/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11252438]

So basically, France has almost completely managed to decarbonize its energy since the 80s thanks to nuclear while Germany, who spent billions in renewables still produces way more CO2 than France. Yet, renewables is the way to go for journalists/Reddit/retards?

https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=map&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false

[Anonymous No.11252458]

Yup. Its retarded. Altrough reddit is pretty pro-nuclear.

[Anonymous No.11252468]

>>11252438
Where does France dispose of of their nuclear waste?

[Anonymous No.11252489]

>>11252438
Nice, another nuclear shill thread entirely based on misinformation. Hope you get paid for this.
Actually atomic plants in France are being replace with wind and solar. Simply because it's clean, safe and much cheaper.

[Anonymous No.11252492]

>>11252468
They probably burry it, just like Germany does with its wind turbines.
>>11252489
Yeah, lobbies only exist for nuclear. It doesn't matter if right now China is producing a lot of solar panels, no one advocating for renewables has ever been paid of course.

[Anonymous No.11252493]

>>11252489
>being replaced
Only one nuclear plant is being shut down as of now. While another is being built.

[Anonymous No.11252494]

>>11252492
You'd save a lot of tiem and energy just putting a bullet into stupid as opposed to trying to reason with it.

[Anonymous No.11252536]

at least once france is better

[Anonymous No.11252546]

>>11252492
I imagine nuclear waste is more dangerous that some old turbines...

[Anonymous No.11252585]

>>11252438
there are two women in that picture

[Anonymous No.11252588]

>>11252489
Wind turbines devastate local avian populations, thus heavily impacting the ecosystem
Solar panels require replacement every ~30 years IIRC, and the materials required to make them include rare earths mined in unstable poor countries
Is nuclear power not then a reasonable option? The nuclear material is going to be mined no matter what, would it not be better to use it for power rather than weapons? The waste is even reusable to some degree.

[Anonymous No.11252590]

>>11252588
You see, you're speaking sense in a stupid world. You have to learn how to jim jones people if you want to get anything done.

[Anonymous No.11252649]

>>11252489
>solar is safe
More deaths per megawatt than any other type of energy generation.

[Anonymous No.11252670]

>>11252546
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.11252699]

>>11252670
Are turbines radioactive?

[Anonymous No.11252713]

>>11252649
Source?

[Anonymous No.11252761]

>>11252713
Are you an invalid?

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=More+deaths+per+megawatt+than+any+other+type+of+energy+generation..

[Anonymous No.11252763]

>>11252493
France will retire at least 14 plants within the next 15 years, about one per year. Building new nuclear plants as replacement would take much longer and would cost over 200 billions. Replacing capacity with wind and solar is 10 times faster and 10 times cheaper. It's really easy to understand. The US and everybody else does the same.

[Anonymous No.11252767]

>>11252761
Yes me am retardo

[Anonymous No.11252768]

>>11252588
actually cats and windows are way more dangerous for birds

[Anonymous No.11252776]

>>11252670

[Anonymous No.11252777]

>>11252761
Yeah, that kind of search won't totally confirm your bias.

[Anonymous No.11252845]

>>11252768
I see. I will look into the matter more.

[Anonymous No.11252874]

>>11252768
Why do you only include collisions?

[Anonymous No.11252952]

Nuclear power only ends more expensive than wind/solar when anti-nuclear advocates tie them down with endless lawsuits and red tape. Consider that giant nuclear plant that the UAE is having a Korean operation build for them - 5.3 gigawatts for $25 billion USD.

If Germany had spent the exact same amount of money it has on wind & solar over the last ~15 years, and built these reactors instead, even if they costed 50% more per unit (to account for higher German labor costs) they could have replaced all of their coal & natural gas plants, and had enough power left over to charge a ton of electric cars or make a bunch of synthetic fuels.

[Anonymous No.11252954]

>>11252763
>Replacing capacity with wind and solar is 10 times faster and 10 times cheaper.
Too bad about the intermittency right?

