Fossil fuels are the greatest thing that ever happened to humanity
>humanity
Only a part, a certain economically well off humanity. Another (larger) rather considerably large part still doesn't "participate" in the benefits of the massive rise in labor productivity that fossil fuels allow for.
>inb4 a bunch of greenfags flood the thread
Goddamn do I love natty. Literally the best energy source in the world.
That being said, fuck all you fuckers; I'm getting my study in Nuclear Engineering. I'm about 10-15 years ahead of the curve and I'll be making bank working on 4th generation nuclear weapons and building MSRs
dont fossils gro on tres??
Yes, nonrenewable resources are great
>>460537
>>inb4 greenfags
I wouldn't suggest that the use of those fuels didn't help our development in any way. However we do know now how pollution and greenhouse gases are affecting us over time.
OPs graph shows just how many other options there are for energy. The only reason nothing is changing is because it is cheaper and more profitable to not care.
Long live the bottom line
>>460524
Yeah, probably, but its like breast feeding.
When it first appeared, it revolutionized everything and we needed it to be successful, but now its about time to start weaning off of the oil, otherwise its going to get weird.
>>460524
Nuclear is the future tho.
>>461093
Ahah, I really like this post.
>>460524
that second (inset) pie chart makes no sense.
the values in the key don't add up to 100%, unless, those values are percentages of overall consumption rather than percentages of renewables consumption.
also: isn't biomass akin to fossil fuels in terms of pollution, since you're basically just burning shit to turn an electromagnet? feels weird to lump it in with 'renewables', the hatstand on which the whole non-polluting energy source hat is hung.
>>461298
Its a pie chart out of 16.7% (so in proportion to that number its a chart showing which renewables are most prominent)
>>460537
Ye ye sure buddy :)
Industrial revolulution and electricity would exist without it.
>>460524
I would probably say advances in agriculture as they essentially allowed humans to live more comfortable lives rather than nomad style hunter gathering but each to their own
>>461080
Nuclear energy is the only ecological and economical alternative to Oil and Natty
>>460524
Let's make the exact same thread in a hundred years senpai!
>>460524
Yes, it is.
>>460585
> sending some one to/lit/ because he makes a perfectly realistic and reasonable claim.
OK buddy.
BTW, the 15°C we have had since early November here in France tend to make me disagree more and more everyday with OP's claim.
I would be fucking pissed off if I have to use Google Images to explain to my kids what fucking snow was. Or long dead from déshydratation.
>>462156
Dehydration * fucking auto correct
>>460524
>Fossil fuels are the greatest thing that ever happened to humanity
Sure thing buddy, fossil fuels are evil.
Keep blaming cigarettes for all problems.
>>462156
Global warming is real and non-anthropogenic
>>462156
>BTW, the 15°C we have had since early November here in France tend to make me disagree more and more everyday with OP's claim.
We had a bunch of storms coming up from the South which brought warm weather, also, we get the warm water currents from the South.
When there are no storms, it gets cold very fast.
>>462177
I'm pretty convinced that releasing shit tons of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is really not helping. Seriously, the anthropogenic nature of global warming is a fucking thing, even if other factors (climatic cycles and whatnot) are obviously involved.
Hi America btw.
>>462202
I'm an Australian Geologist working for a nuclear non-poliferation company.
Global Climate change, is real and non-anthropogenic.
We have been steadily warming since the last little iceage.
Go fuck yourself surrender monkey.
>>460537
>be greenfag
>unopposed to nuclear energy due to low emissions and SCIENCE
I just wish it wasn't like carrying a ceramic tea set up a wet set of stairs, one major accident and the whole area's uninhabitable
>>462225
Hiroshima and Chernobyl are now fully habitable, Nuclear Accidents with MSR and 5th Gen nuclear technology are close to impossible.
>>462225
Dumb frog poster
>>462238
Pripyat is inhabitable, the area immediately around Chernobyl is not.
>>460524
It's responsible for the persistence of European dominance.
>>462330
You're also talking about decade olds clean up technology, as in none at all. Japan actually had a method and Fukushima should be clean in a few years.
Also Fukushima wasn't a reactor failure, Chernobyl was.
>>462442
Why didn't the japs built the nuclear reactor faced to the Japan Sea and not to the Pacific ocean like Fukushima was?
>>463201
I'm sorry?
