|
Spunky Psycho Ho posted:Because I'm a cynical pessimist that doesn't believe anyone (especially in politics) is out for the good of mankind He doesn't have to be for that to be a side bonus though? What's worse, that he does a good thing for lovely 'gently caress you' reasons or for his opponent to then later repeal that good thing because 'gently caress you too?'
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 05:03 |
|
|
Mordor She Wrote posted:then you really should have had no problem voting for clinton. As a white male, I was the poo poo class in their camp
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Coal releases more radiation than nuclear by a yuuuuuge margin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Spunky Psycho Ho posted:Because I'm a cynical pessimist that doesn't believe anyone (especially in politics) is out for the good of mankind
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Spunky Psycho Ho posted:As a white male, I was the poo poo class in their camp I mean, you're always poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Leon Einstein posted:Coal isn't coming back, and it's not Obama's fault. Can you understand that? Sure, I mean if that's how it is, that's how it is
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
I'd like to see is go whole hog on nuke and electric cars/trains and save coal for necessary industrial use and gas/diesel and poo poo for heavy trucking and jet fuel and poo poo you can't power with electricty but loving lmao that's never gonna happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
This is an interesting paper if anyone cares: http://www.ieahydro.org/media/b9067...nologies%20.pdf quote:ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH IMPACTS OF ELECTRICITY GENERATION Which is hella long but here's an infographic based on some of the numbers in it:  Ranging from minimum to max based on various studies and methodologies (some will count deaths from resulting radioactivity/pollution for example, others won't). Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Mar 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:This is an interesting paper if anyone cares: Other emissions are more easily controlled, and the use of the most modern techniques by virtue of their higher conversion efficiencies can cut the emissions considerably. But since the majority of coal-fired power plants represent old and less efficient techniques, average specific emissions of greenhouse gas will remain high, i.e. >1000 g CO2 per kWhel. Although coal represents a non-renewable energy source, the global reserves are unlimited for all practical purpose. Coal = modern plants reduce emissions "considerably" and "unlimited" Trump was right
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
Spunky Psycho Ho posted:Other emissions are more easily I mean even a 10 minute research session into coal disposal methods shows that's totally wrong  There's no answer for where to store coal ash (leftover after burning) and that's not even the fly ash which contains all kinds of polluting poo poo too (the smoke coming out the stack) "Clean coal" is 100% some bs coming from the coal lobby and for someone who is so sensitive about spin from the left you'd think you'd not be so quick to accept spin from the right. It's literally a public relations term dude. Yeah, you can mitigate the pollution but it will never be even close to the same level as nuclear or renewables.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:I mean even a 10 minute research session into coal disposal methods shows that's totally wrong The paper you just posted said modern coal is pretty clean, the problem is fuckheads like China And store coal ash? How about spent nuclear rods bro
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
Spunky Psycho Ho posted:The paper you just posted said modern coal is pretty clean, the problem is fuckheads like China Pretty clean relative to dirty coal doesn't mean "clean." It just means cleaner than the stuff we were doing 20-30 years ago. Also "clean coal" tech does nothing to address coal mining or processing, it's just about the burning. Modern reactors don't have radioactive waste like you're thinking of, that poo poo gets reused as fuel and the resulting actual waste is a) not radioactive enough to really harm you and b) is still waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay less than the coal ash we are dumping into lakes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
We should use nuclear energy because we can't dispose of coal ash. Nuclear has no waste that's impossible to deal with
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Spunky Psycho Ho posted:We should use nuclear energy because we can't dispose of coal ash. Nuclear has no waste that's impossible to deal with It's like literally the difference between a glass of water and Lake Meade.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Fukishima's core is melting into the center of the earth as we speak years later
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
And yet even with that, it produces less radiation and kills less people than equivalent terawatt/hour producing coal plants. Amazing really.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Also Fukushima is a hella old plant that was built on top of a fault line and was well past its inspection/shutdown date.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
And all of this anti-nuke stuff is still beside the fact that coal as an industry is loving dying world wide.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Also Fukushima is a hella old plant that was built on top of a fault line and was well past its inspection/shutdown date. it's almost like an example of what happens when regulations are ignored....
