/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7466331]

I've seen this debunked before, but I can't find any links on google. Can anyone help?

[Anonymous No.7466339]

>>7466331
Even if it's wrong, it's right. Wind power is idiot power.

[Anonymous No.7466341]

>>7466331
Well, it's debunked by the fact that people buy them.

[Anonymous No.7466347]

>I can't find any links on google
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/29/turbines-energy

I googled "energy to manufacture wind mill" and it was the first fucking link. 2/10 apply yourself

[Anonymous No.7466352]

>>7466347
>letme4chanthisforyou

top kek

[Anonymous No.7466355]

>>7466341
you must be trolling.

you can't be so stupid that you think people aren't so stupid that the fact that people buy means that they're efficient.

as for the image, i get the point, environmentally, but seriously - fuck the environment. if a windmill can produce electricity more cheaply then it is sold to you by factor great enough to pay for itself over X years, then it'd be economically worth it.

[Anonymous No.7466356]

>>7466339
The problem is everyone is too stupid to invest in energy storage.

[Anonymous No.7466359]

>>7466356
"invest"

Right now, there's nothing to 'invest' in that has the energy density of fossil fuels without the infrastructure investments.

There's no current storage that is efficient enough.

[Anonymous No.7466360]

>>7466347
I was looking for something that directly debunks said photo.

[Anonymous No.7466362]

>>7466341
People bought electric cars when they were still inefficient, not a strong argument

[Anonymous No.7466365]

>>7466352
Oh sorry I thought you were able to read. Sorry nobody made an article that specifically debunks a stupid image your probably found off of abovetopsecret

Do you think you can debunk this photo for me? I've seen it debunked before but I can't find any links on google.

[Anonymous No.7466367]

>>7466360
haha, you're looking for someone who specifically found a shitty meme on the internet and said "GOSH, DESPITE HOW RETARDED THIS SOUNDS, I"M GOING TO DEBUNK IT"

pro tip: no one gives a shit about claims via meme

[Anonymous No.7466370]

It's a simple matter of dollars. If it was true, then there'd be a net loss in energy in building and operating a turbine, and they'd be money-losing ventures (even ignoring the manpower). But wind power is now one of the most efficient forms of generation in terms of cost per MW, and many are being built. Energy companies aren't building them just to be "green." They're making mad profits, even without subsidies.

[Anonymous No.7466374]

>>7466362
They were efficient to the people who bought them.

Including me, in 2006, when gas spiked, the premium i paid was quickly erradicated.

OP's argument is that the lifetime of the windmill won't make up for the energy used to create it, which is somewhat of an economic mystery.

The argument with hybrid cars is that the _environmental damage_ is equal to gasoline.

That could have been the case in the initial stage, and there certainly is environmental damage from the sourcing of basic ores for the batteries.

But given that this leads into a global warming argument (as the entire fucking thread is a deniers bait thread), there's no need to continue.

tl;dr: the only argument is about the totality of costs, internal and extrinsic

[Anonymous No.7466376]

>>7466365
aspie much? wrong reply dude, I was just making a joke.

[Anonymous No.7466379]

>>7466365
>>7466367
1. Op here, didn't make that greentext post
2. Apparantly stupid redneck oilfield workers care about it, and are stouting it like it's fact, and are influencing voter opinion with fallacies and downright lying

Fight memes with memes i say.
Also why you so mad bro

[Anonymous No.7466380]

>>7466379
>posts something stupid
>gets linked to article that shows it's bullshit
>"no dude I want something that was specifically written for this troll image"
>"why u mad doe XD"
>>>/b/

[Anonymous No.7466382]

>>7466370
These arguments are about the "life cycle" impact which is the meme of the 'environmental' movement.

It's an attempt to understand the complete cost from birth to death, _including_ extrinsic costs such as mining operations for metals.

That's the only way you can compare them to other sources of energy.

This isn't about whether or not windmills are efficient generators of electricity, it's about whether or not polluting 20 acres of a mine is cheaper than burning however much carbon that is.

And it is, it's cheaper, but we'll still pay the price.

Like that acid mine that just overflowed http://www.vox.com/2015/8/10/9126853/epa-mine-spill-animas

_That_ is a cost of energy generation.

It's probably a very significantly difficult calculus function to break down the energy cycle into it's various environmental costs.

[Anonymous No.7466386]

>>7466356
You're saying that as if energy storage is efficient with our current technology. Which it isn't.

And maybe it will never be.

[Anonymous No.7466388]

>>7466362
>when they were still inefficient
... back in 1908?

