/sci/ - Science & Math

>I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
I'm not touching this one...

so how long are you people gonna keep on fooling yourself into thinking this isn't a problem before you realize there's a serious problem here?

People are stupid. Get over it.

Tokyo lost 30% of its power from these reactors breaking down. I don't know how they are going to get that power back. It will take a long time to build new reactors - and the public will be very opposed to building new nuclear reactors.
Japan will not run as it did before for a very long time.

Protip: People are fucking retarded.

>>2707203
Lol all three reactors are at atmospheric pressure and under 100 degrees Celsius.

Crisis fucking averted.

>>2707203
The only serious problems here are the future finances of TEPCO and the tarnished image of nuclear energy.

But there is a problem. You guys are all in denial because of your bias. You're wrong, admit it. At least 50 of the people who are still working at the plant might vary well die.

Most of my family members have jumped on this bandwagon a loooong time ago.

Usually I try to keep low-key that I support nuclear power. A friend just today suggested that we tear down all nuclear reactors and put up Solar collectors in their place. A solar plant of maybe three or four times the size of a Nuclear plant that will generate maybe 1% of the total output.

But then things like this happen and it really does make me look like an idiot. I'm fairly sure that the constant problems coming from this plant are the result of gross incompetence somewhere up the line. I just can't picture how many things could go so wrong all at one time several times in a row for this to happen without someone somewhere simply not doing their job.

It'll only prime the market for thorium slurry reactors. Impossible to melt down, cheaper fuel, easier to handle waste, and safer overall.

>>2707230

And many tepco executives may still commit seppuku

>>2707230
>But there is a problem. You guys are all in denial because of your bias. You're wrong, admit it. At least 50 of the people who are still working at the plant might vary well die.
Ontop of the tens of thousands dead from the tsunami. Hell the nuke plant was the safest place to be when it hit.

>>2707234

Oh, I'm sure that months after this is all cleaned up we will find out about the incompetence that resulted in these problems.

>>2707208
>these reactors breaking down

Nothing has happened to the reactors. Every single reactor in the affected radius shut down just fine, just as it was programmed to do, except this one. These reactors will likely be up and running even before the problem at the troubled plant is resolved. They haven't gone anywhere.

>>2707248
Perhaps it was the enormous fucking earthquake and tsunami which wiped out all the infrastructure needed to keep a nuclear reactor cool.

>>2707251

1, 2, 3 have been flooded with seawater and won't be used again. 4 was on fire today and I'm sure won't be used again. 5 and 6 probably won't be used again because of safety concerns.

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/geiger-counter-chiba

streaming my geiger counter.

not recording anything to write home about yet

>>2707262
Unit 4 reactor was not on fire. There was a fire in the reactor building, and it was successfully extinguished. At most there is some superficial fire damage.

Units 5 and 6 were already shut down for inspection. It will be expensive, but not difficult, to repair any damage caused by the earthquake and tsunami.

>>2707300
microsieverts? still way above average

>>2707300

How far from Fukushima are you?

>The gutter press are whipping up an absolute furor, and the masses are lapping it up, all of whom don't have the first clue about fission reactors.
As much as people keep saying this, I really don't see it happening. Most major news outlets seem to be ending their articles with a counterpoint describing how useful nuclear energy is.
There was a Fox News article which used it as a thinly veiled attack on Obama and his "reckless pursuit of potentially dangerous nuclear energy", but could we have really expected otherwise? And their MAIN article on the event doesn't seem notably anti-nuclear

>>2707317
Going by Google maps, Chiba is a bit over 200km from Fukushima.

You can use geothermal power, or the heat of the sun to split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen for power.

We don't need fission for power, the military uses the plants to produce material to make bombs.

Yes fission power is mostly safe, but it's a risk we just don't need to take.

>>2707248
>we will find out about the incompetence that resulted in these problems.
Unfortunately, we might not. Japan has an unspoken policy of quietly retiring disgraced and inept officials instead of exposing their failure and punishing them.

But something this big? Maybe that'll change.

>>2707322

A small counterpoint at the end doesn't counter 24/7 doom mongering coverage with anchors constantly speculating and twisting the words of experts

Morons have already come to their conclusion, they're only going to accept whatever reinforces their standpoint.

>>2707344
>>2707344

This.

Enjoy the artificial cost of energy production due to DoD subsidies.

In the meantime I'll be putting up 5MW Wind Turbines and killing a fuckload of birds while pissing off rich folks.

>>2707344

But this will have long-term 'PR' effects on all forms of nuclear energy, not just fission, since the masses don't know the difference or have the first clue.

>>2707344
Hyrdogen degrades metal AKA not good for storage.

>>2707344
>You can use geothermal power, or the heat of the sun to split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen for power.

There is no way at their current technology level these will provide anywhere close to the amount of power fossil fuels and nuclear fuels provide. We need nuclear power to buy us another 50 years to develop economically feasible, truly renewable power technology.

>discussing average energy consumption and whether it was possible to generate enough power for everyone using alternative (non-fossil) fuels. They decided 5kW was a good average power consumption figure per person (Americans use considerably more than this, Europeans less, etc) to give everyone a comfortable standard of living. With 6billion of us on the planet, this means we need generating capacity of 30 terawatts (30TW). They set themselves a target to have this in place by 2035, and divvied up the power between all the available forms of alternative energy. Giving one-fifth of the requirement to nuclear power means that we, as a world, would need to build two-and-a-half nuclear power stations every WEEK for the next 25 years. It’s worse for solar power. We’d need to deploy 250 square metres of solar panels every SECOND for the entire 25 years to meet the demand (I think they only gave solar something like 5% of the need). And that’s before they factor in population growth.

We're fudged without fully backing nuclear.

>>2707350
>A small counterpoint at the end doesn't counter 24/7 doom mongering coverage with anchors constantly speculating and twisting the words of experts
Oh, is it the 24/7 news channels pulling this bullshit again? All I've watched is a stream of English dubbed Japanese TV....

Fucking this is what happens when I stop watching TV - suddenly nobodies telling me what to think and I can't fit in with the current manufactured national psyche.

>>2707376

>implying the world's energy future requires helping anyone outside of the US, Western Europe and Japan.
>BRIC nations may disagree, but bloated populations and degenerative eco-systems put the energy future of these nations in permanent jeopardy.

>>2707262
Those reactors were all going to be decommissioned soon anyways. It's a 60 year old plant, older even than the Chernobyl power plant.