[Anonymous No.11252977]

>>11252438
>France has almost completely managed to decarbonize its energy
At most they decarbonized electricity, not energy. They still use shittons of natural gas and oil, as does any other nation in Europe.

[Anonymous No.11252987]

>>11252977
>At most they decarbonized electricity, not energy
True. Still better than most countries.

[Anonymous No.11253157]

>>11252952
>In 2004, in a meeting in Vienna, the International Atomic Energy Agency estimated the total cost for the decommissioning of all nuclear facilities.
>Decommissioning of all nuclear power reactors in the world would require US$187 billion; US$71 billion for fuel cycle facilities; less than US$7 billion for all research reactors; and US$640 billion for dismantling all military reactors for the production of weapons-grade plutonium, research fuel facilities, nuclear reprocessing chemical separation facilities, etc.
>The total cost to decommission the nuclear fission industry in the World (from 2001 to 2050) was estimated at around US$1 trillion.

[Anonymous No.11253210]

>>11252768
>>11252845
> cats and windows are more dangerous to birds

Maybe by amount, however wind turbines seem to endanger more rare species to a greater degree
wish I could go for some more /sci poser lingo, I’m sick tough und my brain shits itself when looking for better words

https://www.wsj.com/articles/wind-farms-kill-many-rare-birds-1383686581

[Anonymous No.11253220]

>>11252761
That search found me this:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/

Coal 100000
Oil 36000
Natural gas 4000
Hydro 1400
Rooftop solar 440
Wind 150
Nuclear 90

So according to you 440 > 100000. Great, kid. Just great. Go eat crayons somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.11253256]

>>11252468
I thought they just stored it at the plant like everyone else does.

[Anonymous No.11253356]

>>11252763
Just imagine those being hit from the back by gusts of wind during a powerful storm

[Anonymous No.11253369]

>>11252588
Well nuclear plants need to be replaced at least every fifty years too and replacing those is a lot more difficult. They also need a lot of rare metals, for neutron shielding for example. And recycling solar panels is a lot easier then recycling These irradiated metals.

And even if the nuclear fuel is used very efficiently, there is still a lot of waste and because it is constantly decaying, it is usually a large mix of a bunch of different materials. Getting those out of the waste produces a lot of secondary waste wich is also radioactive. And of course the Problem of disposing of the waste and the associated safety risks.

on top of all this we got a low availability of traditional nuclear fuel and high technical difficulties with other sources like thorium. Overall it is more expensive then renewables. The only real advantage is it’s consistency

[Anonymous No.11253376]

>>11252699
Mi but they burn, they crash, they can throw debris around etc. There are many ways in which wind turbines can harm people. Do you realize, the tip of large wind turbines can spin faster then 100m/s ? That’s around 360km/h. If those rip, OMG can destroy a lot of stuff

[Anonymous No.11253391]

Hey guys this is somewhat off topic, but I just want to remind you that there is absolutely no way that the natural carbon cycle of this planet can absorb excess carbon released into the system by human activity on the surface. The Earth can only absorb a static amount of carbon and humans produce an amount that is exactly over this line. The carbon cycle is not dynamic and there are no processes that would allow the system to achieve an input/output equilibrium. I'm not very smart, but this is what I've been told and it sounds plausible so we need to figure out how to stop adding carbon in the system. Humans have been adding carbon to the system for around 0.05% of the planet's existence and we are already about to destroy the entire ecosystem. This is scary and we need to do something.

[Anonymous No.11253392]

>>11252768
>anthropogenic causes
>cats

[Anonymous No.11253437]

>>11252438
>Yet, renewables is the way to go for journalists/Reddit/retards?
France has reasons to like nuclear energy. Namely, it still has a strong hold over its former colonies in Africa, many of which with rich uranium mines. Other countries in Europe have no such access to uranium, and relying heavily on nuclear energy would mean big investment in technical knowhow that may have been lost and reliance on an energy source in foreign hands, just like gas and oil. Nuclear energy has also a strong stigma associated with it, and many drawbacks (and I say this as a supporter).
So in my opinion a focus on nuclear energy doesn't make much sense in Europe (but for France and a few other countries). But for example for countries like Australia, Canada and the US it's a very sensible alternative, especially considering how high are the emissions in those countries

