/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10634498]

Why are nuclear power still a thing?

[Anonymous No.10634510]

>>10634498
U illiterate nigger, it's why AM nuclear power still a thing

[Anonymous No.10634513]

>>10634498

>No computer powered by a mini-radioisotope thermoelectric generator.
>No Tritium batteries.

[Anonymous No.10634537]

>>10634498
Why wouldn't it be? It's the most efficient large-scale energy we have.

[Anonymous No.10634699]

>>10634498
Because humanity will not yet disappear, as it should.

[Anonymous No.10634769]

NUCLEAR = BAD
RENEWABLES = FUTURE

[Anonymous No.10635393]

>>10634498
Because it's a lot more fun to destroy our planet.
Fuck this gay earth!

[Anonymous No.10635395]

anti-science left working hard to compete with the anti-science right

[Anonymous No.10635397]

>>10635393
>destroy our planet
Lets play spot the pseud

[Anonymous No.10635406]

Nuclear generated power is not profitable. Its heavily subsidized by the state. Whats profitable is storing nuclear waste and thats what nuclear power plants do to stay afloat. In fact very many of them are way over capacity for storing radioactive waste.

[Anonymous No.10635421]

>Why is nuclear power still a thing

[Anonymous No.10635433]

>>10634769
>opposing renewables

[Anonymous No.10635455]

>>10635421
>those numbers
TOP KEK
Do you think that editing some numbers and then presenting them in an image is somehow a convincing argument?

Let me show how it's done:
https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NuclearVsWWS.pdf

See:
1. it's a paper
2. published by an academic associated with a reputable scientific institution
3. the name of the academic and their possible ties to industry and conflicts of interest are laid bare for all to see
4. everything is throughly referenced

This is how you do it.

[Anonymous No.10635496]

>>10635433
Renewables are a meme
>waste enormous swaths of land
>shit-tier life expectancy (10-20 years)
>need for batteries with even worse life expectancy
>plagued by intermittency
>mining needed to support all of this
>create shit paying jobs
>photovotiac panel waste is toxic
>need for backup (always gas or coal fired plants)
>much more expensive per kWh than fossil fuels, making them non viable competition, so shit that they're opportunistically shilled for by big oil when nuclear power plants are being discussed because they know that's a real threat to their bottom line

[Anonymous No.10635505]

>>10635455
Good source, but lets be honest kids on /sci/ aren't going to read that.

[Anonymous No.10635517]

>>10635496
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-43879564
you really think this trend won't go on?

[Anonymous No.10635525]

>>10635517
>https://www.bbc.com/news/business-43879564
>However, experts warned that power generated by coal was largely being replaced by gas, another fossil fuel, rather than renewable sources.
Oof.

[Anonymous No.10635535]

>out eating with friends, talking about power sources
>they would both like to see nuclear power in our country
>why in the fuck would you ever want nuclear fission power?
>dude it's the future lmao totally safe now
>you know it can still go wrong, right?
>yeah but it won't
>mfw

[Anonymous No.10635538]

>>10635535
Compelling argument

[Anonymous No.10635550]

>>10635455
A large flaw with this paper is it doesn't consider the land cost of renewables or their intermittency problems. In reality the solution is to continue building wind, solar, and hydro, and also build nuclear to replace existing coal (instead of natural gas) as soon as possible, preferably starting a few decades ago. Nuclear isn't sustainable, but neither is solar, wind, or hydro. We'll hit a limit of how much power we can extract with them within the next few centuries unless we curb our population and lifestyle. The only longterm solution is fusion.

[Anonymous No.10635554]

>>10635525
https://www.tfd.com/trend
1. A general tendency or course of events:

[Anonymous No.10635559]

>>10635517
>control + F 'trend', no results found
>extrapolating from a BBC article that contradicts him

But what the hell do I know! But yes friend, yes! You're right.
You're right.
After doing some research, BP© agree with your outlook on their strategic website. Please visit BP.com and have a look:

>Renewable energy is the fastest growing source of energy, contributing half of the growth in global energy supplies and becoming the largest source of power by 2040.

