Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 19:37:42 UTC No. 16255205

Environmentalists genuinely have shit for brains as they continue to blatantly ignore solutions that are in everyone's best interests.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 19:42:49 UTC No. 16255213

>>16255186
>300 times more
>Comparing N-P silicon and plastic with fucking fission product isotopes.
I would eat 1 kg of grinded solar panels in my life time but not even 1 ng of that shit. The comparison is very twitter-like, absolute retarded as my "then eat it" argument.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 20:01:01 UTC No. 16255252

>>16255186
How much "toxic waste" would the equivalent amount of wattage created by petroleum generate?

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 20:02:53 UTC No. 16255254

>>16255252
>petroleum generate?
That's not fair, the OP isn't arguing in favor of fossil fuels, come on.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 20:03:33 UTC No. 16255256

these seem to be pretty trivial to recycle?
dont they recycle curcuitboards all the time?

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 20:05:00 UTC No. 16255262

Aside from toxic waste: How much total energy does it take to manufacture a solar panel? It must be quite a lot because you have to melt silicon, basically you have to melt rock.

Does the panel produce more than that amount of energy over its lifetime?

Could you build a solar panel factory powered only by solar panels? I would like to see that. And no cheating, no use of any other power source.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 20:08:52 UTC No. 16255272

>>16255213
This, what exactly is that solar panel toxic waste, what effects does it have on the environment and biota, and how long does it linger for?
I'm just asking because, ya know, nuCLear waste is a seriously expensive mess, even for rich countries:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOWQgLeRM-M

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 20:12:52 UTC No. 16255278

>>16255262
>melt silicon
making glass, we've mastered that on a massive scale.
Solar paneling is extremely cheap to produce nowadays.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAU5D8hqIUI

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 20:14:42 UTC No. 16255281

>>16255186

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 20:14:48 UTC No. 16255282

>>16255256
Recycling solar panels is trivial, but not a lot of facilities exist that can do it right now. As solar sees more adoption and recycling becomes economical, recycling facilities will be built.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 20:23:53 UTC No. 16255308

>>16255282
raw solar panels are fragile as fuck.
they arent kidding when they call them wafers.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 20:36:19 UTC No. 16255334

>>16255213
>>16255272
Okay samefag, heavy metals is one of the toxic waste. Eg arsenic. With radioactive products, you could put them in lead canisters then bury it without worrying about the radiation leakage. With heavy metals, it goes to water and soil anyway and contaminates everything

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 20:37:26 UTC No. 16255336

>>16255334
apologize for your arrogance

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 20:58:05 UTC No. 16255360

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 20:58:45 UTC No. 16255361

>>16255334
>arsenic
Normal solar cells have boron, phosphorous, gallium or arsenic as doping elements in just a few ppm. Black sand beaches are far more "harmful".

LEDs, GHz transistors have far more arsenic but as any semiconductor in the form of a glass-like solid that is stable and easy to dispose compared to coal ash or nuclear waste. Thin film solar cells were far nastier but they're rare. NiCd batteries are order of magnitude worse (no glass-like solids and far more toxic substances) but they didn't cause a ecological catastrophe or a no-man zone like some "minors nuclear accident".

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 20:59:42 UTC No. 16255363

>>16255256
>dont they recycle curcuitboards all the time?
don't know but i doubt it. i've seen documentaries of huge wastelands covered in electric garbage in congo and indonesia, with barefoot kids crawling around finding things to savage

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 21:02:32 UTC No. 16255370

>>16255281
>the opportunities
not reality, just a theory.
>evaporating plastic
it'll be fine.
>chemicals and water used at every step
minor loss of resources that can be ignored. added chemicals are not part of the original item, so can be ignored.

timestamp from that blog is around the same time germany declared itself as 100% renewable. until russian gas stopped flowing.
not saying things can't be recycled, but there's a lot of work to be done before you can just wave it away and claim it's recyclable.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 21:03:24 UTC No. 16255372

>>16255186
anon, try eating a few mg of active uranium or plutonium and see what happens to you
lso, twitter is not a source of news, retard.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 21:07:02 UTC No. 16255383

>>16255360
why bury them?

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 21:07:40 UTC No. 16255386

>>16255262
>basically you have to melt rock.
That doesn't cost as much energy as you might think. Silicon's heat capacity is 0.71 J/g K, and heat of fusion is 50.55 kJ/mol.
heating: (1000g)*(0.71J/g K)*(1687K - 273K) = 1,003,940J = 1003.94kJ
melting: (1000g/28g/mol Si)*50.55kJ/mol = 1805.35 kJ
Total = 2,809.29kJ
Or about 780.36 W/hr so about 10 cents worth of electrify, cheaper from any other heat source.
Of course, simply melting the silicon isn't really the cost which determines how much a solar cell costs. In general I think of it in terms of how much energy would you need to produce and cell from the cell in order to return the cost to produce the cell. Right now you can buy about 5 Watts per 1$ of solar cells from aliexpress, meaning you need to generate about 6.7 kW/hr of electricity from that cell before it pays for itself. That is about 1333 hours of sunlight, or 167 days of 8 hours a day in direct sunlight.
So that means in terms of economic units of dollars and using the trade exchange between America and china you can produce enough energy which can theoretically pay off the cost of the solar cells production in less than half a year. To me, that means it is in fact very efficient at transforming resources into energy. You can't make hardly any investment which pays that much in so little time. If someone found an extremely cheap way to make long lasting solar panels they could make a lot of money trading with china to get cells.
That sounds great, but in actuality the cell cost and the panel cost are quite a bit different. It could cost as much as 1$ per watt to turn the cells into panels, and up to 4-5$ per watt to get them installed if you are getting ripped off from a solar installer, not to mention the cost of land, and energy transmission system to the grid.
That pushes profitability back further to several years, or practically never depending on how much you pay.
Not to mention the uncertainly of trade between america and china.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 21:10:30 UTC No. 16255395

>>16255383
monument to the stupidity of gretatards for future archaeologists to discover

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 21:10:48 UTC No. 16255396

>>16255336
>>16255334
Apologize, shitface

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 21:11:41 UTC No. 16255401

>>16255383
you now know why they call it a landfill.
becuase the best method of dealing with garbage and waste is to bury it and cover it with dirt.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 21:16:40 UTC No. 16255413

>>16255186
>toxic waste

You planning on eating the solar panels?
If not, you can easily use them for construction.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 21:18:08 UTC No. 16255416

>>16255413
>t. I have have never constructed anything and I have no idea how construction works and no training in the field whatsoever

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 21:20:39 UTC No. 16255422

>>16255370
People that sell fossil fuel based energy are literally shaking in their boots right now. They already can see that people are just going to buy the solar panels plus a battery and never pay for electricity again. This nuclear energy resurgence came a little bit too late. It’s over.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 21:25:31 UTC No. 16255426

>>16255186
~80-85% of solar panel is glass. Glass is recycled easily.
~10% is just aluminum.
The rest is small amounts of plastic/polymers
And thin layer of PV cells that are mainly made up of silicon and a thin amount of semi conductor materials
There are also some copper wires.

Glass/Aluminium/Silicon/Copper have ~90+% recycling rate.
Plastics have ~70% recycling rate.

Effectively, something like 95% of the stuff is recycled on industrial level quite easily.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 21:28:46 UTC No. 16255438

>>16255213
Thank you for managing to perfectly illustrate the issue facing nuclear, that the average fuck is a retard.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 21:37:38 UTC No. 16255454

>>16255186
>it's another "rightoid suddenly cares about the environment when it's politically expedient for them" episode
i get so tired of these reruns

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 21:38:35 UTC No. 16255456

>>16255416
People literally use coal ash as building material, using solar cells as sand isn't that different.
Try the same with recycled concrete of a normal nuclear reactor*.
>* that shouldn't be really radioactive

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 21:50:04 UTC No. 16255468

>>16255383
They are mining them

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 21:55:31 UTC No. 16255484

>>16255334
>solar panels have dangerous heavy metal that leech into the soil and water
>nuclear waste on the other hand can be encapsulated in safe heavy metal and buried, where it totally doesn't leech parts of the contents or the containment into soil and water
kek

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 22:03:18 UTC No. 16255504

>>16255308
That's irrelevant. They would be resmelted.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 22:03:34 UTC No. 16255505

>>16255456
>ash and solar panels are the same thing
thanks for the info professor dunning kruger

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 22:06:37 UTC No. 16255512

>>16255213
>>Comparing N-P silicon and plastic with fucking fission product isotopes.
yes

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 22:13:18 UTC No. 16255530

>>16255386
Nice, I appreciate someone who runs the numbers!