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Sure but modern designs are literally incapable of meltdown so If there is no active cooling on them the reaction just stops, there is no runaway meltdown.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
nuclear is good and coal is quite bad wind and solar are great but need some of either coal, gas or nuclear to ensure supply during bad days
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
I'm all for whatever is best but it seems like coal is tainted by the past use of it, as well as current use by fuckheads like China, throwing the statistics out of whack
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
I'm not saying shut down all coal plants immediately, I'm just wary of people promising to save the coal industry. And obv care should be taken with nuclear stuff too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
everyone who didn't vote green is a loving moron
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
a bone to pick posted:everyone who didn't vote green is a loving moron I wish Jill Stein wasn't head of the green party.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
vote for pedro \/\/\/ yea gently caress the greens. they're probably hella helping oil/coal too with their nonstop nuclear disinformation campaign
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
measles epidemics are entirely green
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
if I had to choose between Donald Duck or kill wifi stein
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
Yuca mountain should be open but people are dumb. Now we've got graveyards of dry casks that the gov and thus the taxpayer literally pays the nuclear industry to babysit since the agreed upon central repository wasn't opened. If yuca had opened we'd be putting all those casks in there where it won't ever hurt anything because it's a desolate shithole already. E: suck my dick Nevada you're costing us all money Honky Dong Country fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Mar 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Mordor She Wrote posted:I mean it's not directly from the supreme propagandists Bannon's mouth, but here ya go Oh it's not? I'm not gonna bother to read it then either. I expressed my opinion on the EPA like 50 pages ago and not gonna bother to do it again. Nice try at fear mongering though. You should try the Trump wants to kill puppies angle. That was a good one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
If that coal thing was so important why did Obama wait until a few months ago to do it, he had 8 years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Krustic posted:Oh it's not? I'm not gonna bother to read it then either. I expressed my opinion on the EPA like 50 pages ago and not gonna bother to do it again. Nice try at fear mongering though. You should try the Trump wants to kill puppies angle. That was a good one. I mean, I don't pay attention to your opinion, because it's exceedingly dumb, but I'm assuming your mad because you really like drinking poo poo in your water?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Also, today Trump signed a bill into law that authorizes 19.5 billion in spending for Nasa. ""It's the first time in seven years that there has been an authorization bill for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, also known as NASA", said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, a chief sponsor of the bill". Seven years! edit: Also of importance FBI director James Comey admits under oath that he hates the Patriots http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/fbi-director-james-comey-admits-under-oath-that-he-hates-the-patriots-032017 somethingawful bf fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Mar 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Poetic Justice posted:Also, today Trump signed a bill into law that authorizes 19.5 billion in spending for Nasa. ""It's the first time in seven years that there has been an authorization bill for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, also known as NASA", said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, a chief sponsor of the bill". Seven years! That's cool, wonder which goon will be the first to denounce NASA because trump gave them material support
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
thank loving god tbh idk why NASA gets poo poo on all the time so hard
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
Kinda weird to pat themselves on the back with the "first in seven years!" thing though as if NASA hasn't just been funded via the general appropriations bill that gets passed every year but w/e NASA is good iirc their budget for last year was only $18.5 b
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
Toadvine posted:That's cool, wonder which goon will be the first to denounce NASA because trump gave them material support I'll do it, since they are no longer able to do "politicized" science, what are they actually going to be accomplishing now?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
Toadvine posted:That's cool, wonder which goon will be the first to denounce NASA because trump gave them material support I want to volunteer, but the words turn to ashes on my tongue, I can't hate nasa, can't even pretend to uh, efb I guess trump wants nasa to focus more on getting people on other planets, I think. certainly his mental image of a sweet fuckin mars base or whatever is childlike and moronic, but I mean, that's still a cool goal
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
I mean if you really wanna be a cynical stinkbutt about it you could say "I bet Elon Musk whispered in his ear and that's why this is happening and it's just a ploy to get more contracts to SpaceX" but whatever even if true lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 05:03 |
|
|
it's definitely bad that the satellite data etc that they provide for climate study will be scrapped due to aforementioned "politicized science," but i'm comfortable with repeating "tormp bad" and letting it be
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 23:26
|
|