Is this where we have another struggle session about nuclear energy?
Honestly I don't really disagree that the environmental activists and Greenpeace did really do a lot of damage in the 80s and 90s by fighting so hard against nuclear energy.
Yeah I'm gonna start it.
Anyone calling for nuclear energy at this point has worms for brains. Not just worms in their brains, but their brain is entirely composed of worms.
Let's ignore the times we almost ended life on half a continent, the absolutely insane treatment of nuclear waste, and the fact that we still don't even have a permanent solution for nuclear waste anywhere on the planet (there's ONE in Finland that's almost up and ready. But it's been almost ready for 20 years)
For now we'll focus solely on the fact that it's literally not necessary. There is no reason. Sorry, no REAL reason (I'm sure you're going to come at me with something wrong about base loads), that most of the world couldn't function on 100% renewable energy.
But even if we couldn't do that, even if we had to use non renewable energy, nuclear is a fucking pointless exercise because we'd run out of fissible material in an astonishingly short time if we tried going all nuclear.
Ignoring all this (which is all ringing true) the entire thing about activists and greenpeace is just a scapegoat for the oil companies, do you think the USA gets off nuclear energy just because of hippies??? And Greenpeace??? I dont buy it for a second, theyre just a convenient enemy to point to. Its like saying "Oh man, its too bad people just didnt like the electric car. Couldnt do it, doesnt have anything to do with big oil, sorry".
I have actually looked into nuclear reactors enough to have an opinion on a shitposting website, whereas you haven't gotten an opinion based in real actually existing technology and facilities. In fact the fact that I have "investigated" this as you call it, is the reason why I am using that specific critique
This is because you are arguing from the point of a sci fi story.
And if you don't get yourself a real argument, all my responses will be "Cool story bro" from now on
At least I have the honesty to not write paragraphs when all I have to say is "I'm right for no reason but I say so"
What little substance you actually produced boils down to :very-intelligent: "It doesn't exist so you shouldn't make it"
So yeah. Go fucking read 5 minutes worth of research or shut the fuck up about it. Your answer is trite. Like you've never argued about this without reverting to your lazy debatebro shit
I doubt that having more nuclear plants would have put much of a dent in our consumption of fossil fuels. We simply would have increased energy consumption.
Is this where we have another struggle session about nuclear energy?
Honestly I don't really disagree that the environmental activists and Greenpeace did really do a lot of damage in the 80s and 90s by fighting so hard against nuclear energy.
Maybe they did some harm, but fossil fuel lobbyists did far more.
Don't forget the Green Party in Germany getting the government to completely end nuclear power only for it to be replaced by... coal.
rolls up sleeves
i wonder who funded them and made sure they make the news?
Are you suggesting there were pro- nuclear or even nuclear-neutral environmental activists in the 80s and 90s?
I assume he's saying that the anti-nuclear lobby was astro-turf funded by the fossil fuel industry.
I'm saying the anti nuclear crowd was funded by oil
I know, but if that's true does that change anything I said?
weird, must've read OP wrong. thought you said they were very influential.
I did. Being astroturfed doesn't mean you're not influential
Edit: also do you have a source on oil funding Greenpeace?
Yeah I'm gonna start it.
Anyone calling for nuclear energy at this point has worms for brains. Not just worms in their brains, but their brain is entirely composed of worms. Let's ignore the times we almost ended life on half a continent, the absolutely insane treatment of nuclear waste, and the fact that we still don't even have a permanent solution for nuclear waste anywhere on the planet (there's ONE in Finland that's almost up and ready. But it's been almost ready for 20 years)
For now we'll focus solely on the fact that it's literally not necessary. There is no reason. Sorry, no REAL reason (I'm sure you're going to come at me with something wrong about base loads), that most of the world couldn't function on 100% renewable energy. But even if we couldn't do that, even if we had to use non renewable energy, nuclear is a fucking pointless exercise because we'd run out of fissible material in an astonishingly short time if we tried going all nuclear.
Ignoring all this (which is all ringing true) the entire thing about activists and greenpeace is just a scapegoat for the oil companies, do you think the USA gets off nuclear energy just because of hippies??? And Greenpeace??? I dont buy it for a second, theyre just a convenient enemy to point to. Its like saying "Oh man, its too bad people just didnt like the electric car. Couldnt do it, doesnt have anything to do with big oil, sorry".
Punch "generation 4 reactor" into a search engine and get back to me when you have anti-nuclear talking points relevant to this millennia.
Not a single thing I've said has been rendered irrelevant or will be rendered irrelevant in the foreseeable future
So how about this: How about you get a talking point based in real shit that exists
Here's a single thing. Now go do your investigation.
I have actually looked into nuclear reactors enough to have an opinion on a shitposting website, whereas you haven't gotten an opinion based in real actually existing technology and facilities. In fact the fact that I have "investigated" this as you call it, is the reason why I am using that specific critique
This is because you are arguing from the point of a sci fi story.
And if you don't get yourself a real argument, all my responses will be "Cool story bro" from now on
I'd love to see what you consider trite after each of these replies I've gotten
Your pointless replies for one.
At least I have the honesty to not write paragraphs when all I have to say is "I'm right for no reason but I say so"
What little substance you actually produced boils down to :very-intelligent: "It doesn't exist so you shouldn't make it"
So yeah. Go fucking read 5 minutes worth of research or shut the fuck up about it. Your answer is trite. Like you've never argued about this without reverting to your lazy debatebro shit
Cool story bro.
It's like I never left :reddit-logo:
Why don't you go back where you'll fit in better?
A truly embarrassing post to make in the wake of getting prissy about being a fanboy for sci fi nuclear power.
:so-true: once again you have replied to me which confirms everything I said about you. I'm from reddit.
I'd love to go nuclear but you think the US is responsible enough for that?
The US has been using nuclear power for 60 years?
How many nukes have the US LOST again? When exactly is Yucca mountain going to be operational? Oh and how's the cleanup of the hanford site going?
I doubt that having more nuclear plants would have put much of a dent in our consumption of fossil fuels. We simply would have increased energy consumption.