I’m still skeptical that you could run a solar panel factory powered only by solar panels, but I’m not good enough with mathematical modeling to confirm that. I suspect you would still have to burn some diesel or some other power source to close the loop.

I would include mining and transport as part of the manufacturing process. I’d like to see the whole supply and delivery chain solar powered.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 22:22:45 UTC No. 16255544

>>16255512
>yes
>needs 24/7 security
Very safe kek.

Locals still are trying to remove (using the gov to avoid wasting their money) that fuel.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 22:39:04 UTC No. 16255575

>>16255512
>safely stored
yeah, looks looks like incredibly safe storage for the next 100000 years
you just know it'll stay there too until the company that produced goes out of business and goes
>oh yeah, that stuff. guess the .gov has to find some rug to sweep it under. sorry not sorry

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 23:07:49 UTC No. 16255604

>>16255422
I still think that they should build the nuclear power plants tho. If some sort of natural disaster happens and the sun is blocked for many years or even decades they can just be switched on instead.

https://www.history.com/news/536-volcanic-eruption-fog-eclipse-worst-year

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 23:10:20 UTC No. 16255607

>>16255604
>536
The drop in sunlight for energy generation (a few %) is nothing compared to the crop collapse... You can't fix that with nuclear energy.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 23:12:12 UTC No. 16255610

>>16255454
Could be a leftoid today. "Solar panels are used by rich people and thus evil."

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 23:14:12 UTC No. 16255612

>>16255544
>>16255575
It has literally zero effect on anything around it. And when the salt mine storage facilities come to collect it, it never will ever in the future either.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 23:15:19 UTC No. 16255614

>>16255612
You don't have to worry about retards stealing/blowing up a dump of solar cells...

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 23:16:27 UTC No. 16255616

>>16255614
Yeah just enjoy the environment breaking them down to dissolve into your food and then bloodstream and sterilize you, automatically!

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 23:20:25 UTC No. 16255620

>>16255616
>oh no, sand!
>dissolve into your food and then bloodstream and sterilize you
Just like Iodide 131... That isotope is almost an anti-life trick
>I-131
>Sr-90
>Cs-137

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 23:44:58 UTC No. 16255653

>>16255426
>Plastics have ~70% recycling rate.
they most certainly do not. it's something like only 10% of plastics are actually recyclable. the rest are dumped off in SEA

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 23:48:27 UTC No. 16255659

>>16255653
>90% dumped off in SEA
.
.
>The world produces around 350 million tonnes of plastic waste each year.
>The researchers estimated that about 500,000 metric tons of plastic end up in the ocean each year,
0.14% vs 90%...

>0.13 of that 0.14% comes from 3 or 4 shitholes

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 00:29:28 UTC No. 16255699

>>16255272
A lot of this shit gets shipped off to other countries like Nigeria to be recycled.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 00:35:52 UTC No. 16255713

>>16255422
And every time it snows, I have to climb on my roof in order to get the snow off. Sounds incredibly dangerous; no thanks.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 00:45:29 UTC No. 16255730

>>16255610
no anon it's not. it's a rightoid that doesn't give a shit about the environment and just wants to tear down green energy initiatives whenever possible. i've seen this play out too many times over the past several years.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 00:47:08 UTC No. 16255732

>>16255730
https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2021/03/31/californias-rooftop-solar-program-collides-with-equity-concerns-1369173

Yearly solar panels on roof tax because rich people using solar panels means poor people gotta pay more to use non-solar panels.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 00:48:19 UTC No. 16255734

>>16255732
Similar response about "rich escaping to mars" nonsense from the left.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 01:30:30 UTC No. 16255802

>>16255607
>year 536
>a mysterious fog rolled over Europe, the Middle East and parts of Asia.
You can still plant crops on the other continents and export them. In this scenario, the solar panels would be useless in the listed continents.
>year 1815
>Like the 1815 Mount Tambora eruption-the deadliest volcanic eruption on record-this eruption was big enough to alter global climate patterns, causing years of famine.
This one was more dangerous.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 01:36:09 UTC No. 16255808

>>16255732
if OP was actually concerned about this, he'd have posted about it but he didn't so as far as i'm concerned you're just trying to make excuses for him.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 01:46:51 UTC No. 16255828

>>16255186
Just throw it in the ocean haha lmao how is this even an issue

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 03:03:46 UTC No. 16255929

>>16255730
>green
>solar panels
choose one

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 03:05:36 UTC No. 16255933

>>16255929
This, if you want an energy source that is truly green, choose one that enhances the atmosphere by adding plant food to it.
Coal, oil & natural gas are the 3 greenest energy sources.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 03:08:36 UTC No. 16255936

>>16255186
Not to mention they put holes in your roof when companies install them. People put these fuckers on their 50 thousand dollar roofs.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 03:11:43 UTC No. 16255941

>>16255604
no proof this ever happened, go back to /x/

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 03:45:31 UTC No. 16255994

>>16255186
>Of the active 416 nuclear reactors, the mean age is about 32 years. Among the 29 reactors that have shut over the past five years, the average age was less than 43 years, Schneider says.
Why do nuclear spergs act like it has some vastly better lifecycle than solar? They hit a huge maintenance wall in their later life.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 05:24:46 UTC No. 16256079

>>16255334
>>16255336
>>16255396
>did not apologize
you narcissistic piece of shit

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 05:31:26 UTC No. 16256090

>>16255941
It’s in the linked article.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 05:41:56 UTC No. 16256102

>>16255713
Eventually you won’t have to.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 06:43:53 UTC No. 16256221

>>16255186
Capitalism and glowniggetry will be the cause of human extinction. The CIA is literally the great filter.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 06:45:26 UTC No. 16256224

>>16255512
CO2 emissions are good. The world is at record low atmospheric CO2 levels. This is bad for life on the planet. All nuclear shills should be forced to store a drum of spent rods in their living room.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 07:33:36 UTC No. 16256270

>>16255336
>>16255396
>>16256079
?? Chill down retard, get a life

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 10:37:37 UTC No. 16256402

>>16255186
When I told this 10 years ago everyone called me a science denier who want to destroy the planet.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 10:56:01 UTC No. 16256415

>>16256402
It's not happening until it's happening. When will you learn?

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 12:19:45 UTC No. 16256506

>>16255620
iodide 131 doesn't exist, its iodine 131 :-). If you were a high IQ individual like the rest of the anons on /sci/ you would know iodine 131 only has a half life of about 8 days, so it doesn't really matter unless the reactor has very recently been operated. The rest of the fission products you listed are longer lived (about 30 years), but they still decay away in a few hundred years which is pretty easy to design a container to last for. If you were smart you would be bitching about Pu-239 since thats the shit that makes nuclear waste dangerous for ridiculous amounts of time. Pu-239 can be re-used as fuel though, there are roadblocks to this but I challenge YOU to tell me what they are!

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 12:29:39 UTC No. 16256524

>>16255186
the only solution is to build csp plants and also use it as an execution method

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 18:13:31 UTC No. 16256939

>>16255186
Hydrogen base economic
>>16243547

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 18:44:33 UTC No. 16257018

>>16255213
Eglin when waste is from MIC

https://www.reddit.com/r/nuclear/comments/bpalxu/what_if_a_nuclear_aircraft_carrier_was_sunk/

Eglin when nuclear waste is from Germany


https://youtu.be/MJWi8VUHUzk?si=aiAzJ-b5WbjTwODX

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 18:52:58 UTC No. 16257046

>>16257018
>Nine nuclear submarines have sunk, either by accident or scuttling
When Russia returns lost land to Germany and Japan?

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 18:59:24 UTC No. 16257067

>>16255186
>solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than nuclear power plants.
And so? Is that a lot?
300 times almost nothing might still be nothing. And nuclear energy is extremely clean.
Not to mention just because nuclear doesn't produce toxic waste, means it doesn't produce other waste, like radioactive.
I bet you could reverse uno and say something similar like "nuclear power produces 1000000 times more radioactive waste" but what's the point, other than manipulating people of course.
btw. You will never ever once in a lifetime get any useful piece information by a fucking tweet. It's a medium tailored by design to spread misinformation. Shit out there requires more nuance than a fucking line of text. Information is boring. If it isn't, it's probably not information.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 19:40:05 UTC No. 16257110

lotta krauts itt

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 20:15:33 UTC No. 16257161

>>16256270
pussy

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 20:18:52 UTC No. 16257168

>>16257161
Good morning element inspecting samefag

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 22:21:50 UTC No. 16257348

>>16256102
minecraft technic pack screenshot

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 03:14:02 UTC No. 16257594

>>16255828
The Chinese already do that

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 03:22:09 UTC No. 16257602

>>16255186
Don't trust the science on this one. We need more solar panels. My bank account thanks you for being fools.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 12:05:23 UTC No. 16258020

>>16255213
Grinded?