If the Japanese people aren't stupid, they'll build a modern Gen III, III+ or IV reactor in place of the 3 old busted reactors, that'll be more efficient, safer, and provide a great deal more electricity.

>>2707356
Are you fucking stupid?
Reactor grade fissile material isn't the same as weapon grade fissile material.
And the isotope refineries are completely fucking separate from the fucking reactor
How fucking dumb can you be?

>i live in so cal...probably wil gain mutant powers...u mad?

>>2707399

Yeah, but how long will it take to build a new one of those? A few years?

Gentlemen, I propose to counter the inevitable PR problem we start referring to nuclear power as subatomic power, and fission reaction to splitting reaction.

Kind of lame, I know, but it's worth a shot.

>>2707401

>Nuclear research is almost entirely subsidized by the DoD
>The mining, transport and control of all operational materials is also heavily subsidized through DoD spending.

Government money keeps the costs of nuclear energy much lower than it should be bub.

>>2707424
+1

That might even work considering how most of the voters are complete idiots on the matter.

Yup. Now Russians are going to become weaboos.

Russians got that nuclear fetish.

See bio-robots.

>>2707431
So?

>>2707399
>60 year old plant
>mfw you can't add up what 2011-1979 equals
problem incestuous offspring tripfag lacking basic math skills?

>>2707431
Same with solar, wind, coal, oil, etc.

The government has a vested interest in making sure that energy is reasonably cheap.

>>2707186

This is great news for chemical engineers asshole.

Future energy crisis?? You don't have the first clue about how energy is extracted from the ludicrous amounts of trash those godless masses generate everyday.

God you theoretical nuclear graduates are so full of yourselves. Never actually have valuable hands-on experience but still talk the talk.

We'll survive with or without you, don't worry.

>>2707445

Certainly, but nuclear energy has to remain a viable energy future for the DoD to function at almost all levels. The subsidies are significantly higher than any other form of energy.

The actual amount of money that is funneled into nuclear research, programs and supplementing the cost of materials is mostly classified information.

If the same amount of money was funneled into massive alternative energy projects, significant gains could be made for production of larger and more cost effective facilities.

Of course it would mean the end of the nuclear navy, but I'm ok with this.

>>2707467

>>2707474

>>2707474
You do know that the DoD is the largest government investor in the development of alternative energy, right?

I'm gonna keep saying it.

GEOTHEEEEEEEEERMAAAAAAAAAAL

>>2707504

>>2707504
>go geothermal
>no thermal vents near the surface where you live

Well shit.

>>2707519
It's simple.
We dig down far enough.

>>2707529
better start digging champ

>>2707498

Of course they are, without oil, we have no tanks, or aircraft.

You can't have a tidal powered submarine, or windturbine aircraft carriers. You can't have Humvees without oil.

They spend billions of dollars on replacement systems and alternative research to maintain their vehicle fleets.

Their research goals are to keep the military functional, not strictly alternative energy research.

You will never get Geothermal research to the levels it needs to be, or photo-voltaic research to where it needs to be if the DoD is the largest contributor to alternative energy research.

The money would be better spent on Wind Turbine deployment.

So, guys. Guys. Whatever happened to those molten salt reactors built and fully tested back in the 60s? Why do I keep hearing crap about "further research needed" when shits already been done?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment

>>2707541
Oh if I can I totally intend to invest in improved drilling technologies. Hopefully nuclear drills which simply melt downwards.

What would happen if you drilled into the Yellow Stone Magma chamber?

>>2707547
People don't actually want nuclear reactors built- ergo they don't get built.
In Japan they don't have much choice, they're planning on putting up Gen IV reactors soon.
Probably replacing the ones that were broken in the earthquake

>>2707579
In that case, why don't I hear any factual publicity campaigns going on? It shouldn't be hard, except for having to dress up the "STOP BEING SCARED DUMBSHITS" part a bit.

>>2707592
Because you're not listening.

>>2707376

You are an idiot.

>>2707597
Care to point me in the direction of a major campaign then? I'm not American, but that shouldn't be a major issue, should it?

>>2707392
>hurrdurr fuck everyone outside of MURRIKA

>>2707602

>>2707547
They built and tested a lot of reactor designs back then. Gas cooled pebble bed reactors were one of the first designs tried. The first electricity generating reactor was a sodium cooled fast breeder reactor. Most of these concepts didn't work that well.

There's a good reason why light water reactors came out on top. They worked better than all the other ideas.

I've got a great idea. We make a HUGE pit; it must be miles deep.

Then we line the walls of the pit with coiled copper wire. Then we take all that money we usually throw into that other big hole, go to the bank and exchange it for pennies, and chuck it down the electric hole.

>>2707653
Pennies are only plated copper.

I think it's hilarious that everyone is so focused on the plant that it seems like the actual tsunami never happened.

There are thousands dead and certain parts are completely obliterated, and all the news wants to report on is a reactor that's not even a threat

>>2707639
Molten salt reactors can't be used to easily make bombs and require on-site fuel reprocessing. Is that it? Are those the reasons?

>>2707673
Its because even today anything with the words nuclear in it turns people into idiots and generates news coverage. Its why the Nuclear Magnetic Resonance machines in hospitals are called MRI, people would freak out if it said nuclear on it.

>>2707697
Microwave ovens were also going to be marketed as 'rad ranges

>>2707711
You could say it's...

RADICAL

YEEEAAA...

no nevermind.

>>2707620

It's funny how numbers work out when you ignore all the pertinent details.

Chernobyl only killed 53 people out of 5 billion.
The threat of nuclear power is low.

this part of history would of done more damage to the environment then any meltdown.

The radiation would of been released directly atmosphere and jet stream increasing its area of coverages.

>>2708423
it a proven fact that cancers rates increased during and after the testing of atomic weapons.
governments around the world have tried to blame the tobacco industry for what is clearly they own doing form sabre rattling.

>Nuclear power plants shut down in Germany
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12745899

And so it has begun.

>>2708478
so if German can shut theirs down so quickly, why can't Japan just turn the fuckers off.

>>2708485
FUCKING EARTHQUAKE

BUILDINGS DESTROYED

HURRDURR DERp o-O

Fukushima is INES 6 now people
expect a couple of hundreds to die from radiation sickness
and the average life expectancy in North Japan to drop to 40

>>2708478
Germany has 17 operating nuclear reactors and receives over a quarter of it's power from them. 7 of those reactors date from before 1980. I wonder if they'll enjoy their blackouts?