[Violent Simians Guy No.7466391]

>>7466355
>if a windmill can produce electricity more cheaply then it is sold to you by factor great enough to pay for itself over X years, then it'd be economically worth it

Then why don't utility companies do precisely that without relying on government subsidy?

Also, output from wind farms declines. Surprising, isn't it? You never hear about that from the media.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148113005727

"Wind turbines are found to lose 1.6 ± 0.2% of their output per year, with average load factors declining from 28.5% when new to 21% at age 19."

Installing a wind farm and then losing 20% of its output by year 20 is really deal breaker... if it wasn't for government subsidy. Generally this suggests that government will have to subsidize wind turbines forever.

[Anonymous No.7466396]

>>7466374
>>OP's argument is that the lifetime of the windmill won't make up for the energy used to create it, which is somewhat of an economic mystery.

it is, really.

but they're still good investments for many people.

and yeah, they are in fact made with all that steel made of all that coke and ore and done with tons of trucks and machines burning gas and factories powered by coal. but, again, fuck the environment.

[Anonymous No.7466397]

>>7466380
That article cited the danish wind associaton, do you really think im comfortable with using THAT as a debunker? Ffs

[Anonymous No.7466398]

>>7466391
do you know how to math?

you lose 7.5% output over 10 years.

wtf are you smoking.

[Anonymous No.7466403]

>>7466391

well, i don't know, i'm not in the business of wind farming or power supply. my point was that IF the owner will save money on power with them, then its worth it to them, despite environmental costs.

i didn't know that the output declines. makes sense though. i was thinking as i looked at it that it's pretty fucking impressive how they spindled fan blades that big inside of the head case. im not surprised they experience mechanical attrition.

[Anonymous No.7466411]

>>7466396
Right, but clearly it's economically viable.

So it'll certainly produce it's weight in energy, and as progressives say, it's 20x.

But the ultimate comparison is the difference between the external costs.

With wind mills, solar, etc, you open up mines in various places and manage them with the associated environmental impacts.

With coal, gasoline, you may have fewer mines, but you'll have a buch of oil wells, and burning CO2 and global warming that affects...the globe.

The argument is not as simple as your retarded brain wants to make it.

[Anonymous No.7466419]

>>7466411
The only viable method for power generation we have right now is nuclear.

Wind is retarded because it needs to be backed up with a secondary source like nuclear or oil/coal. It's not a coincidence that Germany, the #1 leader in "green" power is erecting more coal plants than ever before.

[Anonymous No.7466424]

>>7466403
The environmental costs are always extrinsic to the argument of coal vs gasoline vs wind vs solar.

These are costs which society pays in some form, from environmental damage in mines, to pollution in rivers, to global warming with sea level rises and extreme weather.

Acting like these are easy to integrate and dervice costs from is the most fucking retarded belief aside from the ministry of retarded beliefs.

[Anonymous No.7466427]

>>7466331
Don't listen to Nuclear shills, the only idiot power is nuclear.

[Anonymous No.7466434]

>>7466427
Why's nuclear power the idiot power?

[Anonymous No.7466439]

>>7466419
Nuclear seems viable because it is difficult to integrate the extrinsic costs because most of the costs are associated with various risks, which themselves have _extrinsic costs_ so how you model the risks associated with nuclear fuel, nuclear weapons, and waste storage are all in the same boat.

So no, nuclear is not a clear winner in the life cycle discussion.

[Anonymous No.7466450]

>>7466365
That image is totally real, Hitler was granted asylum on the back side of the moon. That's why we went there, to collect his genetic material for hypercloning. Obviously.

[Anonymous No.7466457]

>>7466434
only an idiot would think it's a good idea

Nuclear power is used for bombs not power lol. What if another one of those things blow up? There were already millions who have died due to the chernobyl and fukushima disasters. How many more millions need to die for you to understand that nuclear power is not a viable option???

[Violent Simians Guy No.7466471]

British turbines seem to run on a 50/50 model... where half of their revenue comes from subsidies. Cut the subsidies, and nobody would do it. So when you start cutting wind farm output by 1% per year per electro-mechanical attrition, you can't avoid noting that *even with subsidies*, after 1 or 2 decades, the wind farm just doesn't make any profit.

Wind power just doesn't make any sense.

[Anonymous No.7466473]

>>7466471
Energetically it does, money is trivial at the end of the day.

[Anonymous No.7466475]

>>7466419
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/02/germany-to-mothball-largest-coal-power-plants-to-meet-climate-targets

[Anonymous No.7466478]

>>7466457
Millions did not die in either of those incidents.
Death toll of Fukushima is currently 0 and Chernobyl, by highest and wildly speculative estimates is 1 million. Which can't be verified because it includes deaths by cancer and that can be caused by all kinds of shit.