[Anonymous No.11253698]

>>11252438
This is total fake news France pollutes a lot and nuclear energy is a hoax. Honest people that want to save the planet should listen to Greta, only when we decide to stop emitting co2 and change our diet to something more eco-friendly (insects) will we have avoided the end of the human race, it will 100% happen in the next decade if nothing is done. Don't even try to argue against this btw, you never were nominated most influential person of the year and earned an honorary PhD in climate science in the same year when you were just a teen. She's leaaagues above /sci/ larpers.

[Anonymous No.11253705]

>>11253437
This also, France are even worse racists than Americans, they're still actively pillaging natural resources from powerless African nations.

[Anonymous No.11253710]

Someone will reply to this bait.

[Anonymous No.11253729]

>>11252438
Yes because Nuclear is not sustainable

[Anonymous No.11253762]

>>11253391
That's not exactly correct. There is some variation in the amount of carbon that can be absorbed. Carbon is stored in a couple different ways, but one of those ways is plants growing, dying, and getting absorbed into the ground, eventually becoming fossil fuels.

So, if carbon in the atmosphere increases, then plants can grow more easily (not always, depends), means more plant biomass being absorbed into the earth.

However, it's still easily possible for humans to release co2 faster than it gets absorbed. That's not wrong.

However, it's also worth considering whether increased co2 is really as bad as the popular predictions say. Because I'm not convinced it's that bad.

[Anonymous No.11253816]

>>11253369
Not only reliability; energy output per area is far greater in a nuclear reactor than solar/wind. Though how the numbers add up regarding amount of resources neccessary for construction and maintenance relative to produced energy output over the plants lifetime I do not know. It is entierly true though, that our currently applied tech does not eliminate dangerous waste completley.

[Anonymous No.11253860]

[Anonymous No.11254243]

>>11253860
i saw it too, anon. Thats a butt

[Anonymous No.11254263]

>>11253437
Actually, France gets its uranium from 4 countries : Australia, Kazakhstan, Canada and Niger. Only Niger was a former France colony, but nice try.

[Anonymous No.11254275]

>>11253762
>>11253762
Plants aren't meaningful in terms of storage vis a vis the carbon buildup problem. For example, the Amazon's valued is as a "sink" moreso that an absorber of CO2 The fact is plants only store CO2 for a short period of time. They cough back up 99.9% of it to the atmosphere. Plants are great though and do much more for the atmosphere and us than just briefly hold a (tiny) amount of carbon. They provide homes for countless links of the web of life that sustains us all.

[Anonymous No.11254284]

>>11253392
>human keeping of cats as pets isn't an anthropogenic cause for why so many birds are killed by cats

[Anonymous No.11254325]

I see shape of female legs and butts in the pic.

[Anonymous No.11254357]

>>11254275
You did not read my post and said something stupid as a result.

[Anonymous No.11254443]

>No cost is too much to save the planet!

But also

>Nuclear is too expensive!

Nice mental gymnastics bro.

[Anonymous No.11254470]

>>11254357
Sorry, but the OP,
>>11253391
Is way smarter than you. He's right, and you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.11254717]

>>11254263
https://www.pambazuka.org/governance/french-nuclear-power-fed-uranium-niger
But 50% of all the uranium it uses comes from Niger

[Anonymous No.11255348]

>>11253860
Draw in the tower on left and erase windmill on right for front view.

[Anonymous No.11255360]

>>11254717
Who cares? Dig uranium up wherever it’s available

[Anonymous No.11255361]

>>11253860
Best post itt.

[Anonymous No.11255365]

>>11255360
>who cares? Buy oil from the US, Russia or Iran, it's the same

[Anonymous No.11255384]

>>11254263
>nice try.

[Anonymous No.11255386]

>>11252489
>Actually atomic plants in France are being replace with wind and solar.
wrong.

[Anonymous No.11255387]

Stick with clean coal, it's the cheapest and most efficient. Get off this "renewable" bullshit.

