The world is healing.

[Anonymous No.16243547]

After the US lost Saudi Arabia/petrodollar, they are now switching to green energy.

[Anonymous No.16243549]

>>16243547
Trump will reverse this.

[Anonymous No.16243589]

>>16243549
Only thing Felon Mop will do after summer is pruno.

[Anonymous No.16243597]

>>16243549
from his prison cell?

[Anonymous No.16243630]

>>16243549
trump signed some more minor pro-nuclear stuff too, both parties like nuclear now but for different reasons

[Anonymous No.16243817]

>>16243549
Why?

[Anonymous No.16243848]

>>16243547
a bit of a deja vu with that specific pic, almost as if I had saved it in my /pol/ folder years ago

[Anonymous No.16243889]

>>16243848
>too complicated
Get accustomed to seeing that phrase as it will increasingly be used to justify our downward spiral as more infrastructure is put under the control of the same type of people who ran the water systems in Flint and Jackson.

[Anonymous No.16243998]

>>16243630
Why would Trump be pro-nuclear?
>>16243817
Oil lobby.

[Anonymous No.16244009]

>>16243998
>oil lobby
so the same people funding the democrat anti-nuclear people

[Anonymous No.16244019]

>>16243547
Nuclear is not renewable, though.

[Anonymous No.16244042]

>>16243547

I wonder how historians will record the anti-nuclear craze wave.

[Anonymous No.16244049]

>>16244042
The era of democracy is best summarized with this simple demonstration: commoners protesting against cheap relatively clean energy because their wealthy overlords convinced them to.

[Anonymous No.16244055]

>>16243998
That oil lobby must be quite weak if it allowed Trump to lost to Biden in 2020.

[Anonymous No.16244059]

>>16244019
>renewable
This is my first time on /sci/. Read this first. Realize that the people here don't even understand elementary school physics. Will never come back.

[Anonymous No.16244094]

>>16244059
They taught us in kindergarten that Uranium, Plutonium, and Throium, etc. do not grow in trees. I guess I'll learn otherwise once school starts.

[Anonymous No.16244124]

>>16243998
>Oil lobby
Hydrogen power and carbon based materials can be extracted from oil. They are still needed.

[Anonymous No.16244150]

In before She'll, Exxon, and Halliburton become Hydrogen companies or mine Helium-3 on the Moon.

[Anonymous No.16244221]

>>16243889
Called competency crisis.

[Anonymous No.16244272]

>>16243998
>Why would Trump be pro-nuclear?
Because it would drastically reduces American dependence on foreign oil, which everyone except people on the Saudis' payroll agrees is a good thing.

[Anonymous No.16244274]

>>16244094
Breeder reactors are a thing.

[Anonymous No.16244452]

>>16244272
You failed to answer the question

[Anonymous No.16244457]

>>16244274
uranium 238 doesn't grow on trees either. eventually you run out of material with nuclei large enough that fission releases energy, and then what?

[Anonymous No.16244581]

it does not matter anymore, get solarpilled

[Anonymous No.16244603]

>>16244019
It's green energy regardless, because uranium glows green.

[Anonymous No.16244607]

>>16244019
It also provides more energy than anything else per capita
We're not likely to run out of uranium anytime soon, or thorium.
We'd have even more if nuclear power plants were allowed to recycle their waste products.

[Anonymous No.16244618]

>>16244457
do you have any idea how much fucking u-238 there is

the stuff is everywhere - enough, with breeder reactors, to continue supplying global power for literally millions of years just by extracting a few thousand tons of u-238 from seawater every year

the main reasons we (the US) don't use breeder reactors often today are actually:
1) fuel reprocessing was made illegal during the Carter administration because of overblown fears of nuclear proliferation (this single thing is why the US has any appreciable volume of nuclear waste requiring asinine "long term storage" schemes, BTW - that's usable nuclear energy we're just leaving in dry cask storage to decay uselessly); this was reversed, but it killed development of the reprocessing industry for a while
2) there's so much fucking u-238 that it has remained economical to simply mine more of it and do isotopic refinement on it - leaving ALL the energy from the "depleted" uranium (which is just u-238 with much less u-235 mixed in - still an entirely usable fission energy feedstock) unused. (this was another reason reprocessing was easy to regulate out of existence; nobody's anywhere close to running out of uranium to mine)

[Anonymous No.16244641]

>>16244607
>We're not likely to run out of uranium anytime soon, or thorium.
We are actually likely to run out. The current stocks last 200 years. If we had 4 times as many nuclear plants, it'd be 50 years. And with 8 times as many nuclear plants (the absolute minimum needed for our energy policy to be called "smart"), it'd be used up in less than the lifetime of a plant.
Yeah sure, you can also get energy from plutonium. So add 20 years to how much it'll lasts, it doesn't change the big picture.
This is why we need thorium. It's a shit nuclear power source, but we will never run out of it. So let's use up all the uranium and in parallel develop thorium for use in the period afterwards.

