Wanna know how to stop global warming?

>"energy makeover"
What did they mean by this??

lol people still believe in this global warming garbage?

Obviously the Swiss are smarter than/sci/

Progressives' mindless opposition to nuclear energy is stupid, but I think European countries have a reasonable argument for disabling their programs for security reasons. What if a Muslim gets hired there, and they decide to try to set off a nuclear chain reaction in the name of jihad, or try to pass nuclear materials to terrorist groups? They can't exactly not hire Muslims because it would be racist.

kek

Switzerland actually opposed the first bill on this, which wanted to get out of nuclear for 2020 (I think). This bill aims for 2050, hopefully there'll be better alternatives until then.

climate change is very much seen as a fact in Switzerland. People actually have to take basic chemistry and biology classes there.

How can liberals be both against global warming and against clean nuclear energy?

>basic chemistry and biology classes
How do these help in decoding advanced mathematical computer models and jargon packed scientific journals?

>i can't understand it, it must be wrong

it doesn't. But brainlets learn that both of these fields are actually based on mathematical models which can become complex and hard to grasp and don't give their shitty, uninformed opinions on subjects they know nothing about.
Unlike some countries where half the population didn't get past fractional numbers, and so think that science is an easy meme and that their opinions are worth something.

>he questioned basic school science lessons, that's a climate change DENIER if I've seen one
It's like the posting quality on this board is actually below /b/

The one thing France has right - 80% of their energy comes from nuclear

Germany has one of the best educated group of people and they still made the terrible decision to end nuclear.
Basic science education does not protect people from scare mongering and overly relying on groupthink.

liberals are against all forms of green energy. they want a fairy tale solution that requires no compromise, but since that doesn't exist they just insist upon more money for """"research"""" and levying taxes on current energy sources to curtail demand.

>hydropower
localized ecosystem destruction gets the hippies up in arms
>wind
muh birds
>new solar
nope, got lead in it
>tidal
muh fish, muh reefs
>nuclear
lol

progressives are setting back the remediation of global warming by an order of magnitude more than conservatives.

I'm not sure about Germany, but Switzerland is planning for a long term end to nuclear, they won't just turn the reactors off overnight. Hopefully by then there will be better alternatives. But yeah, I would have voted against leaving nuclear as well.

I'd rather have plants exploding than what global warming will do.

I guess switzerland is a small country so who cares, but WE NEED MORE NUCLEAR.

Global warming will be far far far worse.

What about geothermal?

i'm pretty sure there is something about geothermal that liberals will autistically screech over.

Geothermal is only possible in a handful of places, Iceland because it's on a spreading fault line, and above water

Here is a plan.
Combine the two.
Nuclear drill.
Get to core
shut down drill
live off spicey gaia's meme sauce.

For are the shittalk about muh red menace blotting out the sun with coal fumes, China is actually building like 30 units ATM, most in the world by far.
Gotta give them that.

Ya fer sure OP.

>Let's get more sources of energy online. >People won't use the additional energy to grow their population and it won't result in more pollution.

Has that ever happened in history? No. People will still use fossil fuels. They'll use whatever they can get.

Not to mention the fact that humans are dumb and prone to mistakes, and nuclear is dangerous and can irradiate the land for 1000s of years, no matter how much you think thorium is magical unicorn fairy dusty put here by the great sphagetti monster to help humanity conquer the galaxy.

>implying a "nuclear chain reaction" would even be dangerous with a low-enriched, fuel-grade uranium
>implying a single person has the power to manipulate the reactor in any significant way, despite all the procedural and automatic safeguards
>implying the fuel just lays around there for the taking by the employees
>implying a bunch of cave-dwellers posesses the enrichment tech to actually make nuclear fuel into something dangerous

Your post is so wrong I didn't even know where to start.

>solution A isn't absolutely perfect, so let's stick to the inferior solution B

You really don't belong in Veeky Forums.

I'm sorry that you've been misled... I think you'd be much happier elsewhere.