>>2708510

Sky news said that 'France had updated it to a level 6'

Only the French authorities updated it to a level 6

>>2708497
>HURRDURR DERp
is the noise you make when munching on my cock.

it seems quite stupid to build a power station that operates with a unstable flue and not cover a worst case scenario.

>>2708510
>couple of hundred?
this.
>>2708413
>Chernobyl only killed 53

>>2708478
It should be noted that Germany has always had an exceptionally strong anti-nuclear lobby. I think it's unlikely for such an extreme knee-jerk reaction to happen in many other countries.

Here in Germany we have now shut down 19 of 36 reactors thanks to tens of thousands of people protesting the streets.

To compensate for our retardation/energy loss we will light up new brown coal facilites to contribute our part to global warming.

It's so infuriating that I don't give a fuck anymore. I'm not gonna have kids to enjoy the fruits of our labor, anyway.

>>2708545
unless its a earth quake prone country... (hopefully)

i can't see what has happened in Japan happen in Germany.

>>2708557
>i can't see what has happened in Japan happen in Germany.

You are the minority, bro.
70% of the german citizen are CONVINCED that a similar accident will happen in Germany

>>2708548
>we will light up new brown coal facilites
Seriously? Is this really the alternative they're proposing?

>>2708583
Russian gas and that is about it.

LOL. The cost of carbon in Germany has already spiked, and will no doubt continue to climb steeply. Guess they will have to pay for their stupidity and fear-mongering.

When I was in France, I read an green advertisement stating that 0.3% of Sahara's yearly solar radiation would suffice for France's energy needs.

>>2707243
>Ontop of the tens of thousands dead from the tsunami.

I'm sure tsunami energy will take a huge hit because of this.

>>2708604
That would be nice if it were true, but unfortunately it's in the fucking Sahara, not France.

>>2708614
Powerlines, how do they fucking work. We ran a god damned phone cable across the atlantic seabed, we can get some power lines from the Sahara to France.

>>2708604
0.3 % is still 13858 km^2 of solar panels

>>2708623
Just imagine the maintenance and losses of such long power lines.

>>2708632
Plus northern Africa isn't exactly what you would call politically stable and safe.

>>2707208

You realise the whole plant was due to shut down this month, right?

And they probably had something else coming online to replace it?

Durr

>>2708468

>implying cancer rates aren't directly linked to the rise of tobacco consumption in the 50's
Boy, you are some special kind of stupid.

>>2708623
Undersea phone lines != power cables.
Herpderp.

>>2708413
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/

>>2708644
Well, actually only unit 1 was set to go offline, but yeah, these reactors were all on their way out.

>>2708644
It was given a 10 year extension.

>>2707504
good idea but how are you going to earthquake proof kilometers long tube in the ground?

>>2707504
No dude.

SOLARSATELITES

>>2708604
>>2708623
One problem with this is the fact that an overwhelming amount of usable energy would get lost in transfer. Solar power is only really efficient if the energy doesn't have to travel great distances.

>>2708732
That never made sense to me. I can't imagine the gained efficiency of space making up for the upfront cost.

>>2708732
> mfw solar satellites would use nuclear power as backup

>>2708747
No problem. I'm just going to need a few beads for the natives.

>>2708772
Backup for what?

>>2708776
Bees?

>>2708786
For when it's cloudy of course. Fucking dumbass liberal hippies, solar this solar that, well what about fucking nightfall?

>>2708838
not every liberal is a hippie. stop being a new faggot.

>>2708838
Nights and clouds in space?

>>2708854
Well, riddle me this fancypants. If all hippies aren't liberals, how does gravity interact with matter?
Checkmate, liberals.

>>2708867
stop being a new faggot, shitdick.

How can people be afraid of fusion research? That like being afraid of an electric heater that is sitting on its own cord in a concrete room.

>>2708786
For when they lose track of the sun

>>2709039
> implying batteries don't exist
also if we have a way to get power down here we have a way to get it up there

>>2708880

Why would a government who is shutting down nuclear plants and making cuts during this financial turmoil then want to go and fund an unproven NUCLEAR technology.

It doesn't matter that it doesn't have the same safety concerns as fission, the masses will think it's exactly the same, since it's nuclear power.

If anything this should start a movement to modernize and/or shutdown all older nuclear plants so they're even safer, but that won't happen.

>>2709108
troll'd hard.

we need nukes, because oil is running out, and climate change is real.

we don't want the waste near us.

we have to send it into space.

if we lose 5 years or 10 years from fear it won't change this picture.

just will suck a bit harder when the oil starts to go.

at which point our invasion of iraq will actually seem pretty cheap compared to the cost of our war with iran and china.

>>2708652
You sir have been trolled.
You must leave the internet immediately, for your own safety.

>>2709127
how do you send it to space?

>>2709130
Launch it with catapults beyond the edge of earth.


Seriously, sending it into space is too risky. Imagine what happens if a rocket explodes in our atmosphere

>>2709144
>Launch it with catapults beyond the edge of earth.
oh wow
10/10

the proven casualty rate from commercial nuclear power is very low.
This issues is and proven by Japan. Is that its uncontrollable once the infrastructure is damaged.
And in the case of a meltdown it leave valuable land uninhabitable.

why dont they just build nuclear reactors in big containment spheres under the sea

Water level at Fukushima Daiichi no.2 reactor is recovering smoothly.
-Reuters

>>2709144
not to mention what is usually sent up will eventually come back down.
could just dump it on the moon, but then we risk making Space 1999 a reality.

>>2709156
I thought they already completely shut down all reactors

>>2709155
cos there is no demand for power under the sea troll.

>>2709164
it takes at least month to shut down a reactor and it still need cooling.

if they build power stations on boats, then it would just float over the weaves.

>>2709165
...well transport the power upwards through wires to the surface, troll.

>>2709164
Yes, the control rods were inserted as soon as the earthquake started. By all the already-produced fission products, like iodine and cesium, still have to decay further. They produce a lot of heat.

>>2709177
do you know how much insulation would be need for those wires?
and replacing them once they corrode?
it would be a logistical nightmare!

>>2709159
Nuclear waste is just unprocessed fuel.