[Anonymous No.16244646]

>>16244641
>no one ever makes more uranium
That's 200 years if we never ever mine or produce another drop
Again, you can just use the waste to greatly increase that number, or literally just keep digging like we've been doing.

[Anonymous No.16244711]

>>16244641

200 years is more than enough time for developing techniques to dick deep into the core or get more of the stuff from asteroids or other planets.

[Anonymous No.16244743]

>>16244641
There's 6 million tonnes of proven uranium reserves. At 7.5 GWh/kg, that's about 45*10^21 Wh, or something like 300,000 years at current usage.

[Anonymous No.16244774]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1111/text
Almost there bros also check them digits on that bill number

[Anonymous No.16244795]

What's the future of nuclear power?

[Anonymous No.16244824]

>>16244795
H2 economic benefit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_niUTeXxrU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-hPVVPrz4U

[Anonymous No.16244911]

>>16243547
>Saudi Arabia
They will find away.

https://headtopics.com/us/saudi-arabia-says-pink-hydrogen-is-for-girlbosses-23640480

https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/hydrogen-train-saudi-arabia/8561154/

https://energynews.biz/saudi-arabias-visionary-path-to-hydrogen-dominance-unveiled/#google_vignette

[Anonymous No.16244923]

>>16243998
He likes huge bombs and chuds believe a nuclear war with China (America's no 1 trading partner) would somehow be a good thing.

[Anonymous No.16244952]

>>16244581
>top is a photo of something that actually happens, albeit rarely
>bottom is a homosexual power fantasy
checks out

[Anonymous No.16244956]

>>16244923
>China (America's no 1 trading partner)
it's actually number 3. Canada and Mexico are both ahead of it. it's number 1 in imports to the US, but still substantially less than imports from Canada and Mexico combined

America's "reliance" on Chinese imports is a bit of a meme

[Anonymous No.16244981]

>>16244923
>huge bomb

[Anonymous No.16245002]

>petrodollar

[Anonymous No.16245484]

>>16244042
They will be too busy having sex on their nuclear pulse propulsion propelled love cruise to venus to care.
BANGPLAP BANGPLAP BANGPLAP

[Anonymous No.16245492]

>>16244795
Probably as a complement to renewables and might get used to heat some industrial plants. Space nuclear is going to be cool too, NASA takes it serious now

[Anonymous No.16245548]

>>16244923
Chuds support China and Russia over America.

[Anonymous No.16245602]

>>16245548
Nobody actually supports China though, the only people outside of China who do have their family back in China being threatened if they don't. You know, typical socialism.

[Anonymous No.16245619]

>>16244150
How colony though key logistics planning.
https://phys.org/news/2021-10-mars-colony-hydrogen-factory-propellant.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nafr8LfBTCM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tEN3XNtWnk

[Anonymous No.16245707]

>>16244911
>First row
VGH…zased

[Anonymous No.16245902]

>>16244042
German historians:

[Anonymous No.16245930]

[Anonymous No.16245938]

>>16243549
>>16243589
>>16243597


Trump is pro nuclear? What the fuck ? He quite literally spear headed SMR and advanced reactor demonstration program in 2020. Let alone advances in Nuclear policy , like signing an an executive order in 2020 aimed at revitalizing the nuclear energy sector and establishing a U.S. uranium reserve to secure the domestic supply chain. the list goes on and on.

I ask again what the fuck are you all talking about

[Anonymous No.16245974]

people who use terms like petrodollar, peak oil or dedollarization have a 100% chance of being retarded.

[Anonymous No.16246150]

>>16245492
>>16244824
Best answer, correct post

[Anonymous No.16246278]

>>16243998
>Why would Trump be pro-nuclear?
So America is not completely dependent on the middle east for its energy use. Have you never listened to his speeches?