>What if a Muslim gets hired there, and they decide to try to set off a nuclear chain reaction

You mean "turn the reactor on"?

It's amazing that Chernobyl happened 31 years ago and there are still little shits born into this world, growing up and running around without anyone telling them you cannot physically make a nuclear power plant explode like a fucking atom bomb.

Anyway, if you guys are interested in what the arguments for leaving the nuclear were in Switzerland, here are the big points.

>While renewable energy sources aren't as efficient as nuclear, a lot of it is caused by lack of investment, the source of which is the fact that people would rather rely on nuclear. Once nuclear will be on its way out, investors will have no choice but to finance the tens of thousands of currently under-funded projects which are looking for better alternatives.
>Nuclear energy production is concentrated and therefore attractive to large shareholders who can control a large part of production, as opposed to renewable energies produced in a decentralized way by a multitude of producers who escape oligarchic control
>This production is also a guarantee of security of supply and political security in case of conflict (a power plant is a target of choice)
>Renewable energies create jobs and allow the dissemination of technological knowledge even in remote areas
>While nuclear energy might sound cheap, its cost does not include environmental costs (waste storage, dismantling) or social costs (health of the population, evacuation and relocalisations of populations in the event of an accident)

>hopefully it gets better before we all die
>commie shit
>we have to put a barrel of shit in the mountain once a year, and that's worse for the environment that burning coal

Fuck off nuke shills, nuclear power is a dumb meme.

I'm literally okay with this.

I have no problem with populations having to evacuate resulting in the area being reclaimed by nature.

Double-win.

this can work for a small country, but the cost of global wraming will be far greater globally, but locally - for switzerland, a potential accident can have incredibly sever consequences for the entire country

anyways, they have to worry about security since the country doesn't really have some huge unpopulated wasteland where they can have a power plant

>While renewable energy sources aren't as efficient as nuclear, a lot of it is caused by lack of investment, the source of which is the fact that people would rather rely on nuclear.

The only "renewable" where there is still room for improvement is photovoltaics, where there is plenty of ongoing research anyway, and there is absolutely no guarantee that pumping more money into it will make the science happen faster.

>Renewable energies create jobs

And how is it good? As a society we should be striving to improve efficiency (power per man-hour), not jobs. I'm not aware of an unemployment problem in Switzerland.

>While nuclear energy might sound cheap, its cost does not include environmental costs (waste storage, dismantling)

It does.

>health of the population

Nuclear power has zero effect on human health, except for a marginal increase in cancer rates among the handful of workers who spend time close to the very reactor.

The only reason conservatives support nuclear power is because

>the government pays for the construction
>a politician gets to put a rich friend of his in charge at no cost to him
>rich friend pays kick back to the politician
>the moment anything goes wrong, it's the government's problem, not the rick fuck running it
>conservative voters believe anything their politicians tell them

>muh muslims

The actual reason is economic. Old reactors at the end of their projected lifetime. No capability and no how to build new safer reactors.

holy shit you have no idea how nuclear power plants physically work, or the security around them.

>trying to minimize the environmental impact of green energy is more damaging than literal decades of funding denialism, fighting tooth-and-nail against regulation, and cutting corners in the name of profit
oh lawd mah drills

>we'll run out of oil in 30 year at this rate
>let switch to something different
>we'll switch to uranium
>we'll only run out of uranium in 100 years at the current rate
>lets escalate it!

The word "nuclear" is a science word so I'm like so smart for supporting it!

>straight up cockblocking new projects is "minimizing impact"

UH HUH

>disposing of nuclear waste contract is won by some "company" made out of bankers
>bankers hire some inexperienced general contractors that never actually dealt with nuclear waste
>general contractors find some shady mafia linked waste disposal company to actually handle the waste
>.....
>Swiss people eating uranium spiced whole grain bread.

It probably does come down to economics.