[Anonymous No.7466489]

>>7466471
subsidies are taxes, from economics.

IT makes sense to the british to do this.

It doesn't invalidate an economic argument by saying 'but it's subsidies'.

That money is still paid out.

[Anonymous No.7466495]

>>7466478
what about the death toll from nagasaki, hiroshima?

[Anonymous No.7466502]

>>7466495
Lower than the fire bombings.
>Ban combustible materials

[Anonymous No.7466509]

>>7466495
Nothing to do with nuclear power generation. About 250000 killed between the two, though.

Which is a minuscule number in the context of the conflict.

[Anonymous No.7466511]

>>7466495

You mean those death tolls that are lower than the firebombing of Tokyo (individually or combined, depending on whose math you listen to)?

[Anonymous No.7466522]

>>7466509
Plenty to do with nuclear power. It's just that the extrinsic cost has a risk factor that is _also_ a extrinsic cost such that having to integrate the risk and costs associated with nuclear makes everyone have to puke.

You feel free with figuring out how to put society in a place where the production of a material that's necessary for nuclear weapons doesn't lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and I'll agree the costs are not associated.

[Anonymous No.7466528]

This is now a life-cycle assessment thread about energy sources.

Retards without proper birth-to-death plans of energy use need not apply.

[Anonymous No.7466534]

>>7466522
How are nuclear weapons relevant? Are you trying to imply that without nuclear weapons or the possibility of creating them we wouldn't be at the risk of dying to a war?

The problem is war, not nuclear weapons. You are not going to solve war by getting rid of nuclear weapons, just like you're not going to solve murder by getting rid of guns. People adapt and find other ways of killing each other.

Second and first world war both occurred before nuclear weapons and the death tolls were staggering.

[Anonymous No.7466535]

Corporations have tooo much money, thats why they keep manufacturing those at a loss and selling them for barely nothing to other people with too much money, who run them for a steady loss of money

[Anonymous No.7466536]

>>7466522

Considering there are reactor designs where neither the fuel nor the product are useful for nuclear weapons, that's already kind of been figured out.

The problem is society doesn't want to use those reactors, because it wants the possibility/ability to make nuclear weapons around, just in case.

[Anonymous No.7466543]

>>7466536
There are designs, yes.

We also have designs for communism where everyone is equal.

Designs for capitalism where everyone prospers.

Designs for rocket ships that load well and fly straight.

But to experiment with these things, you need to integrate the costs.

I have yet to see any respect for these breeder reactors despite their constant championing.

[Anonymous No.7466549]

>>7466534
>guns kill people
>nuclears kill people
>nuclears don;t kill people
>guns dont kill people

>if only we could live in a paradise where no one does ill ever

dear anons, you must accept history as a basis for risk analysis.

[Anonymous No.7466552]

>>7466543
>Designs for capitalism where everyone prospers.
We don't have anything like this. Capitalism is just private ownership of capital and property and has nothing to do with prosperity.

>>7466549
People kill people.

[Anonymous No.7466554]

>>7466543
>capitalism where everyone prospers.
lol good goy!

[Anonymous No.7466568]

>>7466382
Yes, I was considering only energy costs and assuming that companies would be responsible for the costs of cleaning up their messes and so on. In my country, that's the case, and wind is still viable, and is almost outstripping hydro in our generation portfolio.

An easier way to say it, perhaps: there is a net saving in carbon emissions by using coal to produce steel to produce windmills to produce electricity, rather than simply using that electricity from burning the coal in the first place. If there was not, then wind farms would not be as profitable as coal/gas; how could they be, with the extra associated costs? But they are now more profitable, in part because of the responsibilities we place upon power producers, and in part because wind generation is now highly efficient. A well placed turbine pays for itself in something like 3 or 4 years, and a middle sized wind farm covers the cost of transmission in another 2 or 3.

[Anonymous No.7466571]

>>7466554
that's the point jew hater.

Just because you have a design for something does not mean you have figured out the extrinsic costs of that thing.

As such, you have to integrate the start up cost and project a much more risk based assessment and cost comparitiviely speaking.

And within the nuclear family, it's been demonstrated that there are tons of extrinsic costs, and some of those costs that are likely have their own extrinsic costs.

So during a life-cycle assessment, you're having to integrate not just one set of uncertainties, but a second set of uncertainties that are in a feedback loop, much like a nuclear chain reaction.

This means it's hurr durr, let's just do nuclear, but fails to account for the life cycle.

[Anonymous No.7466575]

>>7466571
That same argument can be leveled against wind and solar, and you wouldn't like the results of that.

[Anonymous No.7466581]

>>7466568
Yes.