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 01:26:28 UTC No. 16259124

>>16255205
>as they continue to blatantly ignore solutions that are not in their master's profit motives.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 02:55:50 UTC No. 16259189

>>16258020
milled*

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 03:28:27 UTC No. 16259239

Perovskites will save us.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 16:52:55 UTC No. 16260011

>>16256506
>there are roadblocks to this but I challenge YOU to tell me what they are!
The most important roadblock is the profit motives of the people who control the politicians who regulate the energy market.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 17:36:48 UTC No. 16260063

>>16255186
1) nuclear powerplants produce basically no toxic waste whatsoever so there's already a disingenuous phrasing to start with
2) Mono/Poly-Si (95+% of all Solar panels) are not even marginally toxic
CdTe might be potentionally problematic, but these aren't all that common
>>16255281
Recycling them back to panels is a foolish errand.
just grind up the panels and add them to steel scrap - silicon is used for alloying spring steel.
Glass will just form slag. Dopants are irrelevant. You would have to ship to processing plant and then to plant making the panels, but almost every country on Earth has several steel foundries that can use it as a raw material.

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 02:33:18 UTC No. 16260562

>>16260063
>1) nuclear powerplants produce basically no toxic waste whatsoever so there's already a disingenuous phrasing to start with
Correct, however coal and natural gas power plants not only produce no toxic waste, they also enrich the atmosphere with valuable CO2 which makes nature healthier and more productive

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 02:41:31 UTC No. 16260569

>>16260063
>no toxic waste
Radioactive things are toxic by definition.

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 03:20:20 UTC No. 16260608

>solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than nuclear power plants.
That was before the striking down of Chevron. This thread aged poorly as fuck.

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 04:13:48 UTC No. 16260653

>>16255186
You fucking retards are worse than jews with how many lies you shit out

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 12:36:17 UTC No. 16261030

>>16260569
That's why we put them in the ground dumbass

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 16:36:58 UTC No. 16261354

>>16255272
You are correct, but it could also be pointed out that nuclear waste need not be an expensive mess and that it might be much easier to change that largely political part.

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 17:55:00 UTC No. 16261551

>>16260562

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 18:02:02 UTC No. 16261574

>>16260562
A jungle is green as fuck and also usually very hot, but the former only because there's a costant influx of nutrients from somewhere else.
Without it, you just increase temperature... on a global scale.

>>16261551
> Implying the greenery in the Carboniferous was the same as the one we have now
> Implying all our ecosystems, including plants, weren't the result of a world coming out of an Ice Age, not out of a Hothouse Age.
Wow, it's almost like fields of science aren't stagnant compartments with no bearing with each other

Anonymous at Mon, 1 Jul 2024 06:56:45 UTC No. 16262534

>>16261574
Plants do better with more CO2 in the atmosphere, not only do they grow faster, but they're all around healthier. Heres some reading, fill yourself in

Anonymous at Mon, 1 Jul 2024 21:35:19 UTC No. 16263353

>>16262534
>but they're all around healthier
Not surprising, plants are currently suffering on the verge of what is pretty much a starvation diet for them in terms of atmospheric CO2.
Things that are starving to death are always more disease prone than they would be on a healthy diet.

Anonymous at Mon, 1 Jul 2024 22:09:59 UTC No. 16263409

>>16255213
You can take all the nuclear waste ever produced worldwide and fit it in that small nuclear waste storage facility in Finland. And still have space for another 100 years.

Anonymous at Mon, 1 Jul 2024 22:11:18 UTC No. 16263411

>>16255383
To really fuck with archaeologists 10000 years from now.

Anonymous at Mon, 1 Jul 2024 23:49:32 UTC No. 16263521

>>16255383
So they don't reflect light. Gotta heat up the earth somehow.

Anonymous at Tue, 2 Jul 2024 07:07:05 UTC No. 16263973

>>16255360
Composite material (fiber glass/carbon sheets + epoxy resin) can't be recycled.

Anonymous at Tue, 2 Jul 2024 07:49:27 UTC No. 16264010

It doesn't matter, nuclear is inevitable, especially once rolling brownouts become more of a norm. Hawaii isn't solving the problem fundamental to variable power sources and increasingly harsh environmental laws in western countries will push them into a corner.

I expect it to be one of the many outcomes of the next major conflict.

Anonymous at Tue, 2 Jul 2024 11:53:44 UTC No. 16264222

>>16255383
optics mostly, people complain if they see waste

Anonymous at Tue, 2 Jul 2024 12:19:02 UTC No. 16264232

>>16257110
Yeah its sad, but the only way to justify their large scale coal is to bash nuclear whenever its mentioned.

Anonymous at Tue, 2 Jul 2024 13:34:40 UTC No. 16264304

>>16255186
how come I never hear about the solar farms that use mirrors anymore? Are they just a lot less efficient and we've abandoned them for photovoltaics? I thought solar panels were just for small-scale use, and the actual farms were supposed to use mirrors. But now it looks like we don't use mirrors anymore and just have photovoltaic farms.

Anonymous at Tue, 2 Jul 2024 13:35:51 UTC No. 16264305

>>16264304
>>16255186
or that one farm that had a bunch of mirrors pointing at a giant tower. What happened to designs like those? They should be simpler to manufacture and not have the same waste concerns

Anonymous at Tue, 2 Jul 2024 13:40:11 UTC No. 16264309

>>16255186
>300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy
By mass or what? Do radioactive isotopes count 1:1 with simple toxic metals like cadmium? It sounds like AGWD "science" to me.

Anonymous at Tue, 2 Jul 2024 13:47:43 UTC No. 16264313

Isn’t nuclear energy supposed to be clean with minimal, dense ass waste?

Why isn’t the whole world converting to it?

Why is China still burning coal?

Anonymous at Tue, 2 Jul 2024 13:51:16 UTC No. 16264314

>>16264313
>Why is China still burning coal?
Because they’re bastards. Because shit nations like Canada can’t do basic math. “We’re doing our part! :)” says the nation that barely puts out 1-2% of world sick.

Anonymous at Tue, 2 Jul 2024 14:23:00 UTC No. 16264337

>>16255213
typical midwit
>>16255575
its literally a few reinforced coffins that could fit in any garage LMAO

Anonymous at Tue, 2 Jul 2024 14:24:54 UTC No. 16264339

>>16255659
SEA means south east asia

you might be mentally retarded
actually you are more likely just a gpt bot

Anonymous at Tue, 2 Jul 2024 14:49:07 UTC No. 16264355

What the fuck is wrong with Asians and waste

Anonymous at Tue, 2 Jul 2024 14:59:35 UTC No. 16264366

>>16260562
Coal produces massive amounts of toxic waste besides CO2.

Anonymous at Wed, 3 Jul 2024 05:10:17 UTC No. 16265482

>>16264366
no it doesn't

Anonymous at Wed, 3 Jul 2024 12:26:13 UTC No. 16265855

>>16264314
You know that the US is the second largest contributor to greenhouse gasses in the world, right? That we currently emit 10-30% of the global emissions and have emitted the most ghgs of any nation cumulatively?

>China
>China
>China
You have to go back.

Anonymous at Wed, 3 Jul 2024 21:32:52 UTC No. 16266667

>>16265855

Anonymous at Wed, 3 Jul 2024 21:39:18 UTC No. 16266679

>>16255186
> waste you can use in construction
vs
> waste you should stay away from
(but then who cares as long as the waste is sent to russia (until somebody bombs the nuclear plant near your own house))

Anonymous at Wed, 3 Jul 2024 21:43:02 UTC No. 16266688

>>16255360
Why not turn them into benches or something?

Anonymous at Wed, 3 Jul 2024 22:11:48 UTC No. 16266754

>>16266667
You have to go back.

Anonymous at Wed, 3 Jul 2024 23:26:15 UTC No. 16266856

>>16266754
动态网自由门 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Free Tibet 六四天安門事件 The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 天安門大屠殺 The Tiananmen Square Massacre 反右派鬥爭 The Anti-Rightist Struggle 大躍進政策 The Great Leap Forward 文化大革命 The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution 人權 Human Rights 民運 Democratization 自由 Freedom 獨立 Independence 多黨制 Multi-party system 台灣 臺灣 Taiwan Formosa 中華民國 Republic of China 西藏 土伯特 唐古特 Tibet 達賴喇嘛 Dalai Lama 法輪功 Falun Dafa 新疆維吾爾自治區 The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region 諾貝爾和平獎 Nobel Peace Prize 劉暁波 Liu Xiaobo 民主 言論 思想 反共 反革命 抗議 運動 騷亂 暴亂 騷擾 擾亂 抗暴 平反 維權 示威游行 李洪志 法輪大法 大法弟子 強制斷種 強制堕胎 民族淨化 人體實驗 肅清 胡耀邦 趙紫陽 魏京生 王丹 還政於民 和平演變 激流中國 北京之春 大紀元時報 九評論共産黨 獨裁 專制 壓制 統一 監視 鎮壓 迫害 侵略 掠奪 破壞 拷問 屠殺 活摘器官 誘拐 買賣人口 遊進 走私 毒品 賣淫 春畫 賭博 六合彩 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Free Tibet 劉曉波动态网自由门

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 02:25:04 UTC No. 16267030

>>16266856
Is it possible for you to be more of a /pol/tard? You have to bo back.

Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 08:42:39 UTC No. 16267393

>>16267030
I was here long before you, back to reddirt (and to china) you have to go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BBSZKDwUmQ

Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:14:07 UTC No. 16267510

>>16255372
There was a guy who did that with uranium to demonstrate how safe it is. It passes through your digestion and you shit it out. The only issue is the radiation from ibside while it' in your body. The guy lives till his 80s long after the demonstration. But yea, plutonium and many other elements that we accumulate are terrible.

Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:39:57 UTC No. 16267538

>>16267393
No you weren't. You have to go back.

Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 13:49:40 UTC No. 16267592

>>16267538
NO U (but you will never get out of here alive)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDa5Mb9XHB4

Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 14:19:18 UTC No. 16267620

>>16267592
You have to go back.

Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 14:29:04 UTC No. 16267632

This thread is pretty stupid, the waste of both is negligible compared to fossil fuels

Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 14:37:57 UTC No. 16267641

>>16267620
-15 social credits
动态网自由门 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Free Tibet 六四天安門事件 The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 天安門大屠殺 The Tiananmen Square Massacre 反右派鬥爭 The Anti-Rightist Struggle 大躍進政策 The Great Leap Forward 文化大革命 The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution 人權 Human Rights 民運 Democratization 自由 Freedom 獨立 Independence 多黨制 Multi-party system 台灣 臺灣 Taiwan Formosa 中華民國 Republic of China 西藏 土伯特 唐古特 Tibet 達賴喇嘛 Dalai Lama 法輪功 Falun Dafa 新疆維吾爾自治區 The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region 諾貝爾和平獎 Nobel Peace Prize 劉暁波 Liu Xiaobo 民主 言論 思想 反共 反革命 抗議 運動 騷亂 暴亂 騷擾 擾亂 抗暴 平反 維權 示威游行 李洪志 法輪大法 大法弟子 強制斷種 強制堕胎 民族淨化 人體實驗 肅清 胡耀邦 趙紫陽 魏京生 王丹 還政於民 和平演變 激流中國 北京之春 大紀元時報 九評論共産黨 獨裁 專制 壓制 統一 監視 鎮壓 迫害 侵略 掠奪 破壞 拷問 屠殺 活摘器官 誘拐 買賣人口 遊進 走私 毒品 賣淫 春畫 賭博 六合彩 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Free Tibet 劉曉波动态网自由门

Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 14:39:51 UTC No. 16267642

>>16267632
Have fossil fuel ever made the whole city to be evacuated?

Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 14:51:51 UTC No. 16267655

>>16267642
Hydroelectric damns have destroyed a few and chemical plants have, so kind of?

Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 15:05:06 UTC No. 16267666

>>16267655
Nobody was speaking about them though.

Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 15:06:57 UTC No. 16267670

>>16267666
Well every few years I hear about some refinery exploding and giving people cancer and there are those coal mine fires that make towns uninhabitable, so thats fossil fuel specific.

Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 15:20:00 UTC No. 16267679

>>16267641
If your cringy spell didn't work the first time then why would it work the second time? You have to go back.

Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 16:32:04 UTC No. 16267759

>>16267679
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDa5Mb9XHB4
动态网自由门 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Free Tibet 六四天安門事件 The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 天安門大屠殺 The Tiananmen Square Massacre 反右派鬥爭 The Anti-Rightist Struggle 大躍進政策 The Great Leap Forward 文化大革命 The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution 人權 Human Rights 民運 Democratization 自由 Freedom 獨立 Independence 多黨制 Multi-party system 台灣 臺灣 Taiwan Formosa 中華民國 Republic of China 西藏 土伯特 唐古特 Tibet 達賴喇嘛 Dalai Lama 法輪功 Falun Dafa 新疆維吾爾自治區 The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region 諾貝爾和平獎 Nobel Peace Prize 劉暁波 Liu Xiaobo 民主 言論 思想 反共 反革命 抗議 運動 騷亂 暴亂 騷擾 擾亂 抗暴 平反 維權 示威游行 李洪志 法輪大法 大法弟子 強制斷種 強制堕胎 民族淨化 人體實驗 肅清 胡耀邦 趙紫陽 魏京生 王丹 還政於民 和平演變 激流中國 北京之春 大紀元時報 九評論共産黨 獨裁 專制 壓制 統一 監視 鎮壓 迫害 侵略 掠奪 破壞 拷問 屠殺 活摘器官 誘拐 買賣人口 遊進 走私 毒品 賣淫 春畫 賭博 六合彩 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Free Tibet 劉曉波动态网自由门

Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 18:28:20 UTC No. 16267889

>>16267759
You have to go back.

Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 19:15:26 UTC No. 16267950

>>16267889
But I'm not from the worst china, you are.

Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 20:34:52 UTC No. 16268057

>>16267950
Go back.

Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 20:36:22 UTC No. 16268058

>>16268057
Good. Don't return.

Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 21:15:43 UTC No. 16268095

there's no plan for recycling batteries either, the best option at the moment is to keep them as less-performant energy storage for power plants. the whole things hangs on an assumption, that there will be a technological breakthrough within the next decade or two.

t. insider

Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 22:07:27 UTC No. 16268150

>>16268095
>there's no plan for recycling batteries either,
Most lead batteries are recycled.
EOL lithium batteries have valuable metals (cobalt, nickel, lithium)

Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 23:17:48 UTC No. 16268209

>>16255186
Don't they recycle old solar panels?

Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 00:02:14 UTC No. 16268263

>>16268057
EV won’t sell?

Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 00:30:25 UTC No. 16268277

>>16268058
>>16268263
You have to go back. This is your last (you).

Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 02:25:05 UTC No. 16268359

>>16268277

Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 03:24:40 UTC No. 16268400

>>16268209
no

Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 04:53:27 UTC No. 16268495

>>16264305
Their ability to flash fry birds flying front of the tower.
Kinda same issue as windmills but with tastier results.

Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 05:00:10 UTC No. 16268500

>>16255256
But how much energy does it take to recycle them?

Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 05:04:04 UTC No. 16268506

>>16255383
Maybe I'm paranoid but there is a chance that it's overall cheaper to just dump them and make a fall guy nobody LLC take the PR hit and make a whole lawsuit circus to cover it up

>"General Electric filed a lawsuit last week claiming that Global Fiberglass Solutions has failed to fulfill its promise to recycle thousands of blades. GE says it paid the company $16.9 million to recycle about five thousand wind turbine blades, but that GFS instead stockpiled them at facilities in Sweetwater and Iowa. “Only after GFS took millions of dollars from GE, did GFS all but shut down its operations without recycling the Blades,” reads the complaint, filed in U.S. district court in New York."

Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 00:43:55 UTC No. 16269747

>>16268500
products made from recycled materials are all low quality/high price. nothing of value is lost by throwing trash in a landfill where it belongs. recycling is always a wasteful effort.

Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 01:26:20 UTC No. 16269775

>>16255360
African children could eat those blades.

Those blades are an excellent construction material. Shipment should be far easier once cut like that it's far easier

Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 01:53:48 UTC No. 16269809

>>16255256
Doped semiconductors are a pain to recycle

Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 12:29:09 UTC No. 16270231

>>16269809
dopped silicon still is far more pure than industrial silicon used to produce new solar-grade silicon

Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 20:04:48 UTC No. 16270670

>>16255186
Pro-Renewable Goblins BTFO.

Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 20:41:31 UTC No. 16270709

>>16264355
God third worlders ruin our oceans

Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 20:59:01 UTC No. 16270726

>>16255213
nuclear waste is put in impenetrable containers and can be stored underground where nothing will ever ever ever ever happen to it. Even breaching those containers in transport with a terrorist attack is very difficult. But if you want to landfill 300 times more trash be my guest

DoctorGreen !DRgReeNusk at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 21:12:25 UTC No. 16270745

>>16255186
>solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than nuclear power plants.
this is obvious
did fools think that those pannels were immortal, indestructible?