Your wording is weird. They built fukushima in a good place, but with older technology. Newer reactors have automatic shutdowns and drainages eliminating threats.
MSRs have no threat of critical failure.
>>460524
>16% renewable
surprisingly larger share than i thought
why isnt it possible to run everything south of the tropic of cancer on solar anyway shits fucking hot
>>463714
There is no such thing as "renewable" or "green" energy.
It is neither ecological nor economical to do anything but Nuclear Power for an alternative to Oil and Natty.
>>460524
>Dat Biomass
What do they describe as biomass. exactly?
>>462442
Chernobyl sure was a fuckup
>hey let's do some dangerous tests
Fukushima had the problem that a tsunami hit them which flooded their back-up diesel motors
>>463761
It's a fancy way of saying burning wood
>>463782
It probably counts ethanol also.
>>463789
Yes, ethanol is included
>>463789
This is what I was worried about.
Ethanol is just a scam that short sighted hippies got into when they heard it was all green.
What they didn't realize it that ethanol isn't that great either in terms of pollution, and eats up crop land and water like a mother fucker.
>>462063
>caring about the economy in regards to the environment
The earth doesn't need us but we need it
>>463910
>not caring about finding a real solution
>being a Green zealot
>LET'S JUST KILL EVERYONE AND MAINTAIN A LOW POPULATION
fuck off
>>463800
>What they didn't realize it that ethanol isn't that great either in terms of pollution, and eats up crop land and water like a mother fucker.
Better than coal tho
>>463931
Out of all the carbon fuels Natty is king.
Anything else is cheap and dirty.
We should go to Natty reliance and then to Nuclear.
Ethanol eats up too much space.
>>463936
>Natty
Natural gas?
>>463789
Wait, no
Ethanol is listed separately from Biomass.
What the fuck is "Biomass" in this context?
>>463957
Directly burning plant or animal materials.
Wood, fat, shrubs, various types of waxes, etc.
>>463965
Wait, seriously?
I thought it was talking about professional use.
Not consumer combustibles or 3rd world tribal goods.
Well then of course it makes up that much space on the fucking graph.
Half the world still relies on burning sticks to keep their house warm.
Unless there is some sort of wood recycling company that generates energy using unused flammables, but that sounds to good to be true.
>>463943
Yes
>climate nuts
lmaoing at you are lives
>>463996
CLIMATE DOES NOT EQUAL WEATHER RETARD
>>464005
honestly lmaoing hard
>>464005
Go back farther in time son.
>>464008
>>464013
>>464008
I can pull graphs out of my ass too
https://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm
>>464039
The most stable in many thousand years, what fortunate times we live in, huh?
>>464044
Sick bruh.
>>464044
Kek
>>464048
>pulling up a graph that compares the holocene to dinosaur times
Nigga, do you know what the fuck you are doing?
>>464071
>compares
Nein.
>>464077
Implying humans have any say in that.
>>464073
Nigga that graph is so bad I can disprove it with itself
>>464057
what is that last graph even trying to convey?
>>464089
omg gr8 w0rk
>>464111
Can I ask for a source?
What is this even trying to say?
>>464125
Every picture has the source in it.
>>464128
I was asking about the graph and, well I tried image source, and I couldn't find anything.
>>464108
>I can't refute it therfore /pol/
M8, it's pretty basic to refuse the lunacy of anthropogenic climate change.
>>464135
>I can't refute it therefore /pol/
/pol/ actually believes this tho
they spew infographics and graphs with the links inside, so that when you try to tell them to fuck off they say "lul you can prove anything!!11!1!!". and when they do this people get pissed off and want to proove them wrong by fact mining and checking their sources so that they can tell them to fuck often a more sophisticated manner.
and when they do that they have already posted twelve more infographs.
Its literally trying to overload you with information so that you'd hopefully shut up long enough that the thread either dies or is completely filled with /pol/ shit.
>>464163
But I posted a few basic graphs, some other anons did too.
They show a general historical trend of climate data refutes the notion that global climate change is anthropogenic, and if it is; it's now beyond our control (China and so on).
>>460524
That graph would look a lot different depending which particular country you look at. For example, in the first world, fossil fuels don't make up nearly as much of that chart
>>464198
Nuclear SHOULD be around 70% of our energy supply in the first world. :<
>>463930
>imblying
Money is not real. The environment we live in is very real. Thats all I mean. I am not for killing people off you twat.