[Anonymous No.16246287]

>>16245938
>>16246278
They don't, they are all told by the media that Trump's stances on economics and energy are identical to Dubya, when the truth is he's farther than him than Biden is

[Anonymous No.16246530]

>>16244049
Using propaganda from explicit misanthropes that wanted billions of poor people to die. It's really insane.

[Anonymous No.16246535]

>>16243597
he will never go to prison. he will throw everyone in prison. watch him!

[Anonymous No.16246543]

>>16244124
Honestly the oil industry has cause for concern, and if it's needed to grease the wheels they should be given a ramp to nuclear investment to diversify. If we actually did a nuclear build-out to decarbonize electricity, it wouldn't be much more effort to build enough surplus to produce hydrocarbons for less than what we pay now.

[Anonymous No.16246546]

>>16244618
Also worth noting that breeding technology for energy production was left in a larval state. And even then gain ratios over 2 were trivially achieved. There's no telling from the current literature how far we could take it if we had university funding being used to competitively advance breeding reactors.

[Anonymous No.16246551]

>>16244824
H2 is giga-retarded. We can just close our carbon cycle by using nuclear to recycle CO2 into all our favorite hydrocarbons and not change all of our infrastructure to use a cantankerous fuel that's even avoided in spaceflight because of what a pain in the ass it is. The grift-lobby is slow to catch up but with a bona fide nuclear push the war on hydrocarbons is going to be completely over within a few years.

[Anonymous No.16246554]

>>16246278
>So America is not completely dependent on the middle east for its energy use.
That hasn't been a real issue since the 70s when we got nuclear energy. Post-shale it's just fucking retarded. We've only been in the middle east for Israel.

[Anonymous No.16246571]

>>16246551
No matter, hydropower car will take off decade.

[Anonymous No.16246616]

>>16243547
Too good to be true. I will believe it when I see it, until then I pray for total oil death

[Anonymous No.16246618]

Is there a link to a list of things the bill changes?
Does it remove the red tape on fuel reuse or breeder reactors?

[Anonymous No.16246630]

>>16243547
Coal is clean baby

[Anonymous No.16246658]

>>16246551
>not change all of our infrastructure to use a cantankerous fuel that's even avoided in spaceflight because of what a pain in the a-
Use nuke energy for portable fueling tanker and duel machinery comparable with diesel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFW8M-BWGSY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJgYRCB7RbM

[Anonymous No.16246693]

>>16244019
Lmao there's enough uranium and thorium on earth to last for 100,000 years or more depending on how efficiently it is used.

[Anonymous No.16246697]

>>16244618
extracting uranium from water is actually quite energy intensive, and I don't think it would make much sense when wind and solar are on the table.

[Anonymous No.16246746]

>>16244911
Iran perhaps trading signing

[Anonymous No.16246784]

>>16246616
Nice violent fantasy life you have, why exactly does the petroleum industry upset you so badly? Is it because you're too poor and lazy to be able to afford your own car? Or maybe its that you've glommed on to the doomsday cult's messiah complex and you irrationally see yourself as the savior of the planet in order to justify your cringey power fantasies, which is it?

[Anonymous No.16246793]

>>16246784
where the fuck is it

[Anonymous No.16247257]

>>16246551
H2 is needed to produce synthetic hydrocarbons tho. This is true for those direct CO2 capture schemes as well as biomass upgrading, both need fuck tons of H2. The funny thing though is even with carbon capture natural gas derived H2 will likely be cheaper in most places, so the electrolysis stuff is somewhat pointless

[Anonymous No.16247260]

>>16247257
Well a lot of people hate the oil industry, electrolysis would work fine I am just saying purely from a cost standpoint methane reforming + carbon capture still beats out electrolysis. If you don't want all the other baggage that comes with gas its still a good idea tho

[Anonymous No.16247282]

Clean energy improves almost every year. That's how it works. Eventually we will get to the iphone 4s of color panels. Where there's barely any innovation. Or it's slowed down.

[Anonymous No.16247309]

>>16246784
Pant sus!!

[Anonymous No.16247315]

>>16243547
Looks like a handout to investors who got caught by all those startups with ideas out of a physics class weed circle. The Super Conductive Americium Metamorphosing reactor is 100% proven to work on paper, get in at the ground floor of our high tech pyramid-shaped funding scheme!

That and jobs for the boys nonbinary individuals who come to work in stolen women's underwear. Throwing money at the democrat-captured grant-consuming academic do-nothing wing of the nuclear industry.
And they got Republicans on board just by saying it was pro nucular.