[Anonymous No.11255409]

>>11253860
>>11254243
>>11254325
>>11255348
>>11255361

[Anonymous No.11255417]

>>11252546
Not if it were thorium, which degrades in about 200 years and is generally much safer than uranium.

[Anonymous No.11255439]

>>11255417
What is it about this thorium nonsense? It's a horrible concept and far more dangerous then other reactors. There are lot's of unsolved problems. That's the reason it was abandoned a long time ago. Only China could be stupid enough to spend money for this.

[Anonymous No.11255606]

>>11253860
Exactly what I was thinking as well, was waiting for someone to draw it.

[Anonymous No.11255625]

>>11252585
Wew, glad I'm not the only one who saw them.

[Anonymous No.11255746]

>>11255439
The reason it was abandoned was because it can't be weaponized as easily as uranium.

[Anonymous No.11255789]

>>11252546
God forbid we burry dangerous material underground... Oh wait, we actually do. I'm literally living on top of yurops biggest underground waste storage site for all flavors of toxic arsenic, cyanide and mercury compounds, yet no one gives a shit about that, even though these millions of tons of waste will remain toxic forever.

>>11253157
And why would anyone do that? The goal should be to build more nuclear plants and infrastructure to replace the fossil fuel based electricity supply present in most countries.

>>11253369
>nuclear plants need to be replaced at least every fifty years
What a load of bullshit, nuclear power plants don't have set intervalls for how long they can be used. This is purely based on governments granting operation permits for a certain number of years, which gets usually extended unless there is some kind of political reason to decomission the plant.

>They also need a lot of rare metals, for neutron shielding for example
The radiation shielding is mostly done by water and concrete, not exactly rare or expensive materials.

The fuel waste can be largely reused in breeder reactors, the unusable waste can just be burried like we do with every other toxic waste.
"Nuclear fuel" is plenty available, even the uranium sites we currently tap into are going to last for decades to come, and there are plenty of yet untapped deposits like in Australia, nevermind the uranium found in the ocean.
Actually, nuclear power is a whole lot cheaper than renewables if you look at the end result, see Germany vs France, keeping in mind that this is the real world result, not something based on the calculations of some experts in a think tank totally not sponsored by some invested lobbying group.

[Anonymous No.11255856]

>>11253392
The only way their population can be as high as it is is because of humans

[Anonymous No.11255870]

>>11255789
>keeping in mind that this is the real world result, not something based on the calculations of some experts in a think tank totally not sponsored by some invested lobbying group.
Holy shit this, it's quite impressive the kinds of fictitious figures they can come up with, despite the fact that every grid that incorporate wind and solar experience soaring electricity prices.

[Anonymous No.11256095]

>>11252492
I read about some technology able to reduce the storage time from thousands of years to about 300 years by burning the "spent" again dissolved in molten salt:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHO1ebNxhVI

Sounds fake but apparently totally true and tested in the 60s:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyDbq5HRs0o

Who knew?!

[Anonymous No.11256101]

>>11255789
>nuclear power plants don't have set intervalls for how long they can be used.
Yes. The whole plant slowly becomes radioactive and it needs to be moved and rebuilt. I am shocked you speak so confidently about this without proper education. Really great exchange here!

[Anonymous No.11256159]

>>11252546
Oddly enough the statistics don't back this assumption. Nuclear waste is kept track of and handled responsibly. There's a higher chance of some kid climbing up and old tower and falling than of anyone getting killed by nuclear waste.

[Anonymous No.11256239]

>>11252492
buried UFO?

[Anonymous No.11256245]

>>11256239
Concrete was they key material for building antigravity ships all along.

[Anonymous No.11256284]

>>11256101
Again with the bullshit. How is the entire station supposed to become radioactive? The reactor is completely shielded from the outside, with radiation levels maybe twice normal background levels just outside the containment vessel. So the only thing that is being degraded by the nuclear reaction, is the reactor itself and the pressure vessel it's contained in. Now these, like any other part in an industrial complex, have to be maintained, serviced and refurbished, that doesn't mean the entire plant needs to be decomissioned. But go ahead and show an example of a whole powerplant that was decomissioned merely because it reached some arbitrary age threshold.