>>464198
Every country has it's peculiarities
>>465457
Then you are not for finding a real solution.
Money is very much real you obnoxious faggot, and there will be no solution unless it's economical and ecological.
>>465898
Money only has value because we agree it does. If we fuck up this planet because of the bottom line we can't bail out the biosphere. If everyone agreed that keeping this place habitable for the future was more important than making a buck then there would be no issue.
>>466625
Exactly my point, you can't get the world to sing in harmony and have some fucking liberal hippy happy go lucky save the planet fuck fest without a global totalitarian regime that kills anyone who opposes the ruinous radical ideology.
You're essentially advocating for the slaughter of millions.
We have to find REAL, ecological and economical solutions. Not some Utopian ideological failure.
>>460537
>wanting to work on nuclear weapons
Why do you hate humanity?
Peak Oil scares me.
>>466632
Hello McFly, what do you think we just did in Paris?
>>460524
>2.7%
>>466657
>I don't know what you're talking about.
How can you love humanity but look forward to creating weapons meant on killing millions?
>>466671
>Peak oil will literally never happen
This is bait.
You should be more responsible with your posting. The young and stupid may believe you.
>>466677
The weapons I would be developing are developed precisely to prevent the death of millions in the event of a nuclear exchange.
And they are invented go prevent the exchange from happening in the first place.
4th generation nuclear weapons are most likely going to be small, tactical weapons, used in countries that don't have a nuclear arsenal. It would only kill a few hundred soilders in a combat scenario.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M5VNnmAoIYI
Nuclear weapons prevent the death of millions, while also ensuring it.
Despite us not having a MAD policy, NUTS is what we use now, it is still very important.
>>466684
By that I mean peak oil is unfalsifiable.
It's untested and unfounded. We have oil and electrical reserves for those kind of things, Switching to Nuclear power would only take a few years.
>>466677
>being a soping wet vagina
If you knew jack about shit you would realize that nuclear weapons are the reason why the Soviet Union and USA didn't murder the fuck out of each other during the cold war. Nobody wants to get nuked. Your enemy having nukes means that (even if you have a huge army) you may still suffer huge losses if you attempt to invade them. Nukes are the greatest peacemakers ever created.
Go ahead and name some nuclear powers that were invaded by other states.
>>466689
>The weapons I would be developing are developed precisely to prevent the death of millions in the event of a nuclear exchange.
>And they are invented go prevent the exchange from happening in the first place.
That is not a sustainable way of preventing war. Eventually they will be used, be it 10 years or 1,000 years.
Also, by your logic we should build cobalt bombs to ensure humanity is utterly eradicated in the case of nuclear exchange to make world war that much more scary.
>>466732
>war is bad but nuclear war is okay
You are an idiot.
>>466769
The threat of mass or total annihilation has been one of the greatest preventer of actual total annihilation.
They will nor "eventually" get used, there is no argument in that. They will get used or they won't. Nuclear weapons, while I greatly despise because they destroyed the traditional cycle of war, are now a reality.
Our friends across the sea won't give up there's and we won't give up ours.
This isn't some hippy fantasy, this is reality.
Like I said, the weapons I would be developing would only be used to inflict tactical strikes on military bases. (Rods from God kind of thing)
You honestly have no idea what you're talking about.
>>466791
War is ugly, not bad. Nuclear exchange is probably bad.
But neither are as bad as a complacent man.
>>466835
>The threat of mass or total annihilation has been one of the greatest preventers of total annihilation
That's an absurd way of wording your argument. There wouldn't be any threat of total annihilation to begin with if there weren't thousands of nukes constantly primed and ready to wipe out human civilization at a moment's notice.
>They will nor "eventually" get used
>Nukes are not retarded to build because their only use is so mind mindbogglingly retarded that no one will ever use them.
So let's build a bunch of cobalt bombs because those would be even more retardedly destructive.
>Like I said, the weapons I would be developing would only be used to inflict tactical strikes on military bases. (Rods from God kind of thing)
Now you are negating your argument about nukes never being used! If they are used tactically then that sets the precedent for further uses and makes their strategic usage that much more likely!
>>466835
>But neither are as bad as a complacent man.