Wow. Epic. Renewables are the future, look at this heckin cute video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5Jj2wD3GjE
Look what the honorable Diverse Sanyal, chief executive, alternative energy and executive vice president, regions, BP and diversity initiative leader of 2018 has to say:


>“Renewable energy is growing partly because technology and innovation are making it more efficient and affordable. We see this in solar energy where costs have reduced by over 80% in the past decade and in wind energy where turbine technology has dramatically improved capacity. This is underpinned by robust operating performance, leveraging digital and human capabilities. We are also developing digital platforms which identify ways to generate power more efficiently and how that power can be monitored, stored and traded. And we see opportunities to create innovative lower carbon energy offers by partnering gas with renewables, using gas to complement the intermittency of renewables.”

I. Love. Renewables. I fuckin love science.
Why would anyone be against renewables or homosexuality for that matter? I can't think of a single reason. Thankfully, the scientists at BP© agree with us.

[Anonymous No.10635563]

>>10635559
2017 3 days
2019:
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/09/health/uk-coal-electricity-renewables-health-scli-intl/index.html

[Anonymous No.10635564]

>>10635535
Reductio ad absurdum.
You've outed yourself as a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10635571]

>>10635564
1) that isn't reductio ad absurdum
2) "muh informal fallacies" is not an argument

[Anonymous No.10635573]

>>10635554
What trend? Replacing coal with gas and jerking off to solar installations that barely make a dent in current energy use, let alone future use?

[Anonymous No.10635575]

>>10635535
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

You'd need 100 Chernobyl meltdowns to happen EVERY YEAR for it to be as radioactive as what all the coal plants release in radiation right now.

We've only had 1 Chernobyl level meltdown and Fukushima was very minor compared to Chernobyl. Even assuming 10 Chernobyls happen every year it would still be a 90% reduction in radioactive damage done to the environment and people compared to what we have right now.

Also look at the bottommost graph here >>10635421

[Anonymous No.10635581]

>>10635535
>>out eating with tribe, talking about domiciles
>>friend grug like to see houses in our society
>>frug say to grug why in the fuck would you ever houses?
>>dude it's the future lmao totally safe now
>>you know it can still go burn down, right?
>>yeah but it won't
>>mfw

[Anonymous No.10635584]

>>10635571
>1) that isn't reductio ad absurdum
It is
>2) "muh informal fallacies" is not an argument
They show your reasoning is fallacious and that you are a brainlet with a low IQ.

[Anonymous No.10635607]

>>10635496
Every single point is wrong. Stop being a fucking manure smelling hick who is only saying this shit because some retarded uncle got you into "rolling coal" while molesting you.
It's so embarrassing.

>waste enormous swaths of land
uses land or sea that is otherwise deserted, can also be put on rooftops (solar) or on farmland (wind)
>shit-tier life expectancy (10-20 years)
35 years for solar minimum, more for wind, and we will probably have efficient recycling processes that will make replacement cheap
>need for batteries with even worse life expectancy
no you don't really need batteries, there are way to get useful energy out of them without storage
>plagued by intermittency
you can fix this in many ways, and not necessarily using storage, for example HVDC and a good enough grid could well provide be balanced enough to always have power throughout without storage
>mining needed to support all of this
nothing compared to mining uranium
>create shit paying jobs
jobs are best, because they are much more than with nuclear or coal, they are clean, they are all high paying, they include both trade jobs and more learned jobs
>photovotiac panel waste is toxic
not true at all
>need for backup (always gas or coal fired plants)
every power source needs backup
>much more expensive per kWh than fossil fuels
Literally free fucking energy.

Fuck you for being such a fucking "my team vs. your team" brainlet that is only posting this ignorance because you perceive the other side as being "libshits".
GOD FUCKING DAMMIT I HATE FUCKING IGNORANT AMERICAN RETARDS
GOD WHY DO YOU HAVE TO EXIST TO FUCK UP THE WORLD SO MUCH?
FUCK ALL OF YOU.
YOUR COUNTRY NEEDS TO GET FUCKING GLASSED.

[Anonymous No.10635611]

>>10635575
>coal plants release radiation

[Anonymous No.10635617]

>>10635393
Reddit: the post

[Anonymous No.10635621]

>>10635611
You didn't know that? Why the fuck don't Americans learn this in school like the rest of the world?