[Anonymous No.11256306]

>>11252438

The big secret is that most "Ecologist" organization get big sums money from the Oil industry to bash nuclear anytime they can.

[Anonymous No.11256309]

>>11252489

There's nothing clean about all the concrete, far in excess of a nuclear station, used to build eolic parks.

[Anonymous No.11256314]

China and Russia will just replace the nuclear market due theWest's self-wounds.

[Anonymous No.11256329]

>>11255386
France is currently planning on reducing nuclear power to 50% over the next 15 years , and will close 14 reactors without building replacements to accomplish this.

[Anonymous No.11256431]

>>11256284
lmgtfy.com/?q=nuclear+power+plant+lifetime

[Anonymous No.11256433]

>>11256284
>completely shielded
You don't get how penetrating radiation works? while most is shielded some get through and it builds up with time.

[Anonymous No.11256810]

>>11252763
how do we get power on windless nights?

[Anonymous No.11256865]

>>11252489
Why do renewable shills always pretend renewables wouldn't be extremely expensive in the absence of nuclear and coal plants due to the costs of large-scale energy storage? Combining renewables and nuclear is the sanest option for the near future.

[Anonymous No.11256882]

>>11256306
>everything I don't like is funded by lobbies

[Anonymous No.11256884]

>>11256810
Pumped batteries

[Anonymous No.11256904]

>>11255439
>we absolutely should not spend any effort trying to develop a potential zero-emission power source despite half a century of technological advancement simply because it was abandoned a long time ago

[Anonymous No.11256911]

>>11254263
And it has armed forces all-over Niger.

>>11253437
>So in my opinion a focus on nuclear energy doesn't make much sense in Europe (but for France and a few other countries). People think it it's easy building one but UK is trying to build one up and it has to restart construction because the land they did inspections AND geological surveys on turned out to have a hidden issue that forced a restart.

>EDF said “challenging ground conditions” have made earthworks at the site more expensive than expected. A set of remedies are now underway with contractors, and depending on their success, costs will rise by between £1.9 billion to £2.9 billion. That means another 0.3 percent being stripped from the internal rate of return (IRR).

Many big nuclear nations are able to do it due to either government subsidies and backing. It's not a bad thing, Nuclear needs it because the initial investment is massive for a private company to do alone. On top of that there's the economy of scale which you see in France, China, Russia and Japan.

[Anonymous No.11256912]

>>11256865
>Combining renewables and nuclear is the sanest option for the near future.

It's not really viable in many places. Mainly because both fufill different niches.

[Anonymous No.11256921]

>>11252952
>Nuclear power only ends more expensive than wind/solar when anti-nuclear advocates tie them down with endless lawsuits and red tape.

They don't though in many states. You really don't know how hard the whole process was even back in the day.

[Anonymous No.11256925]

>>11255870
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianmurray1/2019/06/17/the-paradox-of-declining-renewable-costs-and-rising-electricity-prices/#7383989e61d5

[Anonymous No.11257140]

>>11254717
It's actually about 30-40%.

[Anonymous No.11257149]

>>11253220
That's terawatt hour which is a unit of energy. The guy said megawatt which is a unit of power. Solar and wind are low power so it would make some sense if that statistic goes up.

[Anonymous No.11257286]

>>11252468
In Germany

[Anonymous No.11257335]

>>11256884
Do the math on how much water you need for one hour of power.

[Anonymous No.11257336]

>>11257335
>Taking into account evaporation losses from the exposed water surface and conversion losses, energy recovery of 70-80% or more can be achieved.[11] This technique is currently the most cost-effective means of storing large amounts of electrical energy, but capital costs and the presence of appropriate geography are critical decision factors in selecting pumped-storage plant sites.