Complacent? The fuck are you talking about? You don't need to kill people either directly or indirectly in order to have purpose in life.
>>466876
>That's an absurd way of wording your argument. There wouldn't be any threat of total annihilation to begin with if there weren't thousands of nukes constantly primed and ready to wipe out human civilization at a moment's notice.
No it isnt. There are governments that are all seperate, these governments have the interest to ensure the soviernty of their countries. The best way to assert soviernty is through military capacity. The greatest military capacity is through nuclear weapons, ensuring that if you fuck with me, I blow you up. This prevents both conventional warfare and nuclear exchanges.
>So let's build a bunch of cobalt bombs because those would be even more retardedly destructive.
Not economical, we want precision first strike capability to make our chances of winning a nuclear exchange maximized. You don't have any idea what you're talking about in regards to global nuclear planning. We're not just LeMays "LET'S NUKE EVERY THING".
>Now you are negating your argument about nukes never being used!
Nukes being used, you're implying a global nuclear exchange that ensues in mass destruction. Using 4th generation nuclear devices, which result in consise damage and low nuclear fallout, would be used as tactical devices againts counties who cannot retaliate with nuclear devices.
>If they are used tactically then that sets the precedent for further uses and makes their strategic usage that much more likely!
Read above
>>466884
You need to be ready to kill for your freedom. A man who cannot defend his freedom himself, is worthless.
>>466908
>You need to be ready to kill for your freedom. A man who cannot defend his freedom himself, is worthless.
Poe's law.
>>466912
Not an argument.
>>461080
If it's not forbidden then it's possible.
In the future technical capacities of humanity could allow genetically engineering of bacteria that transform organic matter into fossil fuels in a matter of days.
>>466924
Or we can use excess heat from MSRs to make portable fuels like dimethyl either.
It makes no sense to freak out about global warming when there's no practical solutions to even delay it.
Mitigation of emissions wont stop us from burning every ounce of extractible fossil fuels within financial feasibility.
The bigger issue is the lack of renewable energy infrastructure when we're forced to move away from fossil fuels due to low supply.
>>466876
>It would be better to not have [guns/bombs/nukes/knives/war] in the first place
Well, there are over 400 million guns in America alone, billions worldwide. Bombs and military equipment out the wazoo. World governments who ensure their legitimacy by ensuring the death of others. And anyone can make a knife.
Your "solution" isn't practical. This isn't a utopia you slightly left of center piece of pigshit.
>>466932
There is no such thing as green or renewable energy. Read a fucking book.
>>466908
>Not economical, we want precision first strike capability to make our chances of winning a nuclear exchange maximized.
That goes against what you are arguing. You are saying nukes will NEVER be used strategically because of how horrific the result would be. We should therefore make it more horrific to ensure they are never used.
>tactical nukes will be precise and only be used against third rate militaries
A bunch of smartbombs do the same thing without killing thousands of civilians. There is nothing precise about nukes. Also you are talking about strong nations murdering en masse and exploiting the peoples of weaker nations, not protecting anyone.
I can't wrap my head around the amount of mental dissonance going on inside your mind. Everything you say is contradictory. You say nukes will never be used because they are too horrific but then say you plan on developing nukes that are slightly less horrific in order to make their use more likely. You say that these weapons are meant to protect your "freedom", whatever that is supposed to mean, but then say they will only be used against nations so weak that they were never a legitimate threat to begin with.
Fucking jingoism, man.
>>466934
What solution are you talking about?
>>466936
Im read up bro. I use the term perhaps i should have described the sources im referring to as "more sustainable" rather than renewable.
>>466937
You're too moronic to even being to explain tactical nuclear weapons usage, especially concerning an entirely theoretical type of nuclear device.
Watch the video you twat.
You think that global nuclear exchange = everyone loses and that it can't be won so we should just build the biggest most uneconomical nuclear devices possible for no reason.
We already have a stockpile that serves our needs.
You are such a fucking moron.
There is a difference between tactical usage and the global nuclear exchange that you are shitting your pants about, which you have the exchange policy entirely wrong. War is about economics, building a bunch of fuck huge bombs won't help us win.
I'm not a Jingoist in the slightest. And I laud your failure of an attempt to use a yellow journalism term trying to straw man me into a position.
>>466951
The only economical and ecological alternative energy resource is Nuclear energy.
I'll defend it to the grave.