[Anonymous No.10635630]

Observe, peers, the common leddit renewable energy libshit >>10635607, the overt denial of reality, vague handwaving responses to criticism, obsession with "free" stuff which does not exist, and hyperemotional, irrational and excessive hostility to those with different ideas or criticisms of their own set of ideas, overt statements of hatred up to and including desire to genocide half a billion human beings for a perceived ideological disagreement.

[Anonymous No.10635631]

>>10635621
Is it that coal molecule that turns into gamma rays when burned?

[Anonymous No.10635636]

>>10635631
At very high temperatures coal (hydrocarbons in general but coal gets much hotter) create very unstable molecules in the form of small ash particles. These then release ionizing radiation in the form of gammarays and actually has to be stored like nuclear waste or depending on which country (china) just gets released in the air without filter meaning people inhale those small radioactive particles and develop lung cancer.

Cigarettes do this as well but on a lower temperature and thus less drastically as coal.

[Anonymous No.10635645]

>>10635636
Seems legit.

[Anonymous No.10635649]

>>10635630
My anger is justified. Everyone can witness your ignorance.
Your Ben Shapiro meme debate tactic does not work on smart people.
You said stupid shit with an air of wisdom.
I pointed out that you were entirely wrong.
Then you deflect and pretend to be the better man. You are not. You are just another partisan fanatic more concerned with your "team" being right than even your own welfare, because ultimate your own welfare is going to be affected just as much as mine and everyone else.

It's not cool to pretend to be ignorant and stupid. Stop it.

[Anonymous No.10635678]

>>10635535
Low testosterone post

[6 No.10635690]

>>10635455
Duh nuclear bad because hiroshima boom boom kill all Japanese like big American fart, stfu read a book on a subject before just saying dumb shit, youre not an expert dumbass

[6 No.10635700]

>>10635584
I dont agree with ether of you, for one of you is using the iq trump all dumbass meme, and another is just being a dumbass

[6 No.10635708]

Dur hur nuclear bad, no you can use renewables when theres ether a lot of sun, a lot of wind, or runing water. Nuclear power is probably the best cheap alternative we have right now thats more efficient than renewables, yet theres a dumb fear surrounding it BECAUSE NUCLEAR BOMBS EXIST, wtf is wrong with you assholes use simple logic. Stop acting like retards.

[Anonymous No.10635712]

>>10635708
>neclear power is...cheap
What did he mean by rhis

[Anonymous No.10635714]

>>10635607
>uses land or sea that is otherwise deserted, can also be put on rooftops (solar) or on farmland (wind)
Patently false.
Joule effect prohibits these from being built far away from urban centers. The land isn't otherwise deserted and needs to be in relatively close proximity to where the power is going to be delivered.
> can also be put on rooftops
Landowners are going to want compensation, raising the cost.
>or on farmland (wind)
Farmers want compensation and even if allowed, most prohibit people near them, as they're liability concerns.
>no you don't really need batteries, there are way to get useful energy out of them without storage
You proved yourself to be an electrical illiterate.
I should stop discussing.
>nothing compared to mining uranium
Concentrated ore at remote sites. A few pellets of uranium can power a block for a lifetime. The sum total of the batteries to components to PV cells, to turbine fabrication, is much, much, much more intensive.
>'photovotaic is toxic'>>> not true at all
It's incredibly toxic and has specific disposable protocols which nobody follows.
>every power source needs backup
Nuclear doesn't.
>Literally free fucking energy.
"Literally" isn't. "Literally" is expensive shit-tier energy actively is hostile to the only viable competition against fossil fuels (ie nuclear). Renewables are controlled opposition, and will never be viable against.

What does America have to do with anything you seething brainlet? France is 90% Nuclear and adopted the technology rapidly over the course of a decade. We don't need a balanced energy mix which results in fossil fuel domination every time. We need near total transition to nuclear. If you want renewables for yourself fine, but don't go around thinking they're capable of meeting the power demands of society. That's pure delusion.

>>10635649
Seething.
You're mentally ill. See a psychiatrist.

