/sci/ - Science & Math

Because devout environmentalists are using that meme to fill the evolutionary hole left behind when they abandoned traditional religion.

Unless you've got a better memeplex that scratches the itches of imminent apocalypse, original sin, novel sin from an outgroup, tithing/pious sacrifice, and dietary restrictions, it's not a "problem" you're supposed to solve.

>>11645537
Because the lizard people who control the world don't want it any colder, it needs to be at least 70c everywhere

>>11645547
Basically imagine asking "If Christians all want to go to heaven, and the bible says heaven is in the sky or, like Dante says, among the planets, why don't they just build some rockets? That's way faster than a lifetime of prayer."

>>11645537

1) The dictators and corporations who currently control the world's power supply through fossil fuels would be btfo
2) The permanent UNSC members would lose their monopoly on nuclear force, and with it, their global hegemony

>>11645537
The waste they produce and the damage that occurs when they lose control. Fukushima was and is a huge blow to nuclear energy's potential.

>>11645537
Because nuclear power doesn't exist. They wouldn't just call their own bluff, would they?

>>11645537
See all those radioactive toxic greenhouse gas co2 fumes being spewed out from the nuclear power plant in your pic?

That's why.

>>11645722
that's steam nigga

>>11645722
You are functionally retarded

>>11645722
Fucking water vapor from steam turbines being driven by the heat of the reactor, brainlet.

>>11645537
- nuclear is more expensive then everything else
- huge upfront investment
- takes decades to build
- high risk investment
- not enough uranium to build more
- not popular

if you want to stop global warming just put solar on your roof, it's a quick solution, affordable and even an good investment

>>11645723
Yes and water vapour is the biggest contributor to the greenhouse effect

>>11645537
Because they're uneconomical

>>11645537
Because leftists don't actually care about global warming, they want to condition people to their ideals.

>>11645883
Not how it works matey, also many new nuclear reactors don't really use those old cooling towers anymore

Because the green movements everywhere were born to oppose nuclear power.
It would go against their ideology to acknowledge it as a viable option now.

>>11645537
Nuclear power is not considered green power and it's not considered renewable. Nuclear power is considered somewhere in the middle.

To produce nuclear power they must use fossil fuels. So it's not independent on fossil fuels.

Until billionares will profit from fossil fuels, woodchips, solar panels and wind turbines they will less care about nuclear power.

>>11645537
Because of idiots like >>11646095 and >>11645864 who spread blatant misinformation about it.

They don't want an actual solution. They want a problem that they can rage against all their lives without making a dent on it. Nuclear represents an actual solution to the problem, therefore it's not acceptable.

>>11645537
The idea that we need to 'deal' with global warming is retarded. We live in an interglacial period and we have 2K years max before the ice sheets start coming back. We need to get off this rock by then because most of what we consider the western civilization will be covered by glaciers.

>>11645722

>>11645629
Shit take by the resident plebbit poster
Make a list of deaths due to nuclear power, you can even multiple it by 10. Do the same for fossil energy.
What numbers you get ? Fuck you

>>11646182
This. Its a total load of shit

>>11646132
Actually >>11645864 has come closest to answering OP's question correctly (despite being completely wrong about uranium scarcity).

Nuclear power is an expensive option, both in terms of build cost and waste management cost. It does make economic sense in some situations, but it's a niche solution and general quite controversial. Solar/wind and batteries work out cheaper in much of the world.

>replace global warming with cancer
nice brain, op

>>11646641
But it doesn't?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

>>11645537
Ok but they all will be within 100km of your house.

>>11646733
Cherrypicking article. Also I'm talking about radiation not radioactive waste.

>>11646516
Batteries cheaper? lmao

Solar/wind is "cheaper". You need backup generators that are not used 2/3 of the time and you have to pay. In the end it is more expensive.

>>11645537
we could, but humanity fell for the radiation = bad meme due to propaganda pushed by the fossil fuels industry then co-opted by the anti-nuclear weapons movement and later the environmental movement.

>>11646779
Assuming you are not just a troll, how do you think radiation exists in the first place if not for radiactive waste? No radiation worth mentioning goes beyond the nuclear reactor itself, the problem is if radioactive particles are set loose on the environment.

>>11645722
that's hot water