Call me when they're making it possible to build more copies of actually working plants instead of one-off prototypes.

[Anonymous No.16247377]

Green energy? How about red and purple H2?

[Anonymous No.16247610]

>>16245938
Long time
>>>/his/16774996

[Anonymous No.16247619]

>>16243630
Probably because they are controlled by the exact same people. The richest Americans can afford to have both parties in their pocket. Every bill that passes with bipartisan support reperesents their will. Every bill that might be good for the people gets locked behind "partisan gridlock". Since bribery is legal in America, super-pacs can accept unlimited campaign contributions forcing politicians to obey the ultra-wealthy. America is a plutocracy that pretends to be a democracy.

[Anonymous No.16247624]

>>16247619
Nuclear power is good for everyone

[Anonymous No.16247635]

wish denmark would get on the nuclear train as well
we could cover our entire energy need with a handful of SMRs
but nooo, let's keep wasting money on goddamn wind turbines and solar

[Anonymous No.16247642]

>>16247635
Well the answer is all possible methods - not sure why only two nations in Europe are based on nuclear power ( Finland and France) - it is wild to me considering nuclear fission was a European discovery.

SMRs are undeniably the future of town baseload electrical coverage

[Anonymous No.16247645]

>>16247635
Hopefully Fukushima city council get it nuke back up
>>16247610
Really mod?

[Anonymous No.16247681]

>>16246697
that process would only need to extract about 1/10th of the uranium currently mined, if that much, because we are just... not using breeder reactors. it wasn't nearly enough to be a dealbreaker given how much energy you can produce even with 1980s breeder reactor and seawater uranium extraction tech, both of which have improved (the latter extensively)

[Anonymous No.16247794]

>the world is healing
Saudi Arabian knew woman are awful

[Anonymous No.16247804]

>>16247257
>>16247260
i really, really wish more people knew about the Bosch reaction, CO2 + 2H2 -> C + 2H2O. with water splitting, it's literally a closed loop for the hydrogen that has a net reaction of CO2 -> O2 + C

methane reforming just puts out more CO2 by reversing the Sabatier reaction. "carbon capture" is vague bullshit that currently doesn't mean anything except somebody selling you a pipe dream. what you need is, unequivocally, CO2 splitting.

the key to CO2 splitting at scale has always been efficient water splitting, as counterintuitive as that may seem. in fact, steam reforming (what you likely mean by methane reforming) consumes water - even though it seems like you're getting hydrogen from the methane, half of it is coming out of splitting the water. nuclear is rather unique in how well it lends itself to water splitting, as it can more readily produce the temperatures needed for more efficient water splitting processes (sulfur iodine cycle, for example) than any other power generation scheme, including concentrated solar.

it is also possible to split methane into 2H2 and C more easily than water, and use the resulting 2H2 to feed a CO2 splitting process, but the net process isn't CO2 splitting. unless you also do water splitting, it requires a continual supply of methane: while the Sabatier reaction yields methane, it's only half of what you need, as you only get 2H2 from CH4, and the Sabatier reaction is CO2 + 4H2 -> CH4 + H2O, so you only get half your methane-derivable hydrogen back if you aren't splitting water. now, this does mean each molecule of methane can technically split one CO2 molecule without water splitting by splitting 3 methane molecules (2CH4 -> 2C + 4H2 as input, CH4 -> 2H2 from the Sabatier reaction products; net cycle only requires one CH4), but even there your best bet for carbon capture is still getting those hydrogen atoms back out of the water, albeit only needing to do that half as much as a pure Bosch reaction system.

[Anonymous No.16247916]

>"DUDE JUST BUILD NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS THAT COST $30-40 BILLION EACH, TAKE 10-15 YEARS TO CONSTRUCT AND PRODUCE LESS ENERGY THAN 100 WIND TURBINES THAT COST $1 MILLION EACH"

This is your brain when you can't even do basic economics. Nuclear will never be an option for the simple fact that they never were, are and will ever be profitable.

[Anonymous No.16247980]

>>16246793
the croc on his right foot in 3rd panel

[Anonymous No.16248070]

>>16246658
>>16247260
Hamon electrolysis hi-kick

[Anonymous No.16248141]

>>16247916
>$30-40 billion each
this is entirely because they haven't been built at scale in decades and you have to basically rebuild the whole industrial process to make a new one. it's like slapping all the development costs of a new fighter jet on the first one produced and acting like each one is going to cost the same amount.

people whining about "muh basic economics" are invariably those whose understanding of economics ends at simple household budgeting.

