*holds nose*
*performs dirty act*

I dare you to challenge me. Verbally.

Originally posted by Prusak #FineAndDandy:

Originally posted by Sir Illic:

I see him in OT a lot, I'll vouch for him.

Invited

Anyway you could invite him again?

He just asked me in OT about it. Maybe he accidentally cancelled the invite or something, idk.

Cheers.

Originally posted by The Extreme Potato:

Yay

Nuclear Power is the future.

• You get more power per amount used to set up then you get from solar panels and wind turbines
  
• The only major accidents we've had were due to Ukrainian incompetence and an earthquake followed by a tsunami
  
• There are numerous failsafes to prevent accidents happening again
  
• Its constant, unlike wind and solar
  
• Nuclear fusion is being developed as we speak which produces much more energy, uses the most abundant resource, produces harmless Helium as a byproduct, is generally a lot safer.
  Plus, scientists get to say "We are harnessing the power of the sun!"

For sure if we get nuclear fusion to ever work this millennium, all these problems would disappear.

But, we are a long way from that. Right now we are still stuck in fission.

The actual cost per energy produced is lowest for renewables and keeps going down. Nuclear is the second cheapest though, especially if you consider the external costs of fossil fuels.

Renewables are the way forward, nuclear is old energy.

And still there are safety issues. After Tsernobyl, they said we would never have an accident again. Then after Fukushima they are saying the same thing. I really don't believe anything is a 100% safe anymore.

I wouldn't want a nuclear power plant in my vicinity, but I wouldn't mind some solar panels or wind turbines.

Originally posted by Ludek:

Originally posted by rojimboo:

If you covered a country in renewables (there is a minimum threshold for wind turbines at least after which efficiency goes down), then depending on the country, you could power the entire world with that electricity.

So the area requirement for them seems exaggerated.

It's true they are a man-made construct in nature, but so are buildings and villages, and towns and cities and roads. Do we demolish them to make the place more natural and prettier?

Nuclear IS pretty safe. But when shit goes down, due to increased risk of floods and other climate extremes due to climate change, I'd rather be stuck with an inoperable wind turbine in my backyard, then a horde of deformed mutants rampaging the street looking for blood.

Have you ever driven through Germany? That country is covered in turbines and panels already and they only cover 30% of their energy needs.

Around roads sure. THere is plenty of intact nature abound though.

I mean you need to have access to lines and the grid in the first place, so you can't really build them in the middle of nowhere to begin with.

Originally posted by Ludek:

Originally posted by rojimboo:

It's really really expensive, means you are relying on the fuel rods from other countries, and there are safety concerns.

We've come to a point where if we have 20bn euros, and the option to build a nuclear power plant or invest that in renewables, the nuclear option is inferior in 2016.

It's a good second option, but it's still second.

There is more to htis than just cost, if you want the whole country to be run of wind or solar then the whole country will be covered in these panels and turbines. How will this look? Definetely not nice. Nuclear is safe, as long as you don't build it in places like Fukushima or you don't experiment with it like in Chernobyl.

If you covered a country in renewables (there is a minimum threshold for wind turbines at least after which efficiency goes down), then depending on the country, you could power the entire world with that electricity.

So the area requirement for them seems exaggerated.

It's true they are a man-made construct in nature, but so are buildings and villages, and towns and cities and roads. Do we demolish them to make the place more natural and prettier?

Nuclear IS pretty safe. But when shit goes down, due to increased risk of floods and other climate extremes due to climate change, I'd rather be stuck with an inoperable wind turbine in my backyard, then a horde of deformed mutants rampaging the street looking for blood.

Originally posted by Ludek:

Originally posted by rojimboo:

Useless? When Denmark managed 140% of its annual electricity consumption with wind turbines alone?

I think not.

Nuclear is an alternative. Shame about the cost and the safety though.

They had 140% but only for a short amount of time. And when the wind conditions were perfect.
Nuclear is better in every way.

It's really really expensive, means you are relying on the fuel rods from other countries, and there are safety concerns.

We've come to a point where if we have 20bn euros, and the option to build a nuclear power plant or invest that in renewables, the nuclear option is inferior in 2016.

It's a good second option, but it's still second.

Originally posted by Wright-Bosso:

ok how do we delete forum filth

They will implode due to collective stupidity anytime now.

Originally posted by Ludek:

Wind power and solar power is useless. Nuclear is the only way to go.

Useless? When Denmark managed 140% of its annual electricity consumption with wind turbines alone?

I think not.

Nuclear is an alternative. Shame about the cost and the safety though.

China is going through a wind power energy revolution and will likely shift from coal to wind eventually.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37409069

Germany manages with its Energiewende, Denmark produced 140% of its electricity consumption early in the year, other countries like USA as a second to China is ramping it up etc.

Intermittency is easily countered through various ways.

Subsidies are dwarfed by the apparent subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.

Seems too good to be true, no?

Originally posted by Littlefoot:

1. I already had my thoughts that we were descending from Africa.

2. Was he part of the neo nazi group or not?

No, he was voicing a differing opinion to their prejudist views.

Didn't take long for them to kill him for his opinion.