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 17:35:41 UTC No. 16271670

>>16270709
China and the rest of Southeast Asia isn't 3rd world. They're high tech nations with advanced economies, China has a space program and nuclear powerplants, there isn't any tech the west has that China doesn't also have.
They just choose not to do anything about their pollution problems because they don't want to devote their financial resources in that direction.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 02:58:08 UTC No. 16272382

>>16255262
https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/04/how-sustainable-is-pv-solar-power/

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 09:19:13 UTC No. 16272620

>>16261551
Don't forget the world isn't just greening, useless permafrost tundra is getting replaced by taiga and Siberia and Canada are becoming more temperate

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 09:26:45 UTC No. 16272626

>>16255278
>making glass, we've mastered that on a massive scale.
No, we haven't, not powered by electricity alone.
There are concept designs being worked on as of 2022, but glass production is still powered directly almost entirely by natural gas
https://www.gw-news.eu/glass/decarbonisation-production-solar-glass-without-natural-gas-green-electricity

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 09:40:10 UTC No. 16272637

>>16272626
It would be dumb to use electricity for glass production as long as there are any fosil fuel powerplants. Let's say glass production uses 40% of the gas energy. While there is a gas powerplant that operates at 29% efficiency. It would be better for the environment to use gas for glass production and focus on replacing that gas poweplant with solar. Only when there is no fosil power plants it makes sense to replace fosils in production.
The same logic with gas (20% efficient) and electric stoves (30% effcient). Somehow dicetly burning gass is considered less efficient than first burning it at powerplant at 30% efficiency and then using as electricity at 30% effciency (9% from burning gas)...

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 10:25:47 UTC No. 16272664

>>16255186
>>16255272
Modern solar panels can be reccled

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 13:44:58 UTC No. 16272790

>>16255205
Really tragedy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HzP4wnyBUs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvmEYESz8Y0

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 16:05:01 UTC No. 16272891

>>16255281
So I guess we are going to ignore all this parts huh

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 16:28:21 UTC No. 16272923

>>16264313
One complication is that nuclear puts out a consistent amount of energy, but the demand varies quite a bit throughout the day. If energy production was 100% nuclear then there would be outages and overages, both of which cause problems for everything connected to the grid. Basically, battery tech is a significant limiter here, like with many other things.

that said, there's not really any reason not to have more nuclear production than we have currently, but we can't switch to it entirely for obvious reasons. Also they take forever to build, being both very complex, and having lots of byzantine bureaucracy to deal with.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 16:33:52 UTC No. 16272932

>>16272923
also, renewables like wind and solar vary quite a bit in their output, for obvious reasons like weather, time of day, etc. Meanwhile fossil fuel energy, like coal and natural gas, can be manually adjusted up or down to match the outputs with the current demands on the system. That's a big part of why they're still around even in places with nuclear and renewables, specifically because they are adjustable and can go up or down as needed.

More and more they're designed for maximum variability for these reasons, because otherwise it puts a lot of stress on their systems. Better battery tech has and will continue to change the whole game, though.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 03:49:00 UTC No. 16273658

>>16272923
>nuclear puts out a consistent amount of energy,
no it doesn't

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 04:15:07 UTC No. 16273678

>>16273658
Yeah, it really does. That why New York commonly gets negative electricity prices with supply exceeds demand. You cannot easily adjust base generators.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 13:28:44 UTC No. 16274098

>>16273658
adjustable nuclear power plants are something they're working on, some are being built right now with the expectation that it'll exist relatively soon, but as far as I know, none exist or are functional yet, in terms of being able to do that without putting way more stress on the whole thing which nobody really wants

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 13:47:50 UTC No. 16274113

>>16264355
Myanmar, Vietnam, Thailand and Brazil will step up Plastic problem

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 14:54:42 UTC No. 16274176

>>16255544
>>16255575
>>16256224
why do normies assume that everyone has the same level of incompetence than them?
https://youtu.be/1mHtOW-OBO4

the waste canisters are not just some random aluminum can they found in a dumpster you shitheads.
I'd gladly store one in my living room for the right price

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 22:44:28 UTC No. 16275172

>>16270709

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 22:59:14 UTC No. 16275204

>>16255512
Why can't they just drop that shit into a deep borehole or a cave in antarctica?

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 00:37:24 UTC No. 16275360

>>16264355
It's how you can have all your cheap gadgets, computers, clothes... you outsourced all manufacturing to countries with no environmental laws or labor standards.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 06:11:46 UTC No. 16275634

>>16255401
The earth is a carcass.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 09:30:14 UTC No. 16275777

>>16275204
There are naturally toxic or radiactive areas. Lakes there kill any bird that land on them. Often it's depleted mines that are filled with water. All of those expired panels can be just dumped there... but how will all the friends and relatives of those im power will make any money by dusposing or recycling solar panels. All those sponsors or green parties want to make money as well.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 09:50:38 UTC No. 16275787

>>16275172
>http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tsunami/indo_1204.html
>Tsunami Event - The Indian Ocean Tsunami, December 26, 2004
I'm no fan of street shitters but posting "jokes" like this which purport to be real doesn't do you any favors.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 15:08:18 UTC No. 16276081

>>16274176
>the waste canisters are not just some random aluminum can they found in a dumpster you shitheads.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident

>muh third world shouldn't have electricity

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:03:39 UTC No. 16276175

>>16275777
I was talking about dumping the radioactive waste, not PV waste

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 04:40:04 UTC No. 16276902

>>16271670
they can afford all that because they don't waste money on idiotic tasks like recycling

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 04:43:34 UTC No. 16276905

>>16255254
any random who sees this will only see it as "solar panel bad" because people don't realize how little waste nuclear energy creates relative to how much power it generates

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 00:56:10 UTC No. 16278080

>>16276081
>beside renewal waste
https://abcbirds.org/blog21/wind-turbine-mortality/

🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 05:32:01 UTC No. 16278269

>>16255254
whats wrong with 'fossil' fuels? they're not limited in supply and they don't generate any pollution

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 07:45:49 UTC No. 16278415

>>16278269
they're owned by retarded countries who can use them as geopolitical weapons?

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 07:48:31 UTC No. 16278420

>>16271670
>China and the rest of Southeast Asia isn't 3rd world
China was never 3rd world. They always were 2nd world. This whole categorization is not about economic development but political alignments (The West, the Commies, and the rest), you should educate yourself and stop using it wrong.

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 13:45:05 UTC No. 16278741

>>16278269
Misinformation
>>>/pol/473836402

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 13:47:09 UTC No. 16278746

>>16278741
>Misinformation
>link to /pol/
wew

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 19:03:41 UTC No. 16279146

>>16255205
You don't understand.
They are lying and want to destroy the environment.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 02:33:00 UTC No. 16279734

>>16278741
>>>/pol/

Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 05:31:27 UTC No. 16279927

>>16279146
urbanites wouldn't choose to live in the most unnatural and distant from nature environments if they actually liked nature

Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 08:47:33 UTC No. 16280044

>>16255186
>launch it into the sun
that takes care of that.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 17:45:04 UTC No. 16280404

why?

Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 19:13:06 UTC No. 16280536

>>16267510
>There was a guy who did that with uranium to demonstrate how safe it is. It passes through your digestion and you shit it out
post proof of you doing it or shut the fuck up, lying bot

Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 06:50:17 UTC No. 16281070

>>16280536
I haven't been able to find the original footage of it on youtube (I do remember seeing it at some point) but here is a stupid youtube short that edits in the footage
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/v4SpvBXjR2Q
He was careful to eat uranium oxide which is relatively inert, so he would shit it out. Uranium metal or something more chemically active might absorb into the body and give cause something resembling lead poisoning. Uranium itself is pretty weakly radioactive so he would shit it out or get heavy metal poisoning before he accumulated enough to cause issues

Anonymous at Mon, 15 Jul 2024 03:21:39 UTC No. 16281922

>>16279146
the savior complex twats lie constantly because they see it as their best possible means of seizing political power for themselves.
that they don't see any possible way of themselves earning power through honest means is them as much as admitting that they know that they are worthless losers who should never be paid attention to

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 05:02:07 UTC No. 16283178

>>16281922
They lie because they're disconnected from reality too. Mentally ill people are not capable of discerning truth or speaking truth, they live in a delusional state that they confuse with reality

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 20:34:22 UTC No. 16284043

>>16255186
>solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than nuclear power plants.
Garbage
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/38844/do-solar-panels-create-300-times-more-toxic-waste-per-unit-of-energy-than-nuclea

Anonynous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 14:01:49 UTC No. 16285003

>>16284043
>stackexchange
You may as well have linked to a post made by your reddit account where you say "DEBUNKED!"

Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 14:21:33 UTC No. 16285039

>>16255186
Ocean thermal energy conversion produces how much?

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 07:26:11 UTC No. 16286153

>>16281922

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 09:23:07 UTC No. 16286540

>>16286153
kek

🗑️ visit soygem.party at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 09:24:10 UTC No. 16286544

>>16286153
Tate lost

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 10:36:52 UTC No. 16286820

>>16285003
Stackexchange is far from good but it is still miles ahead of Reddit. I just cannot stomach that site, and invariably when searches lead me to that site it ends up as a total wste of time. I don't have, never had and never will want an account there.

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 10:55:50 UTC No. 16286876

>>16260562
Based.

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 10:59:31 UTC No. 16286888

>>16261574
it'll be fine. There's plenty of plants which are already evolved for such conditions. It's like the coral dying in place X, just get coral from the red sea which is already adapted to hot temps and spread it elsewhere.

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 11:00:52 UTC No. 16286891

>>16264304
could be efficiency problem. Personally my bet's on the fact they're easier to make so the kikes don't want people being less dependent on advanced industry

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 14:53:29 UTC No. 16287279

>>16275360
What manufacturing did I outsource to india? Take your meds npc.

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 15:52:35 UTC No. 16287361

>>16264305
Uh they didn't? pvs just scale (up and down) much better and fits more situations so it's about 100x more popular.

Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 06:02:07 UTC No. 16288124

>>16275360
>you outsourced all manufacturing to countries with no environmental laws or labor standards.
wall street jews in new york did that, they don't post on this board. try /biz/ if you want to address them

Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 06:53:31 UTC No. 16288155

>>16288124
Finding a rich person on /biz/ is like finding a smart person on /sci/

Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 07:55:47 UTC No. 16288188

>>16255262
>Could you build a solar panel factory powered only by solar panels?
this, wouldn't a solar power panel factory, located in Arizona let's say, and powered entirely by solar panels, be able to compete with Chinese factories and be the best candidate to survive a potential ROI crisis and continue to provide the US "energy sources" (the panels it produces) even if petroleum got scarce?

Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 08:03:47 UTC No. 16288193

>>16255530
I'm with you, if the US government announced they were backing the construction of a 100% solar powered factory in the oh so sunny south west that produced large numbers of solar power panels I would support their efforts for the first time in a long time. Getting the raw materials to the factory without using anything but solar might be more challenging as I'm not sure solar charged battery powered trains are going to be a thing anytime soon. Maybe nuclear powered trains could be a thing though and bring the raw materials in and the panels out. Just a thought and it's always good to have a backup plan to the hydrocarbon fueled current setup.

Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 08:16:35 UTC No. 16288195

>>16255360
>>16266688
figure out a way to shelter homeless druggies in them

Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 12:50:51 UTC No. 16288337

>>16288188
You'd need solar panel recycling and electric mining, but yeah

Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 13:11:06 UTC No. 16288354

>what is le recycling?
okay so send them all off to some facility in the third world where a few brown people can breathe in the cadmium dust to save the environment from getting it like we do for car batteries and lead

Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 20:09:11 UTC No. 16288785

>>16255512
nevermind the radioactive waste and contamination from mining and enriching and making the nuclear fuel

Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 20:11:23 UTC No. 16288786

>>16264313
As another said, the Chinese are literal bastards. Like the Jews, except without a soul.

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 01:04:31 UTC No. 16289073

>>16255186
Everything creates more toxic waste than nuclear energy. It's shrimple as that.

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 01:46:01 UTC No. 16289102

>>16255256
There's not much profit to be made by recycling them. So there's not much incentive to do it

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 01:51:35 UTC No. 16289104

>>16288785
uranium is more chemically toxic than radioactively toxic, its more similar to lead contamination than the radioactive spent fuel everyone whines about.

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 21:18:31 UTC No. 16290103

>lets replace nature with toxic chinese plastics that are more profitable
>its only profitable because its government subsidized
>i totally was to do this strictly out of concern for the environment and not to get money
>but i wouldn't do it if it wasn't government subsidized because i wouldn't make money that way
why are environmentalists all so incredibly greedy?

Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 12:04:40 UTC No. 16290763

>>16288354
>cadmium
Cd is used in highly specialised systems such as on satellites and military systems, and is not the problem that the drama queens make it out to be. Most solar panels by far are based on Cd free silicon.

Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 05:10:05 UTC No. 16291804

>>16290103
>I want to destroy the environment because I'm an environmentalist
HONK HONK

Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 21:44:38 UTC No. 16292750

>>16255186
The USA adopting nuclear power would actually be disastrous on a global scale. Their inevitable DEI hires would fuck it up and poison the world's oceans repeatedly.

Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 22:58:03 UTC No. 16294059

>>16292750
the oceans are already massively radioactive, any problems caused by the inevitable DEI driven disasters couldn't cause even a small measurable blip in the amount of radioactive materials dissolved in the oceans

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 18:42:52 UTC No. 16295014

>>16288785
Try again lmao
https://www.energy.gov/articles/energy-department-announces-agreement-sell-depleted-uranium-be-enriched-civil-nuclear
>>16289104

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 04:56:38 UTC No. 16295646

>>16290103
How come no "environmentalists" were building solar farms before it was subsidized?

Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 03:29:31 UTC No. 16296880

>>16295646
because they're greedy and personal financial gain is the only thing that motivates them. making big public claims of altruism is always a disguise for greed

Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 03:34:55 UTC No. 16296887

>>16268506
god that is an incredible business idea.
17 million to keep a bunch of shit in a warehouse.

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 04:35:44 UTC No. 16298431

waste from offshore windfarms now pollute every beach on the east coast of the USA as well as the offshore waters.
nice going """environmentalists""", you fucked up the environment again.

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 03:17:55 UTC No. 16299870

>>16298431
>nice going """environmentalists""", you fucked up the environment again.
They always do. They're all urbanites, they hate nature. If they appreciated nature they wouldn't be living in urban zones hiding from nature

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 22:56:26 UTC No. 16301049

>urbanites
the lowest IQ human subspecies

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 23:05:28 UTC No. 16301060

>>16255386
It's also important to note how artificial restrictions on nuclear and artificial subsidies for solar affect things.

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 23:18:47 UTC No. 16301084

>>16301049
I had 4 years of algebra in public school. College still wanted me to take it and trig again. And just sat in on the finals to test out of them. This is one of the most agitating things I can remember about school. It is snails pace retard fodder.

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 19:09:57 UTC No. 16302235

>>16301084
why did it take you 4 years to learn algebra?

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 01:00:27 UTC No. 16303988

>>16301084
>It is snails pace retard fodder.
the longer they keep you in school, the more money they make

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 17:12:07 UTC No. 16304765

>>16255186
Never go full greenpiss

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 05:15:44 UTC No. 16305511

>>16303988
Also gives them more time to brainwash you

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 06:29:19 UTC No. 16305574

>>16255205
Yes, because as George Orwell accurately identified ages ago, the average leftist (of which the average pseudo-environmentalist is one) is motivated not by benevolence or a desire to improve the state of the world, but my resentment at its perceived unfairness.

The left doesn't want the west to be energy-efficient, it wants the west to suffer and pay for the crime being an economic superpower while other nations failed to adapt or innovate without their help. Not one single wit of "green energy" legislation has been done with the goal of serious effective measurably positive change in mind, it's been done with the goal of handicapping western energy dominance and economic security. There is not an ounce of credible science to support their cult ideas of AGW and carbon danger, and every model constructed has collapsed time and again in the face of real observation.

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 06:42:58 UTC No. 16305585

>>16255732
>being a homeowner and getting cheap subsidized solar panels means you're rich

:/

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 06:50:42 UTC No. 16305594

>>16305574
A lot of people are like that. It's not restricted to any political affiliation or cause. The most telling sign is that they expect you make to make sacrifices while they make no sacrifices of their own or even exploit your time and resources.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 10:46:44 UTC No. 16305717

>>16255205
What do you expect from a movement that has been completely co-opted by jews?

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 10:48:02 UTC No. 16305719

>>16288155
Harsh, but fair.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 11:50:47 UTC No. 16306909

>>16255186
Calm down snowflake, despite what Mega.corp told you, Mineral can be recycled from a pile of rock or from a pile of mineral.
One is Easier™.
The other is is Cheaper™

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 12:13:07 UTC No. 16306939

>>16255186
how is e-waste real nigga, just throw it away

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 05:16:22 UTC No. 16308123

>>16305574
>perceived unfairness.
The whole idea "perceived unfairness" cannot exist without there being a "perceived way things ought to be" and this is one of the many illogics behind atheism. The idea that there is a way things ought to be necessarily implies a belief in God. If you truly believed in evolution then the way things are is always the way things ought to be because the way things are is as was determined via natural evolution, but how could evolution have made a mistake? Its only possible to perceive unfairness if you believe that the way things are is wrong, which implies that nature somehow made a mistake and that it's your job to correct it. Why is it your job? Because not only do you believe in God, but you believe that you are God.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 16:10:11 UTC No. 16308599

Since nuclear power plants create very little toxic waste overall that's still not too bad.