The reason we subsidize these (other countries with larger fixed corporate overlords) is because the competitive start up costs are significant hurdles that no one wants to invest in, so government places the money there because we know that the long term momentum of clean energy is a much greater benefit than current technologies.

But the life cycle assessment is still a curious construct because there are extrinsic costs that need to be accounted for when selecting an energy source.

[Anonymous No.7466591]

>>7466575
Which we're doing, hurr durr, life cycle.

Right now, no one's reasonably put forth a life cycle assessment for coal or gasoline that doesn't ignore the global warming phenomonenon that is clearly an extrinsic cost.

Within nuclear, existing technology has draw backs that are projected on any design based nuclear option, regardless of whether the technology proposed necessitates the existence of those draw backs.

This is all foot pedal around and holding our dicks until the climate denialists show up and tell us that global warming doesn't exist so lets just burn the shit out of gasoline and coal.

Feel free to start your bait thread about how there's no extrinsic costs with global warming, and even if there is, it's not caused by people and coal and gasoline.

[Anonymous No.7466595]

>>7466331

Next thing you tell me my solar powered phone charger is not eco-friendly.
Get real.

[Anonymous No.7466599]

>>7466595
It probably isn't, as it's efficiency isn't very good.

But as a conspicuous consumption device that makes people consider that solar technology is an achievable means through which energy production could happen, then it's successful.

[Anonymous No.7466601]

>>7466419
>Germany, the #1 leader in "green" power
not even close, look at .dk
>erecting more coal plants than ever before
no, new plants are load following gas fueled combined cycle type because of fluctuating contribution of renewables
>nuclear
8 up, 8 closed
2014: 20 GW interconnector capacity (a quarter of peak consumption), 74 TWh exported, 36 TWh imported.

[Anonymous No.7466616]

>>7466434

Expensive as fuck. Shills constantly post post-subsidized costs to make it look like "the cheapest power ever guys!"™

[Anonymous No.7466628]

>>7466616
It's interesting that many of those costs were born by the military applications, and then they want to deny that the weaponized aspect isn't a cost associated with nuclear.

It's like wanting to take the egg back out of the cake you made and denying that there was any phase change that makes it impossible.

If the large startup cost was born by the war machine, why do you think people consider nuclear to be a dangerous energy option when it comes to extrinsic costs?

>nigger, you only have nuclear energy because it was on the pathway to nuclear weapons.

[Anonymous No.7466712]

I don't understand how people who are so chicken little with burning hydrocarbons "WE DON'T KNOW HOW IT WILL AFFECT CLIMATE" then turn around and harness wind. How will widespread windmills affect the climate?

[Anonymous No.7466722]

>>7466712
because science?

[Anonymous No.7466732]

>>7466534
>you're not going to solve murder by getting rid of guns
>Britain hasn't had one school shooting since banning handguns 20 years ago
>Schools get shot up in America every week.

[Anonymous No.7466756]

>>7466732
britain has just as much violence, its just a lot less cool then gun violence.

and who gives a fuck about schools getting shot up. literally so what. its not worth surrendering our arms over.

[Anonymous No.7466764]

>>7466756
>muh toys are more important than the lives of five-year olds

[Anonymous No.7466769]

>>7466764
they're not toys, they're weapons, and yes, they are.

[Anonymous No.7466775]

>>7466756
>britain has just as much violence

Well this is a tricky statistic, what constitutes a "violent crime" isn't uniform across all countries so a comparison what you've done here isn't really valid.

[Anonymous No.7466777]

>>7466775
"in reality"

[Anonymous No.7466797]

by this logic, we should just give up on building anything that runs on clean energy until the entire manufacturing sector is running on clean energy

wait a sec...

[Anonymous No.7466916]

>>7466756
>and who gives a fuck about schools getting shot up. literally so what.

[Anonymous No.7467287]

>>7466331
The way to debunk something is to check their claims one-by-one
>260 tonnes of steel
Googled wind turbine weight, found this:
>In the GE 1.5-megawatt model, the nacelle alone weighs more than 56 tons, the blade assembly weighs more than 36 tons, and the tower itself weighs about 71 tons — a total weight of 164 tons.
It's some random wind turbine and it's pretty close, so it's totally possible that 260 tonne wind turbines exist.
>300 tonnes of iron ore
Didn't account for recycling.
>170 tonnes of coking coal
They can also use electric furnaces for recycled steel. Ofc the energy still has to come from somewhere, but that's the classic
>muh electric cars are bad because muh electricity is generated from le coal
argument. Obviously we have to start somewhere, and it might be worse INITIALLY. This brings us to the last point:
>you need more energy to create them than what they use up
According to wolframalpha the specific combustion heat of coal is 27kJ/kg (not coking coal but that should be pretty close). Multiply that by 170 tonnes and you get 4.59 billion Joules aka watt-seconds. Ofc you have to transport and mine the materials, so let's be generous and multiply that number by 100. 459 gigajoules.
Remember our random wind turbine? Let's say it constantly produces 1% of it's maximum power, 1.5 megawatts, that is 15 kilowatts (it's just a model, I don't mean it literally).
459 gigajoules/15 kilowatts=354 days according to wolframalpha. I don't think they only last less than a year.
Yeah I know there are some holes in my data, do the missing parts of the research yourself if you care.