[Anonymous No.11257367]

>>11254717
Uranium is extremely cheap compared to its energy yield. Compared to the cost of everything else, the cost for the actual fuel is generally rounded off when talking about the costs for nuclear energy. The price could go up by a factor of ten and the economics of nuclear wouldn't change.
Uranium can be mined from anywhere as it's pretty uniformly distributed through the crust. It's only mined in shit holes with no regulation because nobody demands it from more ethical sources.

>>11257336
Are you just going to ignore the "capital costs and the presence of appropriate geography" bit? I asked how much water you need because I know the number is absurd. Like unbelievably large, and you can't just build a few of them. You need to geographically distributed storage to avoid massive energy transportation losses.

[Anonymous No.11257497]

>>11253860
So glad I’m not the only one who saw it. I am truly among friends here :)

[Anonymous No.11257523]

>>11256284
>go ahead and show an example of a whole powerplant that was decomissioned merely because it reached some arbitrary age threshold.
Didn't three mile hit its decomission date this year?
These plants DO have operational lifespans, though not for the reasons listed

[Anonymous No.11257527]

>>11252489
it ruined the landscape

[Anonymous No.11257534]

>>11253860
Now all I see are giant wack wavy inflatable tube arm guys.

[Anonymous No.11257537]

>>11253698
based and geenpilled, praise be upon greta

[Anonymous No.11257538]

>>11256865
What always bugs me is how everyone acts like these are all mutually exclusive methods.
There is no good reason to not have a robust and diversified power grid with multiple methods suited to each area.
You can have renewables AND nuclear AND traditional.

[Anonymous No.11257651]

>>11257538
But why have renewables at all if you can go full nuclear? You never know when these things are going to produce energy.

[Anonymous No.11257709]

>>11252768
>summing all birds together
>comparing pigeon deaths to wildlife death
oh, I see you're a man of fallacy as well.

[Anonymous No.11257763]

>>11257651
It's cheap and easy to go full renewable. Some lucky nations did it decades ago.
It's insanely expensive and basically impossible to go full nuclear.

[Anonymous No.11257797]

>>11257763
>It's cheap and easy to go full renewable
When you have the population of Rhode Island and a ton of tappable geothermal and hydro, sure. It's easy. Be sure not to import any goods though, or you're just hiding your consumption.

[Anonymous No.11257801]

>>11257651
Because putting all your eggs in one basket is always a poor decision.
I'm a big fan of nuclear don't get me wrong but its not a one size fits all solution.
Also, the more nuclear material you have moving around the more opportunities for it to fall in the "wrong" hands, and you've got to be wary of marginal states and nuclear proliferation.
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water, but there are legitimate concerns to be addressed.

[Anonymous No.11257812]

>>11257763
>It's insanely expensive and basically impossible to go full nuclear.
Citation?

[Anonymous No.11257816]

>>11252649
Stop falling off the roof then

[Anonymous No.11257849]

>>11253860
heh

[Anonymous No.11257855]

>>11257812
load balancing

[Anonymous No.11257912]

>>11257855
French people are immune to load balancing?

[Anonymous No.11257939]

>>11257855
That isn't a citation. If you mean load curve following, then you should know that every source has this problem, but it's trivial to solve if you have enough baseload capacity. Those 100% renewable countries just dump excess geothermal to handle fast variation and they use hydro to handle slow variation. You can do the same with nuclear. Just over-generate by a few percent and dump the excess as you follow down while not underproducing as you follow up. That's pretty silly though. In the long future we'll need to synthesize shitloads of hydrocarbon fuel for aircraft and ships, so you can trivially load follow the electric grid by ramping the fuel production up and down. Kinda like pumped storage except far more compact, and you're not losing 20-30% of the energy since the destination is applications where the loss is impossible to avoid anyway. I'd imagine batteries would still be faster, but you'd only need a minute of battery to do fast tracking. Making fuel you already need is just cheaper.

These solutions work when you have a large amount of highly reliable baseload. When your source is unreliable (wind/solar) then your overproduction can't just be a few percent. It's got to be a factor of ten or more. That's absurd, so truly you just need tons of storage and a capacity enough to cover both the low capacity factor and storage charging. This is still ludicrous though. You need baseload, and not everywhere has a ton of geothermal and hydro to tap.