[Anonymous No.10635721]

>>10635690
>read a book says he
after ignoring a paper on the exact topic, while providing a fake table with touched up numbers

[Anonymous No.10635725]

Now that clean, economical ocean water uranium harvesting is possible, the whole
But muh strip mines argument is dead against nuclear.

[Anonymous No.10635731]

>>10635714
>let me make shit up to pretend like I have something to say after I lied and got exposed
How about you fuck off now.

[Anonymous No.10635733]

>>10635721
they're literally copy pasted out of wikipedia, you can see them for yourself

[Anonymous No.10635734]

>>10635712
France has relatively cheap electricity and is mostly nuclear. The biggest costs with nuclear are reactor design and verification, and regulatory hurdles. These diminish quickly as you scale it up.

[Anonymous No.10635735]

>>10635731
>loses the debate
>How about you fuck off now.

[Anonymous No.10635736]

Irrespective of the merits of nuclear power, there is no reason to be fanatically anti-solar and anti-wind, unless you are doing so for ideological reasons.

[Anonymous No.10635738]

>>10635733
>muh Wikipedia
I provided an academic article on the exact fucking topic and you come back to me with
>muh wikipedia

Who is anti-science now?

[Anonymous No.10635740]

>>10635735
>posts falsified data
>"i won"

[Anonymous No.10635742]

>>10635725
It was never a real argument anyways since photovoltaics and batterys required rare earth mining anyways.

[Anonymous No.10635743]

>>10635736
Anyone living in areas with high yearly counts of sunny days should consider home solar, it pays for itself in a few years and can cut electricity bills by 30 percent or more.

[Anonymous No.10635750]

>>10635721
I'm the one that posted that image and not him.

here are the wikipedia pages I screencapped them from.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#France
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents#Fatalities
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_intensity#Energy_sources_emission_intensity_per_unit_of_energy_generated
(Couldn't find the exact graph since this is an old image but this is a similar one)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation#Background_dose_rate_examples

[Anonymous No.10635752]

>>10635736
The obsession with solar and wind and rejection of nuclear is detrimental to the global climate, and said advocates are largely responsible for our current climate predicament. I hold Greenpeace and similar organizations that oppose nuclear directly responsible for the last 30 years of coal and natural gas emissions.

[Anonymous No.10635762]

>>10635738
You can literally links to the sources
>Who is anti-science now?
still you

[Anonymous No.10635764]

>>10635735
Protip: if you have to come back at me with "I won" then you didn't win.
I can confidently tell you to fuck off because it is evident to all that you made shit up twice and will continue to make shit up to pretend like you have a counter argument to everything I post. Your persistence in being ignorant and my unwillingness in furthering this farce, does not make you correct.

Next time, if you want honest intelligent discussion, don't pretend to be a 85% hick parroting retarded arguments from Fox News.

[Anonymous No.10635769]

>>10635736
They're not viable power sources, actively shill against nuclear, and will raise my power bill considerably. A friend signed up for solar in a provider state and his energy costs more than doubled. The adoption of shit technology raises cost and fools people into believing a fantasy that the entire world is going to run on windmills, sunshine and candy, making them think that big bad nuclear will never be needed.
I do not believe in market solutions. I do not believe in democracy. We need a state transition to nuclear power as the French did. Pretending to be totally impartial only gives room for a corrupt industry filled with charlatans and venture capitalists to actively sabotage the only concrete solution eliminating fossil fuel power stations. Wind and solar industry can go hell, along with their lobbying efforts.

[Anonymous No.10635772]

>>10635740
The average consumer cost isn't falsified data, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10635774]

>>10635764
>I can confidently tell you to fuck off because it is evident to all that you made shit up twice and will continue to make shit up to pretend like you have a counter argument to everything I post. Your persistence in being ignorant and my unwillingness in furthering this farce, does not make you correct.
>Next time, if you want honest intelligent discussion, don't pretend to be a 85% hick parroting retarded arguments from Fox News.

[Anonymous No.10635775]

>>10635750
If you think you have an argument to make, write a paper and get it published. Then I will read it.
Serious scientific discussion does not involve posting numbers like this.
I know you think, it's obvious what you are trying to say, but you have to make the argument rigorous to make sure it holds water.
That is the entire point of science.