>>2709186
not if we build cities under the sea idot

>>2709155

>suggests putting nuclear reactors in spheres under the sea
>where they are very difficult to reach if something goes wrong
>where the ocean currents could carry the waste products or contaminants (if there is an accident) for thousands of miles
>where we get a lot of food from in the form of fish
>mfw I wonder what's wrong with this idea

maybe if they made power stations smaller?

>>2709192
Brilliant idea.

>>2709186
just have some deep sea divers paint over them with thick waterproof paint every decade or so.
and have the insulation for the wires thick as fuck.

>>2709177

EK, you just got trolled hard.

Wait, I forgot, this will be one of your elaborate schemes, won't it.

>>2709192
if we carry on burning fossil fuels this will become a reality.

>>2709193
nope.jpg

it would all be contained within the sphere. (which walls are thick as fuck and radiation shielded)

>>2709200

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

>>2709193
That's just as silly as an island nation, who is prone to massive waves, and even created the word for them, building nuclear power plants along the coast line.

>>2709211

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

>>2709184
Yes, but the thermic energy that is released decreased exponentially over the time. After some time the released energy shouldn't be sufficient to melt the rods.

>>2709203
ive cut down on the elaborate scheming. i got a fucking 5 day ban just for repeated trolling...

>>2709221
I'm guessing we'll be there in about a week.

>>2709221

Yes, but it takes several days for it to reach safe levels. This is exactly what the problem has been in Japan: cooling them until they reach safe levels.

>>2709211
Why radiation shielded? Water does that job quite handily itself.

Furthermore, we could build them as a distributed complex in several deep trenches and if shit hit the cooling fan, we can collapse part ofthe trench and bury the fuckers under billions of tonnes of rocks and silt. Maybe long enough for it all to get subducted.

>>2709221
>thermic energy

>>2709227

Because you don't contribute. It's what everyone's been telling you.

This is the first thread I've seen you actually say something vaguely useful, but I still think it's a crackpot idea.

>>2709237

Thermic energy is heat. Are you slow..?

>>2709236
radiation shielding just so fish nearby dont get horribly mutated or some shit...

>>2709211
isn't the tectonic plate that is responsible for disaster also located under the sea?

>>2709227
thank you mods

>>2709245
i dont contribute rly?
i wonder how many homework threads have gone unanswered in teh last 5 days or so...
for shame...
u need me, /sci/

>>2709236
>>2709250

There are no fish below around 7000m. However, the cost of getting humans down to 10000m is astronomical. The cost of building sensitive nuclear power plants down there would be orders of magnitudes higher. Do you have a spare trillion dollars or so?

>>2709235
Well, Tepco said this morning that all four reactors in Fukushima Daini were successfully shut down.

Don't know if you can take their word for granted

>>2709249
THERMAL energy, you twot!

>>2709251
...so?

>>2709254
...fucking mods...

>>2709261
who says we have to go that deep?

>>2709258

You're not contributing now, you're talking about yourself. Also, homework threads will disappear if people stop answering them. They are not a good thing.

I've also noticed you get a lot of them wrong, too.

>/sci/ a few days ago
>Lol, a thing like this could never happen in japan

Sure are a lot of self proclaimed experts in here, hmm?

>>2709278
lolno

citation needed.

etc.

>>2709277

Where else are you going to put them where it would be safe?

>>2709258
Have you just been sitting around for 5 days waiting to come back on?
you should of taken the hint and tried living.

>>2709277

Thermal or thermic is acceptable.

>>2709250
Cancer is what makes food taste good. Besides, it's not like a little radiation wouldn't do evolution some good now and then.

>>2709261
Build the reactors at a drydock, float out to sea, fill
ballast tanks and unspool the wire while they go down.

>>2709282

I'll make sure to point it out when I see it. It shouldn't take too long.

why not just build them deep under ground, far more easy then dicking around out at sea.

>>2709314
Because the ground is a bit more viscous than seawater. Granted, only marginally, but still. It would take at LEAST a day for a nuclear plant to sink ten kilometers into the ground.

>build all nuclear reactors in alaska, north/south poles
>safe distance from people
>so cold they never melt down

problem, everyone?

>>2709283
like in space... a giant satelite which contains a nuclear reactor.long electrical wire (insulated obv) linking it to earth even while it is in orbit. send electricity down.

>>2709285
yeh, ive just been sitting around twiddling my thumbs for 5 days...are you fucking retarded?
ive been doing what i always do, except less /sci/ and a bit more xbox, gaming, and socialising.

>>2709295
...no.

>>2709200
why dont we just paint the power stations on land in >thick waterproof paint

>>2709335
>yeh, ive just been sitting around twiddling my thumbs for 5 days...are you fucking retarded?
ive been doing what i always do, except less /sci/ and a bit more xbox, gaming, and socialising.

sounds like a touched a nerve...

how can xbox be any different to gaming? its the same thing isn't it?
and still involves sitting inside playing on a machine... not what i call living.

>>2709335
>a giant satelite which contains a nuclear reactor
Heinlein already thought of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowups_Happen

And you can read what became of it in the later book, To Sail Beyond The Sunset.

>>2709336
painting the stations wont work, i just mean painting the wired insulation so it doesnt corrode.

i watched some documentary about bridges (yeah...fucking bridges...i am so freakin cool! ....)
and they said something about repainting the metal every few years and it resets all corrosion attempts so far...or some shit.

>>2709335

Oh wow, your life sounds fun.

Aren't you supposed to be 25 or something?

You're like the omega of females.

>>2709335

Thermal and thermic are both acceptable. Deny it all you like, but

umad.

>>2709354
...wut?
i deleted the wrong word. it originally said 'reading, xbox, socialising'
and i wanted to change it to 'reading, gaming, socialising' so it was a bit more general.

fucking deleted 'reading' instead of 'xbox'

...fuck.

>>2709335
>like in space... a giant satelite which contains a nuclear reactor.long electrical wire (insulated obv) linking it to earth even while it is in orbit. send electricity down.