You have a huge upfront cost, large maintenance costs, limited lifetime, shutdown costs (for permanent waste storage) and projected legal and PR ramifications from accidental failure.

If one a companies reactors blows up because they cut safety costs, not only is the company probably done (and all their stock value) jail time might be involved as well.

>we'll only run out of uranium in 100 years at the current rate

Breeder reactors have been proven to work, but aren't widely used nowadays due to economic concerns - simply mining U-235 is cheaper.

If we start to use breeders on a wide scale, we can improve the current uranium economy a hundred-fold, and turn those 100 years into 10.000

Also nice projection at the end, dumbass.

>those darn environmentalists wanting environmental impact surveys to be conducted before a power plant is built!
$0.05 has been deposited in your account.

AAAAHHHHHHH CHRIST

NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!!

We have enough uranium on earth for BILLIONS of years of nuclear power you mouthbreathing asswipe!

engineering.stanford.edu/news/how-extract-uranium-seawater-nuclear-power

guess global warming isn't that pressing of an issue then is it?

>implying you can't actually minimize environmental impacts while still building new power generation plants
nice strawman/false dichotomy

>implying you can't actually minimize environmental impacts while still building new power generation plants

>while still building new power generation plants

what new plants? you mean all the natural gas ones? because those are the majority of new plants being built. our hydropower generation capacity in the US is barely being touched because of environmentalist NIMBY's. same with wind energy. green energy power production is stagnating like a motherfucker and its entirely due to liberals. you can't argue that point.

Perhaps you'd be the one much happier elsewhere.

There are great security concerns. As much as you might like to play it down. Additionally you cannot ensure safe storage of hazardous waste for tens of thousands of years.

Nuclear fission isn't the answer

I will agree that nuclear is probably one of our best, if not the best, energy production option known to man. However, you are stupid as fuck if you think solar, wind, and hydroelectric dont fall under the category "non-polluting energy source that actually produces more energy than it requires(unnecessary ellipses)". If you are going to be a walking nuclear shill at least be accurate with your statements. Its got plenty of its own benefits without you lying about it, and further polluting the information thats available to those looking for it.

I would like you to stop now.

This actually sorta happened to Urenco in Europe. They hired a pakistani intern and he stole loads of information and passed it onto middle eastern insane mudslimes thus starting irans and pakistans nuclear programs and others.
t.PhD Nuclear Engr who works at LANL.

>t. brainlets who dont understand nuclear technology nor the redundant regulations that nuclear power must go through.

These are hardly legit critisisms. Most rely on the public being uneducated morons which is a fault of them and not nuclear. And the hurrr durr muh renewable energies one is flat out wrong. I wish so many people wernt scared of the spoooOoooOOOoky radiations and the whole couple barrels of waste. 5% of 1 UO2 pellet>Traincart of coal>3 barrels of oil.

>worst nuclear disaster ever
>31 people die

Literally safer than being an american kinder gardener.

If not for a technical fault with a certain door in Fukushima, there would have been two. And that's in the modern age.

Nuclear plants should be government run and owned.

>t.PhD Nuclear Engr who works at LANL.
>I wish so many people wernt scared of the spoooOoooOOOoky radiations and the whole couple barrels of waste

that makes perfect sense. wtf, I love nuclear power now.

>educated pro nuclear person is pro nuclear
Whoooa dude you suuuure got him! Do you even have any arguments against the actual post?

no, just pointing out his bias.

what the fuck? Is this a real post? is this bait?

as in that he obviously has a lot to gain if nuclear was more palatable.

you're stupid for not getting that.

Wow. I literally said in my post who/what i am. No shit sherlock. Is highschool out for the summer already? This is like saying climate scientists are biased with climate data and therefore global warming is a lie.
Try arguing with facts and knowledge next time.

>Is this a real post?
no, its a "fake post"

fucking moron.

>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Shoo shoo you fucking uneducated shill. if you dont understand nuclesr why the fuck are you shitposting about it.