[Anonymous No.7467296]

>>7466712
>I don't understand how people who are so chicken little with burning hydrocarbons "WE DON'T KNOW HOW IT WILL AFFECT CLIMATE" then turn around and harness wind. How will widespread windmills affect the climate?

I bet those hippies didn't think about what might happen if we lost fewer of our crops to frost damage.

[Anonymous No.7467326]

>>7466457
Is this a troll? Literally all of your statements are false.
>Nuclear power is used for bombs not power lol.
Obviously not as we also use it to produce electricity :^)
>There were already millions who have died due to the chernobyl and fukushima disasters.
The death toll is nowhere near millions. This argument also assumes that other means of generating electricity don't cost lives. They do (mining accidents, factory accidents, pollution).
>What if another one of those things blow up?
Newer reactor design are safe, cause unlike the Chernobyl power plant, they have passive nuclear safety, meaning they won't explode, even if you just fucking leave them unattended.

[Anonymous No.7467336]

>>7466543
There is a huge fucking difference between a hypothetical communist utopia that would surely work, unlike all the other failed communist utopias, and a reactor designed by engineers and scientist.
Also you can fucking test the reactor design before you go to production:

>this reactor shouldn't produce anything that can be used to make a nuclear bomb
>does it?
>no -> succes
>yes -> minuscule amount of money lost, back to the drawing board

>this version of communism should make everyone equal, without the bloodshed, secret police, political prisoners, etc
>does it?
>yes -> success
>no -> millions dead

[Anonymous No.7467693]

>>7466397
and what the fuck does the picture in your op cite you LITERAL FUCKING DEGENERATE NIGGER KIKE SHITHEEL SCUM FUCKING HUMAN GARBAGE

[Anonymous No.7468212]

>>7466419
>The only viable method for power generation we have right now is nuclear.
Nope. They are base load power plants and can't be adjusted to varying demand. An all-nuclear energy sector is an impossibility.

>Wind is retarded because it needs to be backed up with a secondary source like nuclear or oil/coal.
This doesn't make wind turbines "retareded". This makes them helpful in reducing the need for environmentally unfriendly power plants. The best complement for wind is gas turbine btw. Coal, like nuclear, are base load power plants which can't be adjusted to varying demands. They're designed to be kept running for decades and can't be shut down and restarted countless times because their design doesn't account for the wear and tear this generates. They usually need a whole day to start up and a week or two to get to optimum working temperatures.

>It's not a coincidence that Germany, the #1 leader in "green" power is erecting more coal plants than ever before.
I have no idea why this myth which has been debunked a thousand times is still being perpetuated. Must be political, I guess.

[Anonymous No.7468221]

>>7466398
you would lose ~25%, 7.5 points

[Anonymous No.7468226]

>>7466471
Tell me one energy source that isn't subsidized.

[Anonymous No.7468253]

>>7467296
No, but the masses of economists working on this did, and they're estimating trillions, with a t, of dollars of losses this century alone.

The fact is that all of our infrastructure is built to go with the climate we had last century. It can't be moved to account for shifting climate without massive cost.

Insurance underwriters are now taking the effects of climate change into their projections. That's about as far from hippies as you can get.

[Anonymous No.7468283]

>>7466478
>Death toll of Fukushima is currently 0
Your credibility is currently 0.

There have been no confirmable, direct radiation deaths, but over a thousand people died in the necessary evacuation to prevent any confirmable, direct radiation deaths.

On top of that, Fukushima happened in an ideal place with ideal weather, such that the fallout got blown by a strong, steady wind directly into the largest and emptiest stretch of ocean on the planet.

It's going to be impossible to ever know how many people die of cancer as a result of this and other releases of radioactive materials, because the causes of cancer are rarely clearly identifiable.

I can't fucking stand people who try to turn the Fukushima disaster into an argument that nuclear power is safe. It's a clear demonstration of how extraordinarily unsafe it is.

[Anonymous No.7468292]

>>7468253
>The fact is that all of our infrastructure is built to go with the climate we had last century. It can't be moved to account for shifting climate without massive cost.
Our infractructure is crumbling and becoming obsolete much faster than the climate is changing.