If you have the cash to build a satelite nuclear reactor, (which is retarded for obvious reasons) you might as well just build solar satelites

ONCE AGAIN EK RUINS A THREAD GUISE

>>2709364
hey dont knock the life style, i'm 30 and that about all i get up to

>>2709335
>like in space... a giant satelite which contains a nuclear reactor.long electrical wire (insulated obv) linking it to earth even while it is in orbit. send electricity down.

uh so how would this work exactly? Would the tether move with the orbit of the satellite on a rail around the earth? Would the revolution of the earth drag the satellite around? explain please

>>2709370

BACKTRACKBACKTRACKBACKTRACK

>Nuclear powerplant has a mess
>HOLY FUCKING PANIC, FUCK NUCLEAR POWER, NOT SAFE ENOUGH
>Oil company has a massive spill the effects of which are still not fully realized.
>well. . . I guess it's not THAT big of a deal.
mfw animated

>>2709370
EK, you suck AND you wish you were as hot as her

>>2709364
20, not 25.
>implying females dont game

wake up to teh modern world, man.

especially since the fucking wii... my housemates love it, but it's cartoony childish repettetive shite that pisses me off.
i sometimes play with em when im high, but otherwise i prefer my gaming to be a little less retarded.

>>2709369
god tier grammar: thermal energy, endothermic, exothermic

shit tier grammar: thermic energy, endothermal, exothermal, hurr durr- teh stuffs gets hottt!

Ok EK and the rest, less trolling and more on topic, please.

>>2707186
Sure, it reignited fear of all things nuclear. Unfortunately the japs didn't build their boiling water reactors beefy enough. Oh, and what the hell is wrong with them, not having a skylight for Hydrogen dispersion?

Physically, the Fukushima reactors are a loss and will have to be replaced in entirety, radiation danger is minimal.

Politically nuclear power got a kick in the gonads.

>>2709277
>who says we have to go that deep?

She does.

>>2709396

You admitted that you did nothing useful with your life when given the chance. That's omega. It has nothing to do with your gender, but of course you just go OMGICANPLAYTHESEXCARD.

>Implying your opinions on grammar are more important than the OED or Webster's.

>>2709376
fuck you, nig-nog. i'mma contrib00tin' aminot??

>>2709403
not gonna troll, hun. methinks that since-
m00t: hurr durr, i are search 4 janitors, all old janitors now upgraded to mod status...

...means that the cunts are having fun testing out the mighty banhammer, and as such, i had best not be trolling in a nigger thread.

>>2709404
...did you just epically fail a 'thats what she said'?

>>2709415
i do fuckloads useful with my life, why would i bother studying at university if i didnt want to be useful?

we need to get back on to topic.
so i'll start with a joke.

My Japanese girl friend dumped me last night.

But lucky there is plenty more in the sea.

>>2709439

>You're talking about yourself.
>You've not talked about the subject matter for several posts.
>You got banned because you're fucking annoying.
>You're at a shit-tier university that anyone could get into.
>You likely only went due to social pressures.
>I know this because you often get high-school level questions wrong, and think that insane, impractical ideas are good. You demonstrated that in this thread.
Have fun with your meaningless life!

inb4 imma at MIT or some such horseshit.
>That's not contributing.

Why are people focusing on the nuclear power plant when a fucking damn broke in the same region and washed away tons of people and houses.

I don't get it.

>>2709445

i can totally sympathise with most of the people from japan.
after 19 aftershocks i cant find my house either.

>>2709494
I don't get it.

>>2709465
lol, supermad
eat a dick.

>>2709503

I'm guessing it's a drink or something.

>>2709505

Not mad.

Also, nice rebuttal.

I think we can call it a day here.

>>2709508
yes.

>>2709505

WAH WAH GIVE ME MORE ATTENTION WAH WAH

>>2709516
>>2709494
Make a joke that isn't funny with a reference to a girly drink nobody knows.
Good to have you back EK.

>>2709505

Why would anyone be mad that you have a shitty life? Personally, I'm laughing at you and I didn't even write that.

>>2709519
don't worry, samefag. the effects of supermaddery wear off in about an hour. just drink plenty of water and open some windows.

>>2709525
how have you not heard of it?? you have not lived, brah.

>>2709527
>I'm laughing at you and I didn't even write that.
lying samefags gonna lie.

>>2709494
10$ says you didn't come up with that.

>>2709540

Samefag what? No, lots of people hate you.

Also, I'm still not seeing a refutation. You just resorted to a /b/ level insult when someone summed you up in a single post.

>>2707186
>The gutter press are whipping up an absolute furor, and the masses are lapping it up, all of whom don't have the first clue about fission reactors.

sadly, you're not a bit better than them, since you don't seem to have a clue about the composition of available energy. if we REALLY wanted, we could, without a problem, drive our produced nuclear power down by about 90% over the course of 3-4 years and be on ZERO nuclear power in 2020 - WITHOUT a rise of fossil fuel consumption and without ANY power shortage.
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=
1&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bmwi.de%2FBMWi%2FNavigation%2FPresse%2Fpressemitteilung
en%2Cdid%3D262826.html&act=url

if your argument is that it's a cheap power source: invalid, the consumer pays the price of eco-power, even for power from old plants (that have amortized tenfold) which is produced almost free of cost.

and also, you don't seem to be willing to debate the matter at all. all your points of view are fixed. why open a thread then?

>205 posts and 33 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

>>2709494
i don't care what others say i liked EK's joke.
but this thread has just turned into EK bashing... he might be annoying but its old and time for something new.

>>2709574

Nuclear power is a good compromise between cost and environmental safety. The nuclear incidents over the past 60 years have done the damage that oil does in a single year. Renewable sources are far too expensive.

>>2709551
>refutation
*sigh* okay, what you got, lets fukk'hen do this...
>You're talking about yourself.
meh
>You've not talked about the subject matter for several posts.
meh
>You got banned because you're fucking annoying.
meh
>You're at a shit-tier university that anyone could get into.
meh
>You likely only went due to social pressures.
nope
>I know this because you often get high-school level questions wrong,
nope
>and think that insane, impractical ideas are good. You demonstrated that in this thread.
meh
>Have fun with your meaningless life!
will do :)

>inb4 imma at MIT or some such horseshit.
>That's not contributing.
meh

..hahahaha! hows that for your refutation. i just dont give a fuck.

>>2709547
i guess not

<<<
(i love how people arbitrarily make up the number of aftershocks each time this is posed...)

>>2709590

You wonder why you got banned. There is no cure for the apathetic.

Enjoy your worthless existence!

>>2709601
they cant ban me, i havent trolled.

>>2709597

You love that? Just... what?

>>2709585
>Nuclear power is a good compromise between cost and environmental safety.

your assumptions are weak and wrong. democracy decides what is a "good compromise".

>The nuclear incidents over the past 60 years have done the damage that oil does in a single year.

citation needed. otherwise, i call bullshit.