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 04:37:49 UTC No. 16309401

>>16303988
homeschooled kids typically need about 2 hours a day of studying to keep up the same pace of education that public schools provide

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 04:48:05 UTC No. 16309413

>>16264313
>China intends to build 150 new nuclear reactors between 2020 and 2035, with 27 currently under construction and the average construction timeline for each reactor about seven years, far faster than for most other nations.
>Overall, analysts assess that China likely stands 10 to 15 years ahead of the United States in its ability to deploy fourth-generation nuclear reactors at scale.
https://itif.org/publications/2024/06/17/how-innovative-is-china-in-nuclear-power/

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 10:59:19 UTC No. 16309630

>>16264355
Why at this point are we still so addicted to plastic? Given the toll it's having not only on the environment but our health (in the form of microplastics), why can't we make a concerted effort to switch to biodegradable alternatives? What an abysmal legacy as a species: just a thin stratum of plastic

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 00:17:57 UTC No. 16310383

>>16305574
Uncle Ted called it out too. Crazy how smart people just recognize these crazy patterns in society. Must be a coincidence.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 01:07:03 UTC No. 16310425

>>16275204
Why can't they just securely store it in the 1,000,000 year vault in Yucca Mountain?

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 01:45:49 UTC No. 16310465

>>16309630
What are you imagining that microplastics are?

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 01:59:44 UTC No. 16310469

>>16264355
A lot of low tech manufacturing happens in SEA. Things like bicycles, etc. Of course they receive raw materials in plastic packaging. And into the SEA Sea it goes.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 05:48:17 UTC No. 16310614

>>16255383
there's more wind down there

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 09:11:21 UTC No. 16310724

>>16256090
>another hand touches the beacon

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 09:15:28 UTC No. 16310728

>>16305594
you sound like a leftist who still hasnt accepted reality because your attached to the label/group

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 13:08:38 UTC No. 16310863

>>16298431
>oh no not the easily collectable biologically inert shit washing up on the shore! I miss the days when we had oil spills at least THOSE weren't as bad for the environment as a piece of plastic!

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 13:12:07 UTC No. 16310865

Funny all the retards who go BUT SOLAR PANELS REQUIRE CO2 EMISSIONS TO MAKE!!! always ignore the amount of co2 emissions and environmental damage that result from uranium mining. People just assume you dig a tunnel to a huge underground glowing rock and hit it with a pickaxe and scoop up the glowing pebbles and throw em in a furnace 100 meters away.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 16:08:14 UTC No. 16311001

>>16310865
Then you realize that 3/4 of the world's uranium is in the Australian outback where the environment is shit and would only be improved by being destroyed

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 19:17:05 UTC No. 16312510

>>16311001
adding CO2 to the atmosphere makes previous barren an uninhabitable locations fertile because plants need less water to survive in a CO2 enhanced atmosphere

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 23:39:45 UTC No. 16312779

California strips government subsidies for solar power
https://dailycaller.com/2024/08/06/solar-sunpower-california-bankruptcy-subsidies/

Anonymous at Wed, 7 Aug 2024 00:59:39 UTC No. 16312845

>>16255205
Many of them would rather keep existing coal plants running and lobby for solar & wind or bust, over allowing any sort of nuclear power plant to be built. Just ignore all of the radioactive material emitted by coal power straight into the atmosphere.

Anonymous at Wed, 7 Aug 2024 22:44:49 UTC No. 16314226

>>16310865
Not only that, but people forget they only have a 10-25 lifespan. Where do people think those batteries and panels will end up -- along with the huge amount of toxic elements used to create them?

Anonymous at Wed, 7 Aug 2024 23:18:09 UTC No. 16314301

>>16314226
>Not only that, but people forget they only have a 10-25 lifespan.
https://www.marketwatch.com/guides/solar/how-long-do-solar-panels-last/
>According to the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), solar panels last between 20 and 30 years. Some well-made panels may even last up to 40 years.
>Though solar panels won’t simply stop working after 25 years, their power production and efficiency will decline, meaning they’ll be less effective at converting the sun’s energy into power for your home. This decline in effectiveness is known as the solar panel degradation rate.
>A 2015 study conducted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) found that solar panels have an average degradation rate of 0.5% per year. This means that if you’ve had your panels for four years, your energy production will be 2% less than when you installed them. After 20 years, your energy production will be 10% less than when you got your panels.
Are you ignorant or a liar?

Anonymous at Thu, 8 Aug 2024 19:19:41 UTC No. 16315509

>>16314301
>according to the people who sell solar panels, solar panels are good and they last a long time so you should buy them.
you're quoting a paid advertisement

Anonymous at Thu, 8 Aug 2024 20:24:04 UTC No. 16315582

>>16315509
Alright, post any source that says they completely stop working after 10-25 years or a source that cites a different degradation rate. Surely you weren't just making things up and this will be a trivial task for you. I don't know why you didn't post your source already if it really exists.

Anonymous at Thu, 8 Aug 2024 20:56:10 UTC No. 16315610

>>16314301
>>A 2015 study conducted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) found that solar panels have an average degradation rate of 0.5% per year. This means that if you’ve had your panels for four years, your energy production will be 2% less than when you installed them. After 20 years, your energy production will be 10% less than when you got your panels.
NTA but this is disingenuous and misleading, because the panels are only starting life at around 20-25% efficiency. Losing 10% efficiency is therefore around a 50% drop in absolute performance.

Or are solar generation companies and panel owners replacing their panels after 20 years for no reason, because they just love to spend money unnecessarily?

Anonymous at Thu, 8 Aug 2024 22:29:08 UTC No. 16315721

>>16315610
It's not misleading, you're just low IQ

>Or are solar generation companies and panel owners replacing their panels after 20 years for no reason, because they just love to spend money unnecessarily?
Profit maximization. Homeowners tend to keep their panels longer.

Anonymous at Fri, 9 Aug 2024 08:38:43 UTC No. 16316512

>>16315721
If the statement wasn't designed to be misleading, it would have made clear that a 10% drop in efficiency is around half of the solar panel's productive capacity lost.
Losing half of your panel's productive capacity is pretty major, and would clearly necessitate replacement in most circumstances.

Anonymous at Fri, 9 Aug 2024 08:46:01 UTC No. 16316518

>>16314301
>After 20 years, your energy production will be 10% less than when you got your panels.
This isn't misleading, if >>16315610 is correct, it's a straight up lie. It's mixing up solar panel effiency % with energy production. A 10% decline in efficiency equates to MUCH more than a 10% drop in energy production.

Anonymous at Fri, 9 Aug 2024 13:27:48 UTC No. 16316782

>>16316512
>>16316518
Like I said, you're just low IQ. Everyone else is perfectly capable of reading and interpreting sentences.

Anonymous at Fri, 9 Aug 2024 18:02:18 UTC No. 16317328

>>16316782
Oh yea, people have the common knowledge that solar panels have the effciency of 20%. Every retatd know that.
No, when it said that something is decreasing by 0.5%, people automatically assume it's from 100% to 99.5%. You need to provide a context. Because different solr panels have different efficiency.
Besides 30 years ago there was no 20% efficient solar panels. It was around 10%. So it was going to near zero in 20 years....

Anonymous at Fri, 9 Aug 2024 18:18:36 UTC No. 16317357

>>16317328
All of that is common knowledge. You're just proving that you're low IQ.

Anonymous at Fri, 9 Aug 2024 18:54:07 UTC No. 16317394

>>16317357
>After 20 years, your energy production will be 10% less than when you got your panels.
If everyone knows that, this is an outright lie.
A 10% drop in panel efficiency is around a 50% drop in electricity production.
On the other hand, if the author of this article is under the impression that panels begin at 100% effiency, then their extrapolation between panel effiency and energy production makes sense.

But thanks for proving that you're not discussing anything in good faith.

Anonymous at Fri, 9 Aug 2024 18:56:39 UTC No. 16317403

>>16255334
Isn't lead a "toxic heavy metal"?

Anonymous at Fri, 9 Aug 2024 19:06:18 UTC No. 16317424

>>16314301
Funny how you ignore the rest. Shill behavior at its finest. Then you quote an ad? lol

>Where do people think those batteries and panels will end up -- along with the huge amount of toxic elements used to create them?
On top of what this anon said, are people aware of the ecological disaster that mining rare earth metals creates? How about the massive amount of oil needed to create all the plastics for these things, too?