[Anonymous No.11257940]

>>11252489
>because it's clean
false
>safe and much cheaper.
false

[Anonymous No.11257978]

>>11252763
>It's impossible to built multiple plants at once
>A reactor is the same as a plant, right?
Confirmed for doesn't know what they're talking about. The reactors at old plants were built over time and will be shut down over time. New plants will get reactors which produce double what the 1970s reactors make. The French investment in nuclear has paid off to an enormous degree. They'd be crazy to not replace them.

[Anonymous No.11257994]

>>11252438
that is a nice ass

[Anonymous No.11258053]

>>11252468
Non issue.

[Anonymous No.11258055]

[Anonymous No.11258107]

>>11258055

[Anonymous No.11258118]

>>11258107
how are mutts and canukis do wasteful?

[Anonymous No.11258121]

>>11258118
Indians and Europeans are the last decent people left

[Anonymous No.11258126]

Nuclear is the sauce.

[Anonymous No.11258130]

>>11258121
Oddly enough for europe a falling population and increased efficiency technology will do that a shame the globohomo elite decided to ruin the whole reducing population thing...
india is just poverty stricken

[Anonymous No.11258249]

>>11258107
>t. street shitter

[Anonymous No.11258570]

>>11258118
A large oil industry

[Anonymous No.11258598]

>>11252438
>So basically, France has almost completely managed to decarbonize its energy since the 80s thanks to nuclear while Germany, who spent billions in renewables still produces way more CO2 than France. Yet, renewables is the way to go for journalists/Reddit/retards?

meanwhile china is still pumping millions of tons of black filth into the atmosphere.

what the hell is the point?

[Anonymous No.11258606]

>>11252468
and stocamine in wittelsheim, still a problem

[Anonymous No.11258612]

>>11256433
Radiation is not a liquid or a gas, it doesn't build up in shit barring highly irradiated components deep in the reactor.

[Anonymous No.11258614]

>>11258121
I wonder how this looks like as emissions to % of GDP.

[Anonymous No.11258616]

>>11253705
hahahahhhaahahahahahahahahaaaaa.
dat joke

[Anonymous No.11258746]

>>11252977
They should use low demand times to make carbon neutral fuels.

[Anonymous No.11258758]

>>11252492
1 = 0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

[Anonymous No.11258766]

MMMM yes tasty pollution MMMMM

[Anonymous No.11258817]

>>11252489
>and much cheaper
It's not. They reach their 'cost-effective' number by not including the massive benefits being contributed. In the case of Germany this is directly 22% of their total energy price, plus other incentives.
So just remember that the next time you check your electric bill, a quarter of it would vanish if they stopped this political nonsense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiewende

[Anonymous No.11258846]

>>11258107
>China and India's larger gross emissions are fine because half their population lives in squalor.

[Anonymous No.11258855]

>>11252438
i thought my libido was supposed to go away after age 30, i still masturbate 2-3 times per day and get horny at vaguely sexual pics

[Anonymous No.11258870]

>>11258107

comparing the actual sizes of these countries it becomes clear to me that south korea is the most inefficient one of them all

[Anonymous No.11258929]

>>11258870
who cares about size? its per capita that matters. Also, if they are all concentrated in small clumps it makes sense they pollute more

[Anonymous No.11259005]

>>11258614
That's GDP per capita
But I think they can go together. From 1990 to 2018, the EU’s emissions were down 23 percent, but its GDP was up by 61 percent.

[Anonymous No.11259006]

>>11258855

Have sex already incel

[Anonymous No.11259010]

>>11259006
i do, frequently, jelly much?

[Anonymous No.11259011]

>>11258855
i came to post this but you’re here first. dang.

[Anonymous No.11259311]

>>11257149
You're overthinking it, he probably meant megawatthours, not megawatts.

[Anonymous No.11259428]

>>11258130
>Oddly enough for europe a falling population
A falling population wouldn't change the emissions per capita

[Anonymous No.11259448]

>>11252438
>energy
*electricity
That's like 1/3 of the final energy.