[Anonymous No.10635779]

>>10635775
>I can't entertain any information that goes against my core beliefs, therefore I a priori rule out any consideration of it unless you meet this very specific guideline by which time it will be months or years before you have a chance to present it but heh, i win, by the way, I've never published before, how could you tell?

[Anonymous No.10635782]

>>10635774
>his rhetorical skills are too weak so he had to resort to images
State of you. Typical low IQ engineer.

[Anonymous No.10635785]

>>10635762
>academic article on the exact fucking topic
did I fucking stutter?

[Anonymous No.10635787]

>>10635779
>asking for scientific publications on questions of science is too high a bar for the shill
Is that maybe because the science does not agree with you?

[Anonymous No.10635797]

>>10635736
Exactly this.
I'm personally not anti or pro anything. I do Operations Research. My whole career is based on coming up with the most efficient systems to accomplish shit.
Of course the answer is not simple. I never studied energy transition, but intuitive I expect the solution to
1. be geographically and politically dependent; each country will have different feasible solutions
2. be a mix of different carbon neutral power sources

There is definite no one right answer for all places. Obvious solar and wind makes sense in a lot of places. If you are going to rule them out, you are doing that for political brownie points. Same goes for nuclear fission.

[Anonymous No.10635803]

>>10635775
All those numbers are sourced in the Wikipedia page. Are you literally too lazy to click that blue number in brackets next to the numbers?

[Anonymous No.10635832]

>>10635803
A number is not a rigorous scientific argument.
Look at the paper I sourced above. Look at how he considers and calculates every minute detail and edge case.
You just give me two numbers and say one is larger than the other because of this and that, but without a thorough investigation, that is just talk.

[Anonymous No.10635847]

>>10635832
If you managed to take the time to actually read the sources you'd find out that they came from a 20 year long harvard metastudy of all American power sources and is 100 pages long that goes into detail about their CO2 output

[Anonymous No.10635879]

>>10635397
You’d be a retard to think fossil fuel combustion isn’t doing damage to the planet.

[Anonymous No.10636063]

>>10635797
virgin INTP
>>10635769
chad INTJ

[Anonymous No.10636150]

>>10635832
You are intellectually dishonest. You never concede your point and always deny evidence that is to the contrary. You attempt to worm your way out of arguments a pathetic attempt to look as if you have scientific superiority.

[Anonymous No.10636400]

>>10635879
OP is talking about nuclear energy... Not fossil fuels

[Anonymous No.10636404]

>>10635769
Based.

[Anonymous No.10636488]

>>10635535
>out eating with friends, talking about power sources
>me and friend trying to convince other friend the benefits of nuclear energy
>"HUUUUR GREEN ROCK BAD"
>try to tell him Nuclear actually has less deaths per terrawatt hour than Solar or Wind, and that now Reactor designs has improved safety ten fold
>"HUUUR BUT MUH CHERNOBYL"
>tell him Chernobyl was a case of mismanagement of an unstable reactor design
>"FUCK OFF POL GREEN ROCK BAD SOLAR IS FUTURE"
>I think my friend is retarded
>mfw

[Anonymous No.10636530]

>tfw live in a country that banned nuclear energy in 70s because some hippies bitched and moaned
>said country has largest uranium deposits in the world
>selling it all to china and India
>no volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis or particularly severe weather to damage a plant
>said country spends billions in renewable energy and closing down coal plants
>increasingly unreliable electricity supply because of this
>back in early 2000s electricity prices weren't even a fucking afterthought, now people use aircon sparingly because its so expensive
>people pushing for 'renewable energy' are upper middle class urbanites who can afford to foot the bill, greenies and journalists, rest of the country can get fucked
>"NUCLEAR IS THE PAST" meanwhile china is building 10 new reactors
>tfw have the greatest energy source under our feet but government is too retarded to utilize it

this timeline is shit

[Anonymous No.10636534]

>>10635581
You ABSOLUTE RETARD! You think you can pull a false equivalency jig on /sci/ and get away with it, big guy?

[Anonymous No.10636641]

Can't wait until fusion power becomes a thing so ya all would shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.10636705]

>>10636641
>white person using black man slang

yikes.