>This is like saying climate scientists are biased with climate data and therefore global warming is a lie

Except that no one benefits if climate science is accepted, not even climate scientists. It's literally anti-capitalism.

It's more like when oil guys deny climate change.

...

...

yes, you do that. Let us know if you come up with something.

...

>You're educated on a topic therefore you cant talk about it!
This is a failure of modern education systems. Wish people like you wouldnt be so uneducated or atleast admit when they know nothing on a topic

climate scientists don't need climate change to be relevant or real to keep their jobs, so they don't have a reason to be biased.
nuclear engineers need nuclear energy to be relevant to keep their job.

Ya good job proving you're educated and all. Literally any one of these retarded nuclear unicorn's shit thorium shills could have written what you just wrote.

I think chaotic good might be a tranny. Lawful evil looks aight.

>implying nuclear energy is even the biggest employer of nuclear jobs
>implying all the uneducated morons and their vote dont controll the funding for it and could cause them to lose their jobs.
Literally try harder. i knew Veeky Forums was moronic but this is some next level shit.

Therefore they're always wrong because it's determined that they must always be biased and moreover beholden to that bias.

Flawless logic. Kafka would be proud.

who said he was wrong, we're just saying he's biased.

Are these even arguments? If you want to make an argument against nuclear atleast think out your argument first so it isnt self contradictory. Please look up any of the regulations around nuclear first

>"we"
>(((((((you)))))))
Cant attack the facts so you attack the speaker. Nice admitting to ad hom.

I swear I just heard Eric Blair rolling in his grave.

So you cant have a legitimate opinion on something if you know what youre talking about? that explains your posts fairly well i guess...

lmao who's attacking the speaker here. Read your fucking posts, you're more agressive than a wasp net on her period.

you're right, it isn't an argument. I'm attacking your credibility, encase you haven't figured that out yet.

Also, hey yallz, this guy has a phd in nuclear engineering!

Rest easy everyone, this guy is in charge down at the local nuclear plant and he only wants what's best for humanity.

>it was merely an act

>Cant attack the facts so you attack the speaker.

He's had plenty of opportunity to post something other than:
>These are hardly legit critisisms. Most rely on the public being uneducated morons which is a fault of them and not nuclear. And the hurrr durr muh renewable energies one is flat out wrong. I wish so many people wernt scared of the spoooOoooOOOoky radiations and the whole couple barrels of waste.

to prove he's more "educated" than the rest of you fucking retards. He hasn't done so. He hasn't even seemed to realize his credibility is being attacked....

...

>not realizing multiple people are calling you out for being an idiot
>"Youre biased because i said so and therefore i can dismiss everything you say!"
Nice logical fallacies everywhere. Literally nothing to say on the topic so you use the fact he has a PhD as an insult?

How is it a real critisism of credibility? You make no sense. Feel free to talk about any specific topic other than my credentials so i can prove how woefully uneducated you are on the subjects.

Real question guys: if we became completely reliant on nuclear, would it be pheasible for us to just launch the waste into the sun? Even if we have to build a whole other reactor, it shouldn't matter as we're still making more energy. Would also go some way to keeping space programs alive.

Pretending to be retarded due to damage control and actually being retarded is one and the same user.

Oh ok.

So "the are hardly legit criticisms" counts as an argument then??

I see.

piss of your retarded

what damage control, I'm just looking for a reason to post thinking emojis

it was literally said like 5 minutes ago. god you're dumb. try to keep up.

bias

bias

"bias"

Holy marry mother of satan's magic donkey are you ever stupid...

>Use the Nuke reactor to electrolysis hydrogen

>Use the hydrogen to launch waste into the sun

Alternatively
>Burn all the leftover nuke waste in a fusion reactor like wendelstein x-7

Global warming is not real
t. /pol/

furthermore, he has done nothing to even prove his level of education, yet he attacks others for not being educated.

It's pretty amusing how the stupidest most uneducated morons always say "educate yourself".

like using a 3 syllable word makes them feel smart or something