>>11252489
I really feel ya, I really do, son
I've got 99 problems but having no baseload capacity ain't one

[Anonymous No.11259450]

>>11252468
They bury it hundreds of meters under the ground in hermetic containers inside intensely-monitored tunnels. Any more questions, Greenpeace shill?

[Anonymous No.11259460]

>>11252468
The waste bullshit is the biggest non argument ever.
How much waste do you think NPPs produce volume-wise, retard? Literally dig a mid-sized bunker in a stable rock formation somewhere and you could solve that "problem" for the entire world for decades to come.

>>11256884
Where do you put +1TWh of pumped batteries?

[Anonymous No.11259464]

>>11256810
from the outlet, duh
stupid boomer

[Anonymous No.11259470]

>>11252874
wind turbines can't telepathically kill birds

[Anonymous No.11259497]

>two major economies
>two drastically different approaches
this just tells me it is a non-issue so stop worrying about it. if it was that important, everyone would stick to the same approach.

[Anonymous No.11259724]

>>11259011
im so glad someone else saw it

[Anonymous No.11259786]

>>11255387
>clean
>coal

[Anonymous No.11260513]

>>11252438
It can't be just me

[Anonymous No.11260626]

>>11258855
>>11259011
>>11259724
>>11260513
>>11255409
>>11253860
The eternal cumbrain strikes again.

[Anonymous No.11260947]

>>11252588
>Wind turbines devastate local avian populations,

Anti-wind tards have never shown video footage of dead birds.

[Anonymous No.11261295]

>>11260947
Statistics are available, and they seemingly love to kill more at-risk species like raptors, but this really isn't a good argument against wind.
The real argument "against" wind is that the capacity factor is too low to be directly usable without battery. Adding battery means you need more capacity to charge the batteries. Since wind has a roughly 30% CF you need to roughly triple your capacity to provide a reliable generation (less in practice since 80% CF is fine in a grid with multiple sources). Batteries are more expensive per MWh than turbines are per MW, so you end up multiplying the cost of wind by about a factor of 2-3 again. All in all, you're looking at a real cost per MWh of 4-6x what wind costs at a small scale, providing just a few percent of capacity.
Germany has found this out, which is why they can't get rid of their gas turbines. I'd estimate that wind/solar can only provide around 30% of grid generation before the low CF becomes too difficult to deal with using other grid resources. That's not really limited to wind and solar though, but any source with a CF lower than 50%. You might think you can just geographically distribute the wind/solar to even things out, but then you have to run very large HVDC in a sort of mesh over an enormous amount of land, and you still need to overbuilt by a factor of 3 or more to power other areas while powering the local region. No matter how you slice it, solving the low CF problem is expensive.
That's the argument "against" wind. Wind can still be 20-30% of generation, but not more, and other sources will need to be able to ramp up to fill the gaps in it.

[Anonymous No.11261306]

>>11252438
What's the point in comparing anything to Germany? They aren't a sovereign country and were told by the globalists, Americans and (((them))) to self-destruct for the sake of multiculturism. It's very clear they are currently trying to lower their quality of life for the EU to have an easier time merging with all the other European shitholes.

[Anonymous No.11263055]

>>11252438
maybe renewables will pay off when the technology advances, nuclear is better if we want a quick solution

[Anonymous No.11263762]

>>11253860
based, saw it too

[Anonymous No.11265550]

>>11261295
What about off shore turbines synthesizing hydrogen through electrolysis?

[Anonymous No.11265572]

>>11263055
>nuclear
>quick
no anon

[Anonymous No.11265664]

>>11252438
Coal and natural gas are the only energy source we need. I vote die Grünen because i support the coal industry.

[Anonymous No.11265673]

>>11253369
>They also need a lot of rare metals, for neutron shielding for example.
The most effective neutron shield is paraffin wax. Lost of hydrogen to soak up stray neutrons. And steel, lead, or concrete are the most cost effective method of shielding against gamma rays. These plants don't need to be mobile, you can make the shielding as thick as it needs to be; weight is not a factor.