>Renewable sources are far too expensive.

citation needed, but only to bash it since this is clearly wrong.

try again.

>>2709606

>Implying I was talking only about this thread.

You always have that attitude. You had it when you were trolling, and then wondered why you got banned for it.

FUCK you're thick, or just extremely obtuse.

>>2709608
EDIT: "i find it amusing that...."

>>2709610
>citation needed. otherwise, i call bullshit.
Simple:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html
More directly reputable:
http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2010/nea6861-comparing-risks.pdf
http://www.slate.com/id/2288212/

>>2709610
Praise to the green-lord, may he defeat nuclear-satan so we can live in enviro-heaven. Amen

>>2709614
still mad?

> Dost not see? A monstrous giant of infamous repute whom I intend to encounter.

>It's a windmill.


WE NEED MORE WINDMILLS!

>>2709610

Democracy is idiotic with things like this. Fear-mongering can sway opinions away from the best options.

You don't win by shouting "citation needed".

It's explained here in an unbiased way. Draw your own conclusions:

http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-1/comffnp.html

You can find info on cost here:

http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=15

>>2709626

Well you've just shot yourself in the foot.

Either you prove me right, or you're trolling, which proves you wrong.

Checkmate.

>>2709641
how am i trolling? you just dislike me from past experience, not from anything actually posted in this thread.

had i posted as anon, or made a new tripname for this thread, you wouldn't have anything to say.

>>2709641
Of course he's trolling, everyone that uses the same name/trip combo in /sci/ in more than one thread is a troll either intentionally(hurr it's me and my retarded opinion again) or not(hurr i need to differentiate myself so people know my special opinon and great contribution(read: retarded opinion)).

Is there any plugin that autohides posts that are not anonymous?

>>2709647

You're trying to get me to be "mad".

You're hilariously pathetic.

>>2709654

It's getting them to admit it that's the key.

>>2709656
i aint trying to get you to do shit. you just ARE mad...and i find it amusing.

>>2709610
>>2709610
>The nuclear incidents over the past 60 years have done the damage that oil does in a single year.

Open your eyes you fucking moron. Where is the environmental damage from nuclear accidents? Chernobyl? Fine, we have a small area of land that humans can't inhabit. FYI, animals and plants are absolutely THRIVING there now, so you could argue it was GOOD for the environment.

Now tell me what good it does to dump carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, soot, mercury, lead, and plenty of other shit 24 hours a day burning coal and oil.

The people on this fucking site.

>>2709654

http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/33916

>>2709669

This was supporting your argument. It was saying that nuclear is 60 times safer than oil.

>>2709667

But I'm not, I just said how pathetic your life was. You seem to think I'm mad about it.

Why would I be? You're the one with the shitty existence, not me.

>>2709680
but my existence is wonderful; im a hedonistic bitch.
problem?

>>2708564
>70% of the german citizen are CONVINCED that a similar accident will happen in Germany

70% of german citizens are now CONFIRMED idiots.

>>2709695
70% of YOU believes any fucking statistic she hears.

...fuckin idiot.

>>2709669
>The people on this fucking site.

Quit fucking coming here if you have a problem, faggot.

>>2709676
>>2709676
>>2709676
Yeah sorry, I meant to quote the "citation needed. otherwise, i call bullshit."

That's the idiot, the guy saying nuclear is safe is on the right track.

I'm not sure what's sadder; the fact that EK trolls but claims LOL I NO TROLL or that EK gets trolled by trolls calling her a troll.

>>2709700
>implying I actually believed it

Seriously? Really? You're retarded, right?

>>2709694

>Shit-tier university.

nope.jpg

>>2709694
>they cant ban me, i havent trolled.
Followed by three posts that only serves inflammatory purposes.
What's next, the world is flat, green is red and you're still not trolling? Can't you just swap email adresses and continue your pointless argument where no one else have to watch you being idiots.

>>2709705

I get her in every thread, too.

She should remember who I am now.

We should launch all of our nuclear waste to space from Chelyabinsk, Siberia, Russia. It will be the most contaminated place on Earth for at least 40,000 years, you can't make it any worse there. Even if something fails triply, all the fallout will be within the vast Motherland.

>>2709707
hmm?
>implying you didn't believe the statistic you posted

so trolling then?

>>2709710
university isnt shit tier.
without giving too much away, i would say it is mid tier...

>>2709694
BWHAHAAHAHAHAHA!

You're a fat stinking cow that should be pitchforked to death.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA FATASS BITCH DIE OF PAIN!

I agree. Public ignorance will be the death of us all. Here in BC, people have been hoarding iodine pills and buying emergency kits, "just in case" the wind carries the radioactive particles over the fucking pacific ocean and kills us all. Except they don't realize that the particles will dissipate and become harmless before they get here. QQ

>>2709717
yeh, this has happened loads of times before...

>>2709723
You couldn't be more of a dumb bitch.

>>2709723

[citation needed]

>Also, implying mid-tier universities are difficult to get into for anyone with half a brain.

>>2709619

at least you found some. let's counter them one by one, these are relatively easy.

first one is mainly irrelevant and compares death numbers. the long-term radiation deaths are not included at all, rendering it desinformative.
the argument agains nuclear power is not based on simple death counts, because they're not interesting. they're about contamination that causes severe illnesses (for human) and stays for dozens, if not hundreds of years. can a catastrophic coal plant failure cause that?

the long-term health problems that emerge from fossil power (mainly air pollution) was and is a problem, true. my personal opinion is that filter and similar technology is not enough in the long run. fossil power should be abandoned right after nuclear, with the same arguments.

second one: invalid (lol "reputable"), i do not accept the oecd as a neutral party and neither should you.

third one: interesting read, but weak. it compares nuclear catastrophes to offshore accidents.
nuclear power plants are IN BETWEEN human dwellings, everywhere on the planet - a catastrophic accident has much more impact on human life when happening inland.
comparing that to OFFSHORE catastrophes might be valid in terms of ecological impact. but considering consequences for human life, it's eyewash to even THINK of comparing this.

>>2709740

>the long-term radiation deaths are not included at all, rendering it desinformative.
[citation needed]
Also, taking them into account, show that they would be higher.

>a catastrophic accident has much more impact on human life when happening inland.
[citation needed]
This is just another form of your previous argument.

Please show that nuclear has caused more harm overall.