[Anonymous No.16248342]

>>16243549
>electric everything at home
Imagine North Korea, Vietnam and Iran actually economical growth

[Anonymous No.16248394]

>>16243547
>green energy
kek, that would be funny if it weren't sad.

A literal choice between two evils.

[Anonymous No.16248444]

>>16244641
>muh peak uranium

[Anonymous No.16248521]

>>16248444
He greener bot

[Anonymous No.16248716]

>>16248444
We can make artificial uranium

[Anonymous No.16248748]

>>16244272
America completely energy independent rn homie

[Anonymous No.16248750]

>>16246278
also >>16248748

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/us-leads-global-oil-production-sixth-straight-year-eia-2024-03-11/

[Anonymous No.16248869]

>>16247804
The energy requirments of methane reforming are much lower than electrolysis, hence why its so cheap compared to it. Carbon capture for burned fossil fuels with atmospheric air is retarded and I don't expect it to ever be very useful, but fortunately the CO2 produced from methane reforming is basically just mixed with steam so its easy to separate out and inject into the ground without sending it up the stack. They already do CO2 capture at some plants for this reason, but its more for selling industrial CO2 than any environmental reason. I will show you how fucking expensive purely water derived hydrogen is, assume a nuclear reactor can produce heat at 3 cents per kilowatt hour and convert it to H2 thermochemically at 50% efficiency. H2 is 33 cents per kilogram, your already up to about 2 dollars per kilogram with this method. Carbon captured methane reforming seems to be estimated around 1 to 2 dollars per kilogram, so its not too massive of a difference but you can see why I think gas will continue to be used for this. They might start using nuclear heat sources to drive the reforming process though, so they don't have to inject air which would make CO2 capturing easier.

[Anonymous No.16248870]

>>16248869
*H2 has an energy content of 33 kwh per kg

[Anonymous No.16249039]

>>16243549
Yes, he will put the S**dis back in their place

[Anonymous No.16249052]

>green energy
Lmao
>Non renewable
>Produces the worst possible waste products of any fuel
>Is mined in exactly the same way as coal
>Requires 3 coal fired powerplants to even build 1 nuclear plant
>Encourages nuclear weapon proliferation and dirty bombs

There will be no energy transition
Nuclear is just another product to sell to saps
Fossil fuels will not be used less
The environment will not benefit one iota
Life will continue to get worse for everyone, especially being saddled with the debt of subsidizing the most expensive source of power and a 1000 year clean-up job

[Anonymous No.16249115]

>>16248869
>They might start using nuclear heat sources to drive the reforming process though
Red hydrogen method seem more legit

[Anonymous No.16249234]

>>16247916
>TAKE 10-15 YEARS TO CONSTRUCT
In your third world country maybe

[Anonymous No.16249280]

>>16245602
>>16245548
Germany-France issue resurface since 800s AD

https://twitter.com/peterkinvara/status/1624348000842665985?

[Anonymous No.16249284]

>>16248869
2 things:
1. we've already got water splitting tech that's 60-70% efficient
2. a kilogram of H2 is a lot of fucking H2, approximately 500 moles of the stuff - that's enough to split >10kg of CO2. that's ~3 kilograms of graphitic carbon from the fucking air for less than 3$. that's... shockingly close to current prices of MINED graphite.

i think you're confusing what is being claimed - the hydrogen in all those CO2 splitting processes is closed-loop. if you want H2 as an end product, then yes, with current tech you want to use steam reforming.

[Anonymous No.16250044]

>>16249284
Wait I am genuinely confused here, explain. How is the H2 closed loop? So does the process extract its own H2 from water without needing some external injection?

[Anonymous No.16250114]

>>16250044
Bosch reaction: CO2 + 2H2 -> C + 2H2O
Water splitting: 2H2O -> 2H2 + O2
return the 2H2 to the Bosch reaction

Net reaction: CO2 -> C + O2

the hydrogen never actually gets produced or used up. apart from leaks, once you have a supply of hydrogen (or just water if you do splitting first), you don't need more - just more energy for water splitting. the Bosch reaction is actually exothermic, but very high-temperature.

