production and how long does any given unit actually last on average. And then how many units to make one lane * mile. EDIT: Never mind, this topic has also been picked up in greater detail in the Climate Change thread. Not that a reply isn't appropriate or unwelcome here too of course. ThaGhettoJew fucked around with this message at 10:30 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 10:19
|
|
|
ThaGhettoJew posted:I believe the idea is that "We already have all this artificially installed land set aside that we keep flat and cleared and have to regularly paint and repair, we might as well make it easier to maintain and possibly net us bonus energy generation." That said I find it hard to believe that whatever the amount we save in snowplowing, repainting lines, and possibly 'free' energy comes anywhere close to balancing the cost of installing and maintaining those hardened programmable glass hexes (of the solar roadways project specifically). It's an intriguing way to use up some waste materials and make supercool high-tech roads and flexible lots, but it doesn't really look all that implementable en masse. Are there any engineers in the thread who can give a better informed reaction? I mean this thread is about energy generation, so this topic applies.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
Solar roads are great for places where they make utterly no sense to install. Like, they'd be great in say arizona, except why on earth would you want to install solar panels where they would be beat to hell vs. just using the endless amount of open land. And if space is an issue then you are in an area where the road will be heavily obscured during the day anyway. But hey, it sure gets money from gullible venture capitalists.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
enbot posted:Solar roads are great for places where they make utterly no sense to install. Like, they'd be great in say arizona, except why on earth would you want to install solar panels where they would be beat to hell vs. just using the endless amount of open land. And if space is an issue then you are in an area where the road will be heavily obscured during the day anyway. It's up to almost 2 million  Look, paving roads with glass and electronics is loving stupid. Glass is soft and brittle and it's not going to last for 10 or 20 years of trucks grinding sand and pebbles against it. What kind of traction do you get on wet glass after 5 years of grinding sand against it? How do you roll it out - do you have an army of technicians and electricians installing hexagons by hand? Also testing it to 250000 pounds is nonsensical - what happens when a 250000 pound truck drives over some random bit of road debris focusing all the pressure of an axle into a single point? Stop giving them money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
A lot of people that I know that even have science backgrounds are all excited about solar roads. When you point out the massive and insane shortcomings they just get really defensive and start rambling about how "there's no magic bullet" and "why are you against exploring every option??" It's really really loving stupid. Should I start a kickstarter to install wind turbines at subway stations to harness "that gust of air before a train comes!" or maybe we can put little hydro plants in our water mains. Ok it will reduce the pressure and we'll have to account for that but come on exploring options! (actually that wouldn't be a horrible idea on a pressure reducer but still probably not worth it)
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
I think the idea is great - except they shouldn't be putting the stuff on roads, but rather everywhere else. So you developed a tough, long-lasting and cheap solar panel which interconnects and you can put markings on them and even build LEDs into them for active messages? As Anosmoman pointed out, putting it down on a road is the last place where you want it. Build road signs out of it. Build all new roofs and walls out of it. Build walkways out of it. Build ship decking out of it. Cover grandstands with it. Make paths and walkways and public squares out of it. Do all that and help reduce our non-renewables usages. But actually paving the roads with it? drat, that's just a waste and will never work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:Glass is soft and brittle and it's not going to last for 10 or 20 years of trucks grinding sand and pebbles against it. I'm all up for hating on blind enthusiasm for awkward ideas but you are aware that there isn't only one kind of glass, right? Also 20 years is rather on the hopeful side for the estimated lifetime of any electronic system, I think you're maybe getting a little carried away here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:I'm all up for hating on blind enthusiasm for awkward ideas but you are aware that there isn't only one kind of glass, right? 10-20 years is the lifespan of blacktop so that's the standard it should be judged by. Paving over our roads every 3 or 5 years or whatever is neither green, cheap nor feasible. If they have glass that can withstand 18 wheelers grinding rock against it for years that's great but it sounds amazing. Also ever noticed how rougher road surfaces produce more noise? Well this  reminds me of something.   It doesn't even matter. There's so many things wrong with it. - They want to use recycled glass to make it greener than blacktop - which is already 99% recycled. - Pressure sensors, micro processors, LEDs, wiring, solar panels, tempered glass - this is *not* greener than blacktop. - Those LED's under that glass won't be visible in direct sunlight. Think about a smartphone in direct sunlight. - Instead of lighting up entire roads maybe we could save energy and just put lamps on cars. - How are you going to thaw snow on the road with solar power... when it's snowing? - Thawing snow requires a shitload of energy. We should probably just shovel it off to the side. - This is a really inefficient way to deploy solar and you'll need an incredible number of transformer stations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:- How are you going to thaw snow on the road with solar power... when it's snowing? Plus if you only melt some of it the water can refreeze and now you have icy roads.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