>masses of economists working on this did, and they're estimating trillions, with a t, of dollars of losses this century alone.
So what are they estimating for gains?

A trillion dollars in a century is about a dollar per person per year.
>masses of economists working on this did, and they're estimating dollars, with a d, of losses per person per year alone.

[Anonymous No.7468297]

>>7466712
>How will widespread windmills affect the climate?
Ask the forests. They've been taking kinetic energy out of the Earth's atmosphere and dissipated it as heat for millions of years.

[Anonymous No.7468309]

>>7468283
The only thing safer than nuclear is wind power, more ppl die from solar due to the crazy chemicals it takes to make one.. also fukushima's death toll is around fifty andchernoble is around 300, do you know flying in an airplane exposes you to more radiation naturally than either one of them have spread, You really need to watch Pandora's Promise, it's a documentary made by antinuclear advokates that looked into the actual science and became pronuclear

[Anonymous No.7468315]

>>7468297
That's nice, but it's not what windmills are limited to doing.

Windmills are much taller than trees, and (being designed to interact with the wind as much possible) they disrupt airflow much more dramatically, mixing air at different levels that could have stayed separated.

Furthermore, growing or cutting down trees can have major effects on the local climate, which, if done in enough places, or in key places, can have major effects on the global climate. Even if the impact was only as great as trees, that would still be a strong disruptive potential.

[Anonymous No.7468344]

>>7468309
>The only thing safer than nuclear is wind power
Nuclear's not unsafe because of routine operating accidents, but because of the potential for large-scale disaster (whether accidental or as a result of deliberate attack), and weapon proliferation.

Few of the nuclear plants which have been built have been fully decommissioned, and their waste will remain dangerous for thousands of years. We have no meaningful sample of the full hazard posed by a nuclear power plant, because no nuclear plant has ever stopped posing a hazard.

Furthermore, we have no reliable statistics on the number of deaths that have resulted from nuclear power, because it can do things like cause cancer deaths on the other side of the world.

>fukushima's death toll is around fifty
It's well over a thousand. Look it up.

>chernoble is around 300
...

>flying in an airplane exposes you to more radiation naturally than either one of them have spread
They didn't spread "radiation" in some vague even blanket. They spread radioisotopes which are essentially non-occurring in nature, which food chains and other processes can re-concentrate and bring into the human body.

>You really need to watch Propaganda Piece
No thanks. If you get your information from movies, you deserve your ignorance.

[Anonymous No.7468368]

PV solar and wind power are stupid for base line power generation.

Nuclear power should be the majority of any developed nations electricity production.

[Anonymous No.7468377]

>>7468315
>Windmills are much taller than trees
And much less numerous. By countless orders of magnitude. If you want to make the case that the world's wind turbines have a greater impact on the atmosphere than the world's trees it's up to you to provide the numbers.

>they disrupt airflow much more dramatically, mixing air at different levels that could have stayed separated.
I think airplanes are much more disruptive in that regard. And doing away with them would also cut a lot of carbon emissions. But I'd be happy already if we just cut the subsidies airplane traffic gain from kerosene being exempt from taxes. This was done through international consensus sometime after WWII, I believe, to aid in the establishment of the airplane as a means of mass transport. So the cause for this subsidy has long expired.

[Anonymous No.7468401]

>>7468368
> nuclear everywhere
I live in a place where peak load is about three times the minimum load. You want to run nukes at full capacity all the time, because they're bloody expensive... but you have to make up that difference to peak load somewhere. So nuclear being the majority of generation is completely infeasible. It might work in places where the year-round temperature difference is very small, and with some sort of day/night load balancing. But for most places... no.

Anyway, hydro generation, if you can build it, is vastly superior. You get fringe benefits like being able to control flooding and fisheries, too... whereas nukes are brutal on rivers (all that waste heat is bad). We build and run dams that don't even produce power, just for that.

>>7468344
> It's well over a thousand. Look it up.
I was curious, so I looked it up. It appears to be zero. None. No one died at Fukushima, nor has died from anything radiation-related since. Chernobyl was 49 deaths, so maybe that's what you're thinking of.

(Realistic UN estimates for total cancer deaths due to Chernobyl top out around 6000, by the way, despite the claims of millions you see on certain blogs. Fukushima was a much smaller disaster and should have a much smaller toll in the long run.)

[Anonymous No.7468446]

>>7468401
France is majority nuclear.