Even if you doubled the life expectancy of solar panels and "clean batteries" for cars, where do you think all that shit will end up?

Anonymous at Fri, 9 Aug 2024 19:09:48 UTC No. 16317433

>>16317394
>But thanks for proving that you're not discussing anything in good faith.
They never do, because their motivations are ideological and political. They believe what they do because they're told to. They don't actually have an interest in the truth and the effects of things, they're just useful idiots doing what helps them match their "side."

Anonymous at Fri, 9 Aug 2024 19:44:45 UTC No. 16317488

>this thread is still alive
/sci/ - Eternal LARP

Anonymous at Fri, 9 Aug 2024 20:27:29 UTC No. 16317552

>>16317394
>>16317424
>>16317433
Low IQ and mad about it. That's the reason you always feel confused and are convinced that everyone is tricking you.

Anonymous at Fri, 9 Aug 2024 21:29:09 UTC No. 16317638

>>16317394
>A 10% drop in panel efficiency is around a 50% drop in electricity production.
>But thanks for proving that you're not discussing anything in good faith.
why are people (or bots) in this board so malicious? why do they make up shit like this? what's the point of this?
panels come with datasheets and you can actually check that info in the manuals, and there are tons of comparisons out there.

Anonymous at Fri, 9 Aug 2024 22:49:33 UTC No. 16317741

>>16317638
Lmao your pic is literally a marketing graphic from a solar comparison website. See the label "Guide only, refer to manufacturer specifications"? It's not a graph representing real world data measuring the actual decline in actually installed panels. It's a marketing tool to try and convey an idea, and it appears to be making the same mistake of mixing absolute and relative % changes in performance.
And you have the nerve to call anyone low IQ.

sage at Sat, 10 Aug 2024 00:10:01 UTC No. 16317890

>>16317741
not even your math make sense
>10% off of 100 is 50
plus obviously if a company, ANY company, even resellers and installed like Tesla, lied about panel specs (which are regulated), they would get sued yesterday
I still want to know why (You) are shilling against solar energy, because no one who knows basic math and physics would do so, and I seriously doubt you are just a dedicated troll

sage at Sat, 10 Aug 2024 00:12:02 UTC No. 16317898

>>16317638
>>16317890
also, you can read and even watch a LOT of reviews from people that buy used solar PV panels.
this is like getting paid to make up whole alternate reality.

Anonymous at Sat, 10 Aug 2024 07:21:56 UTC No. 16318333

>>16317890
Companies always lie and get away with it. You are not going to spend thousanda in courts because of your 5k aolar panels.
On top of that, they can tell you stats for perfect conditions in a lab. For example perovskite are cheaper, have higher efficiency and don't degrade in perfect lab settings. The issue is that in the real environment they don't last even 5 years. They aren't obliged to tell you that it's perfect enviroent. Just have it mentioned somewhere in a barely readable text. Same will be for tesla batteries. When it's below zero they lse capacity and when it's -25 they don't work at all. But tesla doesn't bother to mention that. Heat also effects them.

Anonymous at Sat, 10 Aug 2024 07:26:03 UTC No. 16318336

>>16317488
Spambot keeps these threads bumped

Anonymous at Sat, 10 Aug 2024 07:26:41 UTC No. 16318337

>>16317552
Not an argument. Essentially a childish "ur dumb!"
The last resort of an actual potato who has nothing else.
Consumerism has cucked your brain.

Anonymous at Sat, 10 Aug 2024 07:30:28 UTC No. 16318342

>>16317638
This is the solar equivalent of "safe and effective."

Anonymous at Sat, 10 Aug 2024 07:45:28 UTC No. 16318351

>>16317552
Calamal, the candidate for tge us president, thinks that save in cloud actually save data somewhere beyond physical world in a cloud in the sky... in india you are a legitimate engineer if you know what word "percentc means.
You are delusional about the common knowledge. You have to be an indiot not to understand other people and what something you say means for them.

Anonymous at Sat, 10 Aug 2024 12:16:44 UTC No. 16318482

We have a windy space filled with water with electrolytes called the sea but we can't generate cheap energy.

Anonymous at Sat, 10 Aug 2024 12:22:25 UTC No. 16318490

>>16318337
Well what do you want me to say? You're complaining about arithmetic that you should have learned in middle school and pretending that a search engine takes a degree to operate. Have you ever seen Forrest Gump? Stupid is as stupid does, and you does stupid better than anyone ITT except maybe this guy >>16318351

Anonymous at Sat, 10 Aug 2024 12:27:41 UTC No. 16318499

>>16255205
>implying that they're not doing it to make people miserable and generate profit (via inefficient, costly """""""""""""""""""""'solutions")

Anonymous at Sat, 10 Aug 2024 14:44:00 UTC No. 16318643

>>16318490
posting an ad isnt "arithmetic" its being a retard. project your own habits and stupidity elsewhere.
you even think in consumerism quotes like a fucking loser. just ignore anything inconvenient. the tv said it so it must be true!

Anonymous at Sun, 11 Aug 2024 08:06:38 UTC No. 16319632

>>16318499
this, they don't want solutions (not that there is a problem to begin with)
they want a specific solution which personally enriches them

Anonymous at Sun, 11 Aug 2024 08:10:26 UTC No. 16319636

>>16263409
>You can take all the nuclear waste ever produced worldwide and fit it in that small nuclear waste storage facility in Finland. And still have space for another 100 years.

You can fit the entire Chernobyl power plant and all the irradiated buildings and soil from the surrounding area in there eh?

Anonymous at Sun, 11 Aug 2024 08:19:06 UTC No. 16319643

>>16319636
That stuff is not nuclear waste, it's mildly radioactive contamination.
If we're counting that kind of thing, look what lithium and cobalt mining does to the environment.

Anonymous at Sun, 11 Aug 2024 08:22:57 UTC No. 16319648

>>16319643
>That stuff is not nuclear waste
Yes it is.
>look what lithium and cobalt mining does to the environment.
look what uranium mining does to the environment.

Anonymous at Sun, 11 Aug 2024 08:44:58 UTC No. 16319659

>>16319648
How much uranium do we require compared to rare earth metals for the "green" movement?
Your deflection is stupid and silly.

The difference in quantity needed is like comparing a firefly to the sun.

Anonymous at Sun, 11 Aug 2024 08:53:35 UTC No. 16319673

>>16319659
>do we require
>quantity needed
Oh yeah I forgot, the economy stops when we have what is "required"
Fossil fuel shills make me laugh when they pretend to care about the environment.

Anonymous at Sun, 11 Aug 2024 09:08:09 UTC No. 16319682

>>16319673
Nice deflection. Wouldn't want to risk your anonymous image by saying you didn't consider something. Better to protect your fragile ego and then create delusions about people you've never met to feel better.

Anonymous at Sun, 11 Aug 2024 09:28:15 UTC No. 16319690

classic nuclear power
>highest and cleanest energy output
>spent fuel is compact and stored safely
>can be recycled or used in new molten salt reactors
>it just works

solar panels
>baby tier energy output
>only works when the sun is up
>gets worse over time
>into the landfill it goes

Anonymous at Sun, 11 Aug 2024 10:09:28 UTC No. 16319704

>>16319673
>anons arguing in favour of more nuclear energy
>FOSSIL FUEL SHILLS
ironic because it was vested fossil fuel interests that funded and supported anti-nuclear movements in the west and promoted solar + wind as alternatives, because a grid with solar + wind always needs backup capacity of fossil fuel power generation

Anonymous at Sun, 11 Aug 2024 14:16:54 UTC No. 16319950

>>16319704
>grid with solar + wind always needs backup capacity of fossil fuel power generation
Trivially incorrect. A global, high voltage DC super grid could provide solar or wind power year round. The sun is always shining somewhere and as a result the wind is always blowing somewhere. Nuclear just sucks. It's expensive, it's not renewable, and there will be better uses for it as our technology advances than running your toaster, so it shouldn't be squandered on marathons of skibidi toilet.

Anonymous at Sun, 11 Aug 2024 16:50:57 UTC No. 16320169

>>16319950
>bro just build a worldwide power transmission system interlinking all nations!
What an insane hypothetical. No such infrastructure to transmit power globally exists. Until we have high voltage DC lines across the Atlantic and Pacific, capable of transmitting an entire continent's electricity needs, renewable capacity must always be backed up by fossil fuel capacity.
It's very well and good to talk about how renewables "could" be managed in the far future, but in the here and now, every kW of solar needs a kW of gas or coal capacity as insurance.