Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Why not require all commercial building to have solar power?
 
  • Locked thread
suck my woke dick
Oct 10, 2012

:siren:I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!:siren:

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

Lord Waffle Beard posted:

Everyones always worried about energy and the environment, if all the businesses had solar panels all over them wouldnt that help with everything?

It's like trying to piss out a wildfire

* # ¿ Sep 17, 2014 08:26
  • Quote
Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 08:11
  • Quote
suck my woke dick
Oct 10, 2012

:siren:I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!:siren:

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

MizPiz posted:

Economically, it makes more sense to use an energy source that doesn't create dangerous waste that needs to be securely housed for thousands of years.

Economically, it makes more sense to shove that fuel back into a breeder, like the second one that just got finished in glorious mother Russia :ussr:, or the ones currently being finished in India and China. Did I mention the waste that comes out of a good breeder only presents a radiation hazard of about 300-500 years (that's at least 2 orders of magnitude less than the waste you shoved into the reactor as fuel, nerds).

Bedshaped posted:

Things that are cheaper rarely end up being better. I wonder how many solar plants or wind farms could be built with the $100 Billion the US government still had to spend as of 2014 to clean up the Hanford site.

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/etox/resources/case_studies/hanford.pdf

Saying nuclear power station waste management will cost as much as weapons production waste management is about as good as the stupid "nucular reactors = nucular weapons = nucular war = environmental damage to the max :hurr:" argument. Also 100 billion dollars worth of renewables produce less electricity than 100 billion dollars worth of nuclear power plants.

Bedshaped posted:

Ionizing radiation is provably very dangerous to the human body, especially if it's ingested or taken inside your digestive/respiratory/circulatory systems.

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/health_effects.html
Ah yes, the linear no threshold model, which will never fail to amuse by overestimating the effects of low doses and most likely underestimating the effects of high doses (it was developed with essentially two data points after America nuked Japan and nobody has bothered to update the EPA regulations yet). Clearly, organisms are lumps of rock with no self-repair capabilities and the observable sigmoid curve of damage~radiation dose does not exist.
You know that the radiation you receive from :supaburn:nucular power:supaburn: tends to be somewhere between "doesn't matter" and "not worth caring about" unless you pitch a tent in spitting distance of the Chernobyl reactor building?

suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Sep 19, 2014

* # ¿ Sep 19, 2014 23:31
  • Quote
suck my woke dick
Oct 10, 2012

:siren:I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!:siren:

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

Wheeee posted:

Thorium reactors still have engineering hurdles that need to be resolved to bring power plants online, that poo poo's corrosive as hell.

Fact is that there's no political will in the West to develop nuclear power and arguing about its technical merits isn't going to change that. Solar and wind are inferior technologies that will keep us reliant on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future but that's where the cultural capital and money are.

Since :ussr:, :china: and :india: are currently ironing out the issues with breeders and Thorium reactors.


In the future, we shall be ashamed and license-build Chinese nuclear reactor designs.

* # ¿ Sep 20, 2014 10:17
  • Quote
suck my woke dick
Oct 10, 2012

:siren:I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!:siren:

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

Wheeee posted:

Which is why it's basically dead in :911: and being pursued in places like :china:.

Thanks Obama Corporate Murca.

* # ¿ Sep 20, 2014 11:01
  • Quote
suck my woke dick
Oct 10, 2012

:siren:I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!:siren:

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

computer parts posted:

Well, it's pursued in China because the party bosses live in Beijing and don't want to live in Beijing's air.

So you're saying the solution is to allow coal power plants to blow unfiltered exhaust into the air until the torches and pitchforks expensive lawyers come out?

* # ¿ Sep 20, 2014 15:05
  • Quote
  • Locked thread
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Why not require all commercial building to have solar power?