Am I to understand that nuclear energy is enough to power the world? I mean, if we build enough plants, obviously. Do we have enough nuclear fuel? And how long will it last? Can we use nuclear and solar? Maybe nuclear can be the "main" one but can we still have solar panels on houses, buildings, etc. to supplement? Sorry if this has been discussed to death but this thread is huge.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:Am I to understand that nuclear energy is enough to power the world? I mean, if we build enough plants, obviously. Do we have enough nuclear fuel? And how long will it last? There's enough fuel if you pay a certain amount for nuclear fuel (like how fracking is only possible if oil is at a certain price)for the foreseeable future (ie, current demand for several decades/centuries). The good thing is that the cost of fuel is a relatively small portion of a nuclear plant's overall cost, as opposed to coal where it makes up most of the cost of the plant. That's the idea for nuclear + solar (and wind, hydro, etc). The other fuel sources can be extremely variable (might be cloudy, might not be windy), so you want a baseline power source that's more or less constant, and then you can supplement it however you wish.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Short answers before I sleep: yes to everything, and effectively forever to the 'how long' question, provided a reasonable investment in reprocessing and utilizing wonderful recyclable properties of nuclear fuel (in addition to potential seawater filtration to gather uranium). Solar + Nuclear is a very good strategy. There is a bit of a schism in the thread (and world in general) over how to do this. Nuclear proponents believe it is more pragmatic for a large scale solution that does not require coal/natural gas. In some circumstances (Australia) solar may theoretically be possible to supply the bulk of the baseload, which is neat. A mix would theoretically be the best of both worlds, as solar tends to peak when energy use tends to peak (hot, sunny days). Using solar to help reduce peaking demands reduces potentially redundant baseload stations. This is very 'general'. The biggest hurdle for solar tends to be in storing power that is unevenly attained. The biggest hurdle for nuclear tends to be political pressure. Both have significant capital costs to meet a per-energy-unit delivered. Until the public comes to really accept the price of gathering/burning hydrocarbons (radiation release, cancer, global climate instability, pollution, drinking water contamination), the costs for nuclear/solar will likely remain juuuuust out of reach for all but the most focused nations. And even those that can do one tend not to do the other (Germany likes wind/solar, hates nuclear, despite having conditions that favor the opposite).
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
Christ, that's frustrating. It really sounds like nuclear + solar is a really rad one-two punch for providing civilization with plenty of juice while also being clean and sustainable. And its futuristic as gently caress. But we've got to put up with bullshit like "Oh no, not atoms". What's the best kind of nuclear fission reactor? I know there's lots of different kinds.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:Christ, that's frustrating. It really sounds like nuclear + solar is a really rad one-two punch for providing civilization with plenty of juice while also being clean and sustainable. And its futuristic as gently caress. But we've got to put up with bullshit like "Oh no, not atoms". Some sort of fast breeder for Uranium. I like the Integral Fast Reactor, which appears to be a reasonably small and safe design that can come with its own reprocessing facility for long term radioactive nuclear waste (to be stored for 100000 years) as fuel and poo poo out mid term waste (to be stored for 300 years or so). Not sure for Thorium yet because if I recall correctly that got axed by Nixon and people have only recently restarted working on it in earnest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 07:50
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Another reason Solar + Nuclear is better together than either is alone: each serves a different geographical purpose. Nuclear is fantastic for delivering lots of power to lots of people in a tight area. It has a huuuuuge bang for the buck in terms of power delivered per land area. For more remote regions with lower population densities and lots of available land, it becomes less efficient to build nuclear plants (at least for the moment; small modular reactors will make this a little more feasible) and more efficient to look at solar and wind.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
Pander posted:Another reason Solar + Nuclear is better together than either is alone: each serves a different geographical purpose. Nuclear is fantastic for delivering lots of power to lots of people in a tight area. It has a huuuuuge bang for the buck in terms of power delivered per land area. For more remote regions with lower population densities and lots of available land, it becomes less efficient to build nuclear plants (at least for the moment; small modular reactors will make this a little more feasible) and more efficient to look at solar and wind. Also you can give it to random shitholes in development aid packages if you're not sure they'd handle nuclear waste disposal responsibly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Not sure for Thorium yet because if I recall correctly that got axed by Nixon and people have only recently restarted working on it in earnest. India's targetting a 2016 date for their reactor to come online.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
computer parts posted:India's targetting a 2016 date for their reactor to come online. So, expected for 2032 then? I'm very pro nuclear, but I don't think that anything relating to nuclear has ever been even remotely on time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