[Anonymous No.7468471]

>>7468377
>And much less numerous. By countless orders of magnitude. If you want to make the case that the world's wind turbines have a greater impact on the atmosphere than the world's trees it's up to you to provide the numbers.
Nobody's talking about their current impact. They're presently generating a tiny fraction of the world's power. The question is: what happens if we try to scale it up to the point that they matter?

[Anonymous No.7468477]

>>7468446
France also exports a piss-ton of electricity, sometimes for basically free. Californian nukes have to do the same. It's more expensive to ramp down during low load periods than to just give it away. In a few cases, they've actually paid other places to take their power.

Not everyone can be an exporter.

[Anonymous No.7468486]

>>7468471
Well, if this question intrigues you, do the math.

[Anonymous No.7468489]

>>7468401
>No one died at Fukushima, nor has died from anything radiation-related since.
About 1600 people died in the necessary evacuation to prevent relation-related deaths, you idiot. We've gone over this just a few links up in the chain of responses. Additionally, a whole city and considerable surrounding area was abandoned indefinitely, as was the case in Chernobyl.

>Chernobyl was 49 deaths
Oh my god, how stupid can you be? No one believes that the total death toll was this low.

These kinds of blatantly fake statistics are how people claim that nuclear power is the safest power.

It's in the nature of nuclear accidents that it's difficult to directly attribute deaths to them. There's no way to be completely sure, when someone gets cancer five years later, whether it was a result of exposure to radioactive material, a result of some other carcinogen, or a pure chance occurrence. There isn't even a good way to make a reasonable estimate. Global cancer rates are changing all the time, along with diagnostic methods.

[Anonymous No.7468497]

>>7468486
>do the math
You say that as if it's feasible for an individual person to calculate the impact of a new factor on a chaotic global system full of positive and negative feedbacks.

>I got caught saying something stupid, now let me cover it up by implying that impossible things are easy and you are being lazy for not doing them.
Jesus.

[Anonymous No.7468521]

>>7466916
Fun fact. Most of you many have heard of the Sandy Hook shooting. What you probably haven't heard is what the police did during that shooting. Nothing. Nada. Not a fucking thing. They stood by and let a manic shoot up a school full of little kids picking there noses. Now most of them want early retirement with full pensions because of, "my PTSD." We need weapons in this country to protect ourselves from manics. The police aren't going to do it. In fact, more often than not it is the police that are the homicidal manics killing innocents. Criminals don't give a fuck if weapons are illegal, they will still find channels to buy arms to commit crimes with. We need weapons reform in this country, but just flat out banning weapons is a fucking retarded idea. The police in this great country are cowards and low lives; they can't protect us, we need to protect ourselves.

[Anonymous No.7468528]

>>7468521
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.7468529]

>>7468489
>About 1600 people died in the necessary evacuation to prevent relation-related deaths, you idiot.
Real citation needed. I've yet to see a single reliable source claim anything near this number. You idiot.

People died in that area because they had just been hit by a fucking magnitude 9 earthquake that generated 40 m high tsunami waves. They didn't have food or water or shelter, and their infrastructure was completely destroyed. This would have happened regardless of whether or not that plant was there. Look at fucking New Orleans for a closer to home comparison (I'm assuming from your utter ignorance about world events that you must be American).

There are zero cases directly attributable to the Fukushima nuclear plant meltdown. Zero. You saying otherwise, no matter how many times, doesn't prove otherwise.

[Anonymous No.7468531]

>>7468489
>Oh my god, how stupid can you be? No one believes that the total death toll was this low.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster

There is even a list of their goddamned names.

[Anonymous No.7468541]

>>7468521
>What you probably haven't heard is what the police did during that shooting.
The shooting was about a 5-minute span of time. The shooter used his gun to destroy a window allowing him to reach through a door that otherwise couldn't be opened without a key. A 911 call was made within a minute of the first shot. The first police arrived at the correct address within 3 minutes. Before they could locate the shooter, he had already fired his last shot, killing himself, less than 1 minute after that.

If someone abruptly decides to kill some random people, nothing is going to reliably stop him. Not the best possible police, not people armed and ready for self-defense, not more psychiatric care availability, not gun control, nothing.

Any measure is going to only catch some people before they succeed in racking up a large death toll. At some point, we simply have to accept these sorts of incidents are just going to happen, as we accept that there will be some traffic accidents and some people simply slipping and breaking their necks.

Rare incidents don't necessarily indicate that we're doing anything wrong or we should change anything.

[Anonymous No.7468548]

>>7468489
They didn't die in the evacuation, their deaths were "related" to factors caused by the evacuation. For example, the death off someone living in temporary housing would be "related" to the disaster. However this does not mean the death was caused by the evacuation. Regardless, your claim off millions of deaths from nuclear accidents is retarded bullshit. Even being generous, the number does not even get to 5 digits. Nuclear is safe and clean, and anyone who opposes it is misinformed or a liar.