[Anonymous No.10636870]

>>10635879
>nuclear is fossil fuels

[Anonymous No.10637478]

>>10635785
>1 paper
>muh peer review
I can write anything and pass it as peer reviewed
the only way to truly verify information is by having monetary incentive on being truthful

[Anonymous No.10637481]

>>10635535
who are you quoting

[Anonymous No.10637484]

>>10635607
>deserted
you have no idea how much biodiversity those 'deserts' have, just stop capslock gypsy

[Anonymous No.10637526]

Sorry Reddit, but NUKE Plants are just the latest Soi Boi fad, a fad entirely orchestrated by the media.
There has not been any great development in Nuke power in decades.
Meanwhile Solar and Wind are taking off like Saturn V.
And then this fad very conveniently surfaces on the web just around ~2014 or something, just about the time when Solar was proving more cost effective than Coal.
You are a bunch of useful idiots being manipulated by the fossil fuel industry and the energy providers to provide a bureaucratic mess of a non-solution that will only serve to keep the energy market in the hands of the present oligarchs.
That is the goal of this propaganda. To decry any energy source that has the potential to decentralize and break up the energy market monopoly.
Of course you useful idiots easily fell for it. All they had to do is associate NUKE Plants with manliness by talking about the "fear factor" that in truth is completely irrelevant to any such policy decision. The supposed Hippie power was strongest at the time the NUKE Plants were built and it did not stop them from being built. It's a complete straw man. NUKE Power failed economically and financially and politically, not because of some Hippies who never had any power.

[Anonymous No.10637532]

>>10637526
Reddit is solar and wind.

[Anonymous No.10637535]

>>10637526
>hippie boomer tries to fit in and use the lingo here

[Anonymous No.10637545]

>>10637526
Also worth nothing that the whole
>MUH NUKLEAR
thing only comes up whenever someone mentions solar or wind. It never comes up otherwise. It is very obvious that it is only a piece of propaganda used to discredit solar/wind and nothing more.
It also mirrors the Republican party politics where 99% of the time they are pushing Coal&Gas and then when someone mentions Solar/Wind, then suddenly they are NUKE fanbois

[Anonymous No.10637551]

>>10637532
False. The NUKE meme originated on Reddit and is mostly present on Reddit.
>>10637535
Neither a hippie nor a boomer and unlike you I actually studied the viability of Nuke Plants and wrote something on the matter.

[Anonymous No.10637557]

>>10637532
Go on ANY thread on Reddit about solar and/or wind and Ctrl+F "nuclear" and you will see how wrong you are.
The whole comment section will be Soi Bois going
>BUT AKCTURALLY NUKLEAR IS THE BEST AND ONLY SOLUTION BECAUSE SOME SOI BOI ON YOUTUBE TOLD ME THAT

[Anonymous No.10637558]

>>10637557
Forgot example link:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/bezlsw/23_of_us_voters_say_100_renewable_electricity_by/

[Anonymous No.10637561]

>>10637558

[Anonymous No.10637565]

>>10634498
Muh nuclear fearmongering

[Anonymous No.10637566]

>NUKE Power failed economically and financially and politically, not because of some Hippies who never had any power.

the virgin ' market "solution" ' ∧ >>10637526 vs the chad state action ∨ >>10635714

>France is 90% Nuclear and adopted the technology rapidly over the course of a decade. We don't need a balanced energy mix which results in fossil fuel domination every time. We need near total transition to nuclear.

[Anonymous No.10637569]

>>10637545
Actually the reverse, faggot. See: >>10635769

[Anonymous No.10637571]

>>10637566
Lol, I don't think the propagandists would like you to advocate for the nationalization of the energy market.
But actually that would be entirely fine by me. That I agree with.

[Anonymous No.10637573]

>>10637561
>>10637558
>trust me, i dont use reddit, but here's proof of me using reddit, seee i searched it to find something that lets me say whats reddit or not too, fellow 4chan kids

[Anonymous No.10637574]

>>10637569
>AKCTUALLY
Your conspiracy theory is not logically coherent in the first place because the market trends completely disprove it.