I thought development of Thorium was supposed to be rather easy to fast-track as it builds mainly on the same principles as other reactors? I know it was suggested that my university try to get a test facility built some years back, but a new reactor of any kind in Norway isn’t very likely to happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Doom Rooster posted:So, expected for 2032 then? Anything related to civilian nuclear certainly. Military nuclear? They'll melt down the entire silver holdings of the US if it helps.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
JustNorse posted:I thought development of Thorium was supposed to be rather easy to fast-track as it builds mainly on the same principles as other reactors? I know it was suggested that my university try to get a test facility built some years back, but a new reactor of any kind in Norway isn’t very likely to happen. Thorium is just about as similar to conventinonal LEU as fusion is similar to solar power, unfortunately. The biggest thing about thorium-232 is that it is not a fuel isotope itself, but a precursor to a fuel isotope, U-233. In order to get to U-233, you first need to irradiate thorium-232 with neutrons to produce protactinium-233, and then you need to let that decay into U-233. The protactinium-233 intermediate also needs to be isolated from additional neutron absorptions in order to avoid overbreeding it into uranium-235, the next fuel isotope in the lineup, at the cost of 2 additional neutrons which would kill your neutron economy. That isolation step is very important but difficult to achieve in conventional pressurized water reactors, which are designed to operate on the same fuel assembly for months at a time. You would need to change the fuel assembly practically on a bi-weekly basis in order to mitigate significant Pr-233 losses to overbreeding, which is just not feasible. India's response to this is to use heavy-water designs based on the CANDU, which can switch fuel assemblies in and out while remaining online. The main gripe of doing this is that heavy water is very expensive. China is going for a radically different design, the molten-salt reactor, which will boast limited online reprocessing capability to proactively separate and isolate Pr-233 with minimal effort. And numerous other places are going for something that's kind of in-between heavy water and molten salt; the pebble bed reactor. Keep in mind that in most of these cases the research initiative isn't purely for thorium fuel. It will hover between thorium and conventional U-235, because no one has enough U-233 bred up to kick start a fleet of commercial reactors purely on Th-232 and U-233 yet. U-235 is somewhat similar to U-233, but it comes with U-238 which is a huge pain in the rear end. Preliminary thorium breeder reactors will actually be HEU burners to start off, which will eventually switch to thorium breeding once they've accumulated enough U-233. At that point the reactors need to be able to simultaneously fission U-233 and use the excess neutrons to keep breeding more U-233 from thorium. When it comes to breeder reactors you're basically designing 2 very different reactors in 1 and that's really loving hard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Doom Rooster posted:So, expected for 2032 then? No no no you're not getting it. One of the mantras of this thread is that we should ignore the fact that nuclear power plants are incredibly complicated feats of engineering and require extreme care in order to be operated safely. Instead we should blame the government for why nuclear power plants take forever to build and why they cost bajillions of dollars.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
Pander posted:Or that nuclear power is the best choice for large-scale generation given proper economic and environmental context. In theory Pander, communism works. In theory. The "proper economic and environmental context" in which you just flip on your personal Mr. Thorium reactor for safe, limitless energy is one which in no way resembles the world as it is or is likely to be(outside of absurd "if I were world dictator" type thought experiments) any time in the next few decades. Sure, nuclear power has and will continue to have a place in zero carbon energy generation, but the techo-panglossian hippie-punching fanboy-cultists who seem to pop up around the issue aren't realy helping things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Sure, nuclear power has and will continue to have a place in zero carbon energy generation, but the techo-panglossian hippie-punching fanboy-cultists who seem to pop up around the issue aren't realy helping things. Given how the alternatives are discussed this is pretty  .
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Sure, nuclear power has and will continue to have a place in zero carbon energy generation, but the techo-panglossian hippie-punching fanboy-cultists who seem to pop up around the issue aren't realy helping things. Sorry someone hurt your feelings, but the modern environmentalist movement is ignoring a major source of zero carbon energy generation. Climate change is a serious, serious problem and when people who claim to want to help embrace anti-science scare tactics over actual solutions, they deserve to be called out for doing so. That doesn't make anyone a "fanboy" or a "cultist" or whatever bullshit you're peddling. It makes them a realist. 100% non-baseload power generation is nothing more than an ignorant joke and it should be treated as such. You claim that nuclear power has and will continue to have a place in zero carbon energy generation, but why have so many major environmentalist groups not echoed your position?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:57 |
|
|
silence_kit posted:No no no you're not getting it. One of the mantras of this thread is that we should ignore the fact that nuclear power plants are incredibly complicated feats of engineering and require extreme care in order to be operated safely. Instead we should blame the government for why nuclear power plants take forever to build and why they cost bajillions of dollars. Convenient that you haven't actually sourced any arguments against nuclear power, or even really made any, yet all you do in this thread is harp on how we are all mindless drones worshiping it. Maybe you should get the Sun's cock out of your mouth and make a real argument.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 22:42
|
|