>>2709740
>desinformative.
Stopped reading because you're desintelligent.

>>2709755

>>2709629
>Democracy is idiotic with things like this.

so better ignore the majority's will and dictate something else?

>You don't win by shouting "citation needed".

citation needed.

>It's explained here in an unbiased way.

let me read that document of yours to gain unspeakable wisdom and let me get back at you after that.

>>2709740
>I don't believe any of the points other posters make without confirmed evidence

>Forms his own opinion with no direct evidence
[CITATION NEEDED]

>>2709778
>so better ignore the majority's will and dictate something else?
>has faith in majority rule

Now that's cute.

>>2709783
>Forms his own opinion with no direct evidence

wait, is it forbidden on this board to add a personal opinion (which is marked as such) to objective arguments?

in that case, i apologize. might wanna read the rules again.

>>2709811

>still hasn't given any citation

>>2709278
>I've also noticed you get a lot of them wrong, too.
see >>2709741

>>2709805
>has faith in majority rule
i don't. but i'm willing to accept it, in contrast to a dictator's rule.

do you even think before you type? i don't really get your point. we don't have a true democracy, not even close. this might be one of the very few examples in the history of democracies where it actually works the way it should, meaning a majority decides for everyone. what kind of problem do you have with that?

>>2709836
>still hasn't given any citation
a citation for an OPINION? 0/10, would sage again. this board is funny.

>>2709875

>believes there's objectivity in correlation to human consciousness
>thinks there's no confirmation needed for 1 and 2

>>2709778

If the majority don't know what they are talking about, then yes.

>>2709837

>Implying "a lot" = all.
>Implying that wasn't a grade 8 question.

>>2709805
>Moreover, according to the portraits left by some of Socrates' followers, Socrates himself seems to have openly espoused certain anti-democratic views, most prominent perhaps being the view that it is not majority opinion that yields correct policy but rather genuine knowledge and professional competence, which is possessed by only a few.

>>2709862

That's a false dichotomy. The majority don't know what they are talking about. Experts do.

The majority are afraid of the word "nuclear". That doesn't make it dangerous. In fact, we've shown that it's not.

>>2709875

An opinion against an objective fact is a worthless opinion. It has to be backed up.

>>2709898
1- can you clarify please? what should i post citations for, long-term effects of radiation and radiation catastrophes? cancer rates of people living in the vicinity of nuclear power plants? tell me, what do you want evidence for?

2- SHOULD I POST CITATIONS FOR THE REASONS i do not accept oecd documents as neutral sources of information? or will you be able to google it yourself?

>>2709940

What we would like you to do is:

Show that the original source did not take them into account.
If it did not, we would like you to do so and show it is more dangerous
Show that the OECD documents are not neutral.

>>2709574
>Satisfy ever increasing power demand by shutting down all nuclear power plants and without burning anymore fossil fuels than we do today.

Lol deluded green faggot detected.

THE WIND OF OUR FARTS WILL SAVE US ALL!

>>2709958

Was just about to hit submit, but this.

>>2709740
>the long-term radiation deaths are not included at all

I see no indication of this statement being true, yet you appear to be presuming that it is.

>>2709931
you know what? my opinion doesn't care if you think it's worthless. my opinion thinks that YOUR opinion on my opinion is what's worthless.

i added the opinion as a flavor text to clarify what i think. if you want to argue about opinions, maybe /v/ or /g/ is a better place for you.

>>2709926
>The majority are afraid of the word "nuclear". That doesn't make it dangerous. In fact, we've shown that it's not.

this just refers to your own benchmarks of what's "dangerous" and what risks are "acceptable". it's an opinion, nothing else. just makes flavor text for your actual arguments.. oh wait, there are none. just further nonsense like
>The majority don't know what they are talking about. Experts do.
you obviously consider yourself an expert in something. i like that.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/noreena_hertz_how_to_use_experts_and_when_not_to.html

also: for democracy to work, the majority does NOT need to "know what they're talking about", they just need to know what they want. that's hard enough for most.

>>2709993

>NO U

Great argument there, buddy.

>>2709993

We already showed that far few people die from it than even renewable sources. I consider this acceptable.

You are assuming that an absolute democracy is the best system, which is obviously absolute rubbish. An informed democracy is. This is a system that only includes people who are well-read in the subject matter.

Why should someone who knows nothing about something be considered equal to someone who's dedicated their life to it?

Why do people think that it is so crazy for an earthquake AND tsunami to happen?

Isn't that what always fucking happens when there is an earthquake in the ocean?

>>2709989

That's because it's a lie meant to provoke emotional response. Incidence of related cancer in local populations and responders in the years following the incident (including today and beyond) are on record and counted.

Most of the long-term fatalities have been thyroid-related.

>>2709993

I don't consider myself an expert. However, I consider myself astute enough to know when I'm being fed bullshit and when I'm not.

>>2710016
You don't need an earthquake. A broken dam is more than enough to swamp a plant and ruin the cooling system.

im with you OP.

>>2707235
You wish.
To the general public that sounds like "experimental nuclear reactors". Do not want etc..

Germany will probably be going fully for Russian gas now.
It's a bit sad.

>>2710015
>We already showed that far few people die from it than even renewable sources.

you didn't, in this thread there is not ONE valid source about anything like that.

>You are assuming that an absolute democracy is the best system

i don't, why would i? i never said anything like that. an absolute democracy CANNOT exist, in case you didn't know, and i don't even think that we should move more towards it or even as close as possible to it. what makes you think that this is my opinion?

>An informed democracy is [...] the best system. This is a system that only includes people who are well-read in the subject matter.

heh.. interesting opinion dude. in a state, a myriad of decisions on a myriad of subjects have to be made everyday. if something has to be decided, you would actually exclude anyone from the decision but the experts on the given subject? who decides who the experts on each subject are? other experts?

obviously you didn't think this through. what is your "informed democracy" and under what conditions can it exist? also, what is the best alternative we have at hand TODAY until that (theoretical?) system works (which is obviously not now, anywhere in the world)?

>Why should someone who knows nothing about something be considered equal to someone who's dedicated their life to it?

because human equals human, ever heard about that? frustration of professionals is a small price to pay.

>>2710121

Define valid source. That blog cites itself from valid sources in my opinion.

The experts are decided by who can give explanation of what the subject matter is. An average person on the street would not even be able to explain how a nuclear reactor works at even the basic level.