[Anonymous No.10637579]

>>10637573
>gets proven wrong
>deflects like a total bitch
OWN UP TO IT.
You were entirely wrong. Your perception of which demographic is pushing the meme was entirely skewed. It's primarily something that appeared on Reddit and other Soi Boi communities.
4chan did not come up with it and is merely parroting, very poorly I might add, what they see on other parts of the Internet.

[Anonymous No.10637582]

>>10637574
>market trends completely prove it
FTFY

[Anonymous No.10637586]

>>10637579
Seething.
No, I wasn't proven wrong.
Reddit is an attitude and you embody it completely.

[Anonymous No.10637589]

>>10637582
A trend is a change over time, not an instance of time, you complete brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10637591]

>>10637586
You were proven wrong, evidence plain for everyone to see, and no you prove yourself to be dishonest too.

>Reddit is an attitude and you embody it completely.
Nothing is more Reddit than jumping on the media circus bandwagon because a Soi Boi on Youtube made a video, funded by a biased Think Tank for propaganda reasons.

[Anonymous No.10637595]

>>10637589
And yet, in 2019, despite these so called trends you mention, the current snapshot of the German Energy grid is that renewables are a total meme, occupying a mere 4.5% of the energy grid. That's nothing and the domination of fossil fuels remains. The trends you mention are conjecture and ironically, BP agrees with you that renewables are the future.

[Anonymous No.10637596]

>>10637591
>Nothing is more Reddit than jumping on the media circus bandwagon
You mean like you did here? >>10637589

[Anonymous No.10637599]

>>10637574
>muh market
>muh trends
economics is a pseudoscience. this is VC brinksmanship to get solar and wind funding.

[Anonymous No.10637605]

>>10637595
>barely any solar/wind capacity yet built
>OH LOOK THE NUMBER SO SMALL
What kind of demented argument is that? It's small because you have not yet built any capacity.

>>10637596
Difference being that although the The Guardian is a biased centre-left green and anti-nuclear publication, they are reporting on actual numbers, rather than going
>BUT AKCTUALLY MUH NUCLEAR
without there being any reason beyond propaganda to talk about nuclear.
IFF there had been developments in NUKE energy that made them better than the used to be, then it would make sense to start the meme. But there have not been any such thing.
And moreover there is still no reason to interject with MUH NUKES every time someone talks about solar+wind.

And just to be clear, I'm not anti-NUKE, I'm anti this fake enthusiasm for reasons of propaganda.

[Anonymous No.10637610]

The energy provider CEOs, don't be fooled, they are not pro-nuclear. But consider the future. In a future where solar and wind play a significant role, that is eternally lost profit for them. If the consumer can avoid buying energy for them whenever it is sunny or windy, that is a chunk of profit they will never see back.
With nuclear power, they might also be less profitable than coal or gas, but they will be able to maintain the energy monopoly and moreover they will still control 100% of the consumption.
But of course they don't care about nuclear per se, unless to decry solar and wind.

[Anonymous No.10637612]

>>10637605
You're the idiot who first appealed to this amazing trend in the first place—despite this "trend", there is still overwhelming domination of fossil fuels, making your entire argument worthless conjecture. Meanwhile, actual forced transition of nuclear has eradicated widespread reliance on fossil fuels in places like France, Ontario, and Sweden. Market solutions are and always will be a meme.

[Anonymous No.10637614]

>>10637610
>But of course they don't care about nuclear per se, unless to decry solar and wind.

Got it backwards again. Just take a look at BP's website. They're all for Solar and Wind and mention nothing about nuke plants.

[Anonymous No.10637618]

Saying, "BUT WHAT ABOUT DA NUKIES" in a conversation about solar/wind is such a stupid impulsive reaction when you think about it.
The people investing in solar/wind have absolutely nothing to do with nuclear. Either they invest in solar/wind or they don't. They don't have the capacity, by any metric, whether it be finances or technological expertise or government permits to build nuclear fission plants instead of solar or wind farms.
They are not making the choice between nukes and solar/wind. They don't have a choice to make.

[Anonymous No.10637623]

>>10637618
Wind and solar retards push out misinformation and sell people on a lie which inevitably results on continued reliance on fossil fuels. Market solutions, investments and so forth, are all democratic notions, nonsense that has no relation to the scientific efficacy of these sources.