[Anonymous No.16250171]

>>16243547
>unsustainable
>can't be recycled
>garbage yield
>dangerous to the environment
I expected this, but it's more gay that I thought it would be.
Fuckers will literally fuck over the whole planet over chum change.

[Anonymous No.16250175]

>>16250114
This is cool, but the cost of electrolysis is still there, so you are paying for that form of hydrogen production anyways.
A potentially cheaper method involving gas reforming:
CH4 + H2O -> CO + 6H2
CO + H2O -> CO2 + H2
This leaves you with 7H2 and a CO2
then
CO2 + 2H2 -> C + 2H2O.
Leaving you with 5 H2 and a solid carbon you can cleanly landfill somewhere.

[Anonymous No.16250181]

>>16250175
If the intention was CO2 capture from other sources, you could sacrifice more of the output hydrogen to drive more of the second reaction

[Anonymous No.16250188]

>>16250175
Holy shit im dyslexic,, you get 4 H2 and 3 remaining after destroying the CO2, same idea stands

[Anonymous No.16250192]

>>16250188
*2 remaining H2 after CO2 destruction

[Anonymous No.16250220]

>>16250171
Fun fact: Nuclear is actually pretty cheap it’s once up and running.

[Anonymous No.16250900]

>>16246658
>Electrify the water through uranium
based pringle Italian man

[Anonymous No.16251562]

>>16248716
Cursed 2021 wars going on

[Anonymous No.16251584]

"petrodollar" "peak oil" and "dedollarization" are terms that instantly distinguish you as either a desperate thirdie who wants to feel more important or a 5th columnist contrarians who feel smart for saying that le west is le ending and we should all bow to le china because they're so much more noble.

[Anonymous No.16251609]

>>16251584
triggered

[Anonymous No.16251948]

>>16244124
Wouldn’t black H2 oil fill in half carbon dioxide?

[Anonymous No.16252577]

>>16243547
Will built small reactor solve the power problem?

[Anonymous No.16253474]

>>16250220
fpbp

[Anonymous No.16253863]

>>16253474
anon, in your own words please tell me what you think fpbp means

[Anonymous No.16253887]

>>16253863
Define as first post, best post

[Anonymous No.16254105]

>>16249234
Brazil, SA, Iran, Egypt lagging behind China and India powerhouse

[Anonymous No.16254757]

>>16243547
What next gaseuro or oilyen/oilyuan?

[Anonymous No.16254838]

Fusion has been solved for billions of years. There's a massive source of limitless energy so big it's impossible to miss and so bright it'll burn your eyes pumping out so much energy that a minuscule fraction of a minuscule fraction of it heats up the entire frigging planet. All of it up for grabs and basically none of it used. But let's con the tax cuck and sell him the idea that we can somehow make the most extreme conditions in a bottle with the rarest, most expensive material in the world to maybe in a million years achieve net positive energy in the milliwatt range because why the fook not.

[Anonymous No.16255480]

Free Electric!

[Anonymous No.16255801]

>>16246697
Sand and seawater?

[Anonymous No.16255823]

>>16243547
With the competence crisis around, do you really think nuclear power is a good idea with blacks, latinos and women managing and operating these power stations?

[Anonymous No.16256024]

>>16244824
Giga-Hydro Storm!

[Anonymous No.16256407]

>>16243547
Too little too late. You can't destroy an industry without consequences. Let this be a lesson to the bookburners [math] — [/math] (((activists and regulators))) [math] — [/math] in the future

[Anonymous No.16256431]

>>16243597
He can have his one call to his saudi kings

[Anonymous No.16256670]

>>16256024
Consider Texas bigger infrastructure
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrpi5ewsnIs
https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/hydrogen-stations-texas/8562318

[Anonymous No.16256693]

>>16247916
they're profitable in china
they're profitable in france
clearly germany and us just can't understand advanced communist/frog tech
oh, wait, germany and us are far more advanced than either of those shitholes, and unfortunately this bullshit comes with voting rights which allows for big oil to muddy the waters and dupe dipshits into voting against their interests, so, no more nuclear for advanced countries!

[Anonymous No.16257055]

>>16250188
>>16250192
Good take

[Anonymous No.16257069]

ant brain
>dude solar and wind lmao
dog brain
>fossil fuel power plants
peasant brain
>fusion power soon
the thinking man
>classic fission power
champion of man
>small modular fission reactors

[Anonymous No.16257075]

>>16257069
Are these real videos