Yes, I would exclude people who know very little/nothing of the subject matter. What right do they have to say anything on it?

Human = human, I agree, but not every person is alike. Ignorance is no excuse for having a differing opinion.

If there was a genuine debate over it (2 groups of experts who disagreed), then something can rightly be called a controversy. Otherwise, it's just the ignorant, fearful masses.

Nuclear power is dangerous because Gaddafi is slaughtering everyone in Libya while everybody argues over nuclear power
checkmate nukists

>>2707376
Well, it's a blessing not everybody on this planet even have access to basic stuff like water, heating and electricity.
Otherwise well be fucked already.

>>2710121

Just because people want something doesn't mean it is the best thing for them.

Assuming that you know what is best for someone is, of course, a dictatorial attitude. However, no-one can deny that the experts at least know the ins-and-outs of the subject matter. They can say whether it is a safe better than anyone else can.

Also, no-one can dispute the statistics.

inb4 Disraeli quote.

>>2709958
>Show that the original source did not take them into account.
>If it did not, we would like you to do so and show it is more dangerous
>Show that the OECD documents are not neutral.

fine, it will take a while. i'll be back, keep thread alive.

>>2710184

Ok.

>>2710174

if i did not get you substantially wrong:
if you were to rule, you'd be willing to favor a decision of someone that you yourself call an expert over the decision of the majority of the ruled region's people?

maybe i'm not gonna continue the collection of material to backup my claims. arguing with you people is ridiculous, you're lacking the most basic knowledge of science, society and psychology.

>>2710225

It's not who I would consider an expert by some arbitrary measure. It would be on the opinions of experts from the field with a myriad of different opinions. I would leave it up to a majority decision with them.

It has nothing to do with my personal opinions on the matter. I'm m merely saying that people ignorant of a subject should not be allowed to influence something to do with it.

>>2710273

you are the only one left disputing my opinions. just noting. would i have to complete my arguments just to convince one single person? doing it properly would take about an hour, and i'm lazy.

there should be nothing more valuable than human life. this is a premise most of you don't seem to use when arguing the matter.
as a scientist, i have to admit that nuclear power is far more than simply "attractive". it's efficient enough to be famed as one of the key components for industrialization. but now, it's nothing like that. in the present, it's merely a crucial component in the transition to clean and min-risk power.
if you argue that there is much technological potential for nuclear, arguing that human failure can be minimized/erased with discipline and rigorous laws - the answer is: maybe. what if people do not want to take the risk? wouldn't you be reasonable and accept it at some point?

>>2710363

>wait I'll get some solid data
>oh nvm I won't

>nothing more valuable than the human life
>still hasn't confuted the earlier blog post

>>2710393
sorry, i'm really tired.

maybe i can urge YOU to backup MY claims by searching evidence for yourself? won't be too hard.

>>2710363

The truth and solid facts are infinitely more important than someone's opinion. That's especially true if that person is uninformed.

You still haven't refuted the post.

>>2710363
Everyone is taking risks every day of their life, whether they know it or not. In the United States, it's an infinitely more probable occurrence to die in a car crash than from nuclear power gone wrong. (See billions vs 0) Yet, we still get in a car and drive to work every day. That's a risk we take. If you aren't willing to risk for nuclear power, then what the fuck are willing to risk for?

>>2710363
>crucial component in the transition to clean and min-risk power.
reliable and economical "clean" power hasn't exist yet

>>2710430
>reliable and economical "clean" power hasn't exist yet

*sigh* you are american, right?
why don't you guys just believe what you wanna beliebe, cuz thats what you do.

farewell /sci/.. you were less scientific than i thought.

who knows what made me spend my whole evening here

>>2710470

We can back it up if you want.

Wait, nah, I'm too lazy.

(Yeah, I think that'll fool him.)

>>2710470

>>2710363
transition to clean and min-risk power

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn268.pdf

Go to page 3, see graph. (And the graph on page 4 if you like).

Situation update as Fukushima Daiichi as I can best make out based on reliable sources (Official sources, IAEA, NEI, etc), not mainstream media:
Sea water injections are continuing at reactors 1, 2, and 3. Fuel is about 50% exposed at reactors 1 and 3, and #2 is "Recovering after dried up" after apparently running out of water twice already.
Fuel integrity of #1 and #3 confirmed damaged, unknown status for #2.
Fire at #4 put out. Cause still unknown, but speculation of lube oil burning.
Rumors of operator error/damaged vents that prevented pressure-released inside the vessels and seawater-injection.
Unit 2 possible containment integrity breach.
Peak radiation at the plant was measured at 400 millisievert.

>>2710563
>transition to clean and min-risk power *
That's what I meant to put.

And bampf.

minimum risk to whom?

i bet there would be many more deaths from wind turbine maintenance personnel than from nuclear power, period. also wind power would have the added benefit of dead birds everywhere.

Solar: lots of space required (habitat removed from use) as well as the processing of the silicon for the cells. Guess what? if you ever heard (or havent) the silicon mining gives poverty stricken Africans very little money for hard labor, that could kill them. Also, refining the silicon to almost purity to even make the photovoltaic cells produces more pollution than you would think.

Minimum-risk energy source=HURDURRRNORISKTOME!!!

also, angel=ek

>>2711130

I'm tempted to agree with you. It's the sort of thing EK would do.

>>2711130

>Solar: lots of space required (habitat removed from use)

Use solar PV on roofs, live underneath them

>silicon mining gives poverty stricken Africans very little money for hard labor

Why does anyone even give a shit

Assuming you actually do care, you need silicon for computers anyway, and coal and uranium mining also hurts people in China and shit

>refining the silicon to almost purity to even make the photovoltaic cells produces more pollution than you would think.

Bitches don't know about my solar thermal

In b4 mirrors made out of extremely toxic materials

And no, I'm not anti-nuclear, but your arguments against solar aren't any good

>>2712458

Your argument was effectively "I don't give a shit about people dying so long as I'm safe".

coolstorybro.jpg

>>2712487

>"I don't give a shit about people dying so long as I'm safe".

That wasn't my argument

My argument was that solar PV can be mounted on rooftops, and that solar thermal does not require toxic materials, and lastly, that no matter which energy source you choose the materials will have to be mined from SOMEWHERE, most likely posing a health hazard to somebody in the process

Unless you can prove that mining silicon is more dangerous and/or kills more people than other sorts of mining then you have no argument