[Anonymous No.10637624]

>>10637612
The trend exists and is widely reported.
Now as I have already said, if you want to nationalize the energy market and build nukes, I'm actually all for it.
Protip 1: the propagandists that push the MUH NUKES propaganda won't be happy with you
Protip 2: nationalizing the energy market is even more politically inexpedient than acknowledging climate change

And you better not call your intellectual superiors, "idiots" after you prove yourself to be a complete dumbass, not that your image is at all salvageable at this point.

[Anonymous No.10637630]

>>10637623
Stop being a complete imbecile. If you could Stalin your preferred energy transition program, then we would not be in the climate change mess in the first place, would we?
Because action would have been taken a very long time ago.
But you cannot do that. You don't have the power to do that.

[Anonymous No.10637635]

>>10637624
>The trend exists and is widely reported.
[meaningless cop out] [muh 250% growth trend (remains at 3% market share while fossil fuels continue to pollute).
>And you better not call your intellectual superiors, "idiots" after you prove yourself to be a complete dumbass, not that your image is at all salvageable at this point.
Absolute retard. seething.

[Anonymous No.10637636]

>>10637630
>>10637624
>>10637618
>>10637610
>>10637589

[Anonymous No.10637638]

>>10637635
>has every single argument completely demolished
>declares victory none the less
BASED TARDIE

[Anonymous No.10637642]

>>10637636
>no words
>no arguments
>resorts to pictures because he lacks the rhetorical skills to continue
BASED TARDIE

[Anonymous No.10637646]

>>10637638
>THE TREND PROVES THAT I'M RIGHT
>THE TREND
>MUH TREND PROVES ME RIGHT
>T-THE TREND GUISE. IGNORE HOW PRACTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT IT IS BUT DUDE, THIS ONE RESEARCH GROUP SHOWS THAT WIND AND SOLAR ARE CHEAP BY THE WAY NUKIES BAD BAD AND SHILL FOR BY REPUBLICANS THEY NO LIKE GREEN ENERGY. I AM SUPREME INTELLECTUAL. DONT CALL ME AN IDIOT.

[Anonymous No.10637651]

>>10637646
>we should never invest in new tech because at some point the market adoption is insignificant
HOLY FUCKING SHIT WHAT A GENIUS ARGUMENT

[Anonymous No.10637658]

>>10635700
Ad hominem to cover up his tracks

Nice.

[Anonymous No.10637660]

>>10637651
You're the idiot who said market trends prove the viability of it, which is conjecture. You've went back to this trend in a purely circular fashion to prove the superiority of wind and solar. Also. Wind and solar have been out for decades. It's not new tech. If anything, the long term trend shows that they're totally nonviable relative to fossil fuels which is why they do not give a shit about them.

[Anonymous No.10637664]

>>10635775
This is a 4chan thread. I highly recommend you chill the fuck out with your absurd standards.

[Anonymous No.10637668]

>>10637660
Let's get back on point. Going
>muh nuclear
when somebody mentions solar or wind, is completely retarded.
The only reason you would do that is for propaganda reasons.
Solar and wind are viable sources of energy and nuclear has nothing at all to do with anything.
You can debate the merits of nuclear separately, but cannot interject in any discussion about solar/wind and with your meme and pretend like that is a logical thing to do.

[Anonymous No.10637672]

>>10637664
That's how they get you with the anti-intellectualism though. If you set low standards you get all sorts of stupid arguments and don't hold water, but serve well as a means of propaganda.

[Anonymous No.10637970]

>bro come and take a ride in my car
>cool nuclear sticker but where are the seat belts?
>dude fuck seat belts lmao this thing is fast as fuck
>nah it's okay i'll take this car with the sun sticker that actually has seat belts
>bro that thing can't go more than 100 kmph
>that's okay i don't need more, see you at the party
>YOU'RE SUCH A PUSSY BRO

[Anonymous No.10638105]

>>10637970
incredible argument my friend, left me speechless.

[Anonymous No.10638112]

>>10637970
wtf, i love wind and solar now.
greatest argument i've ever witnessed.