[Anonymous No.7468552]

>>7468529
>>About 1600 people died in the necessary evacuation to prevent relation-related deaths, you idiot.
>Real citation needed. I've yet to see a single reliable source claim anything near this number.
You haven't spent 30 seconds on google.

I'm not going to play this game, where I post you a source, and you make excuses and demand another source. If you make even the slightest effort to research this, you will find the 1600 figure and its source, and you will see that there are reliable sources.

>>7468531
>This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states the Wikipedia editor's particular feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts.
>The neutrality of this article is disputed.

[Anonymous No.7468558]

>>7468548
>your claim off millions of deaths from nuclear accidents
Didn't make one.

And if someone did, that's no excuse for responding with these absurd lowball figures.

[Anonymous No.7468563]

>>7466331
Ironic how they don't state how much energy goes into manufacturing these.

>A wind mill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much electricity as was invested in building it.

What an overly generalized and weak argument that could be applied to any machine that generates electricity.

[Anonymous No.7468564]

>>7468548
>If people have to abandon a city to escape a nuclear disaster, then they die because they had to abandon a city, that death has nothing to do with the disaster. Abandoning cities in a wild rush is a normal, fun activity that people were going to do anyway. An incident in which people have to abandon a city, and never return, because of a nuclear plant faliure actually makes a great case for how safe nuclear power is.

[Anonymous No.7468571]

>>7468564
I hope your local dome pops so you look like a retarded hypocrite.

[Anonymous No.7468578]

>>7468571
How would a nuclear accident forcing me and the people around me to abandon my home, and possibly killing me before I can get away (I'll point out again that they got very lucky with the weather at Fukushima, with the wind blowing the fallout straight out to sea), make me look like a "retarded hypocrite"?

[Anonymous No.7468592]

>>7466457
Baaaaaaahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahha

[Anonymous No.7468712]

>>7468497
If it's chaotic it's unpredictable, thus unprovable. Which makes your entire argument pointless.

[Anonymous No.7468772]

To make one ton of steel it takes about 5600kWh so for 260 it would take 1456000kwh (1456MWh). For a 2MWh wind turbine, it would take 728hrs to break even, which is 30.33 days. However, the 5600 kWh for 1 ton of steel is an approximation I found will researching steel, and it does not take mining iron and coal into account. It is simply the energy to use the BOF or EAF (blown oxygen furnace / electric arc furnace). So, this is partially debunked already but I suggest you look into coal and iron production.

Good reads:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/resources/mining/pdfs/iron.pdf
http://www.steel.org/Making%20Steel/How%20Its%20Made.aspx
http://www.imoa.info/molybdenum/molybdenum-mining-processing.php (Molybdenum is commonly added to steel).
http://ietd.iipnetwork.org/content/coke-making
http://www.siemens.com/innovation/en/news/2011/e_21_ino_1128_1.htm (source for the 5600).
http://www.eia.gov/consumption/manufacturing/briefs/steel/
http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/coal-mining/

[Anonymous No.7469389]

>>7466331
Even if the wind turbines produces more energy than was put into manufacturing them, 1). there is the fact that wind power is an intermittent power source that is literally dependent on the weather, 2). when it does produce power, is it when it is actually needed and 3). the same resources used to manufacture the wind turbine could have been placed into another power source that will produce more energy and is not intermittent.

[Anonymous No.7469394]

>>7466341
People bought irradiated water for magical powers

Now people buy wind turbines for magical energy

[Anonymous No.7469404]

>>7468772
Wind and solar are notorious for being intermittent power sources. Wind's capacity factor, which the ratio of its average energy production vs what it's capable of producing if it runs at peak capacity, is around 25% and because humans can't control when the wind blows, wind turbines may or may not produce the power when needed.

[Anonymous No.7469528]

>>7468309
>wind
>safe
They've actually started giving people who live or work in range of them licenses to shoot endangered birds that go close.
>you can legally shot a bald eagle in america
Not really an argument, but
>freedom

[Anonymous No.7469568]

>>7468401
>You get fringe benefits like being able to control flooding and fisheries, too... whereas nukes are brutal on rivers (all that waste heat is bad).

pfff, hydro isn't good at all for the environment.

[Anonymous No.7469571]

>>7468531

>posts a wikipedia article
>posts one that is literally in dispute

fuckwit

[Anonymous No.7469573]

You know if there were less people around, all our energy problems would be solved.

[Anonymous No.7469626]

>>7469528
>They've actually started giving people who live or work in range of them licenses
No, "they" have not, actually.
GTFO fgt pls