Everything else destroys the enviornment to no end.
I'm talking giant flooded fields full of toxic waste for 10,000 years just for some "green" wind turbines or "renewable" energy solar plants.
>>466942
You oppose the development of Nuclear weapons and their existence right?
>>466954
>ignore argument
>call people idiot repeatedly
>PROFIT!!!
>>466958
>>466951
MMMM GREEN ENERGY.
>>466958
I agree. Its energy returns are second only to fossil fuels and we have enough radrock to sustain them.
Only issue is that they take massive financial investment and fukushima rattled governments and investors.
Solar & wind tech has been improving
>>466969
Your argument has no basis but in a magical la la land where you can get all of the world's governments to get on their knees and decommission every single nuclear device ever invented.
>>466977
Yes, it will take a lot of capital and a lot of propaganda work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY
We need to develop MSRs and support household energy independence.
>>466958
>You oppose the development of Nuclear weapons and their existence right?
Yes. I believe humanity metaphorically putting a gun to its collective head in order to prevent significantly less destructive wars is a bad idea. I'd rather suffer another world war then risk ending human civilization as we know it. A lot of people don't give a shit about future generations though and just want to avoid wars for themselves, so nukes make sense to them.
>>466983
>nukes should exist because we people don't want to get rid of them
>>466983
You are of course aware that thorium was never developed as an energy source BECAUSE of the military industrial complex wanting to produce nukes. Your bright future of nuclear energy was sabotaged by nuclear weapons.
>>466984
>decommission nuclear weapons
>tensions rise
>another World War starts
>people start building nukes again when things get desperate
Good intentions and all
>>467003
>we shouldn't make good decisions because the future will eventually make bad decisions
the only acceptable way to see fossil fuels, and even uranium/thorium to a bigger extent, is as a temporary booster into a more stable energy economy based on solar panels, systematic geotermic exploiting or nuclear fusion.
with constant or constantly growing economy finite fuels will eventully end. greenfags have been saying "50 years till oil ends" for 50 years. eventually they will be right, math can't lie, and now government are catching up on the fact it's actually in the timeframe of a century for oil.
nuclear fusion sounds like a big dream, but scientist believe it's possible.
a revolution in solar panels that will shake the entire world can happen any time now. nanomaterial or even microbiology scientists might find a cheap way to synthetize panels. no one cares about panel conversion efficiency if you can craft a 1m^2 with 50$ out of carbon shit and make it last 15 years.
it poses some problems in terms of " holy shit winter is coming can't keep my industry open anymore", but it's a problem with many solutions and it won't pose itself until you reach 60% sun-reliant energy output in a certain nation.
>>467012
>It's a good decision if it leads to bad results
You are not very smart are you?
>>467010
>Nukes shouldn't exist, it doesn't mean they won't exist.
It's not all or nothing. Simply reducing the number of nuclear weapons is possible, has happened, can proceed a lot further, and can eventually make complete nuclear disarmament possible. Every step along the way is a positive one.
>>467012
Yes I think we should consider the future consequences of our actions. It's called responsibility.
>>467022
The present is a bad result. You are saying that we shouldn't make the present better now because the future will eventually MAY eventually make itself just as bad as the present currently is.
>>467031
*the future MAY eventually
>>467031
>The present is a bad result.
I don't know about you but the current era of peace and stability seems like a pretty good "result" to me.
>the future MAY eventually make itself just as bad
My argument states that the future may be much worse as a result of your good intentions. Not as bad. Worse.
>>467019
Solar fags are the worst.
See
>>466973
Plus they have to be replaced and watercooled, take up too much space, and only get peak energy 4 hours a day.
>>467027
Yes yes, good luck convincing Israel, N.Korea, and Russia to give up their nukes. Fucking imbecile.
Then you get
>>467003
You don't understand, you want us to repeat history.
>>467031
No, the future WILL result in a bad way.
>hey, this thing has been preventing massive bloody groundwars that plagued the 20th century and before
>let's get rid of it, maybe it won't happen again
You're asking for a Utopia.
You don't believe in reducing risk?
>>467043
>I don't know about you but the current era of peace and stability seems like a pretty good "result" to me.
Like I said, a lot of people prefer peace in their time than the long term well being of humanity, namely doing everything possible to avoid the collapse of human civilization as we know it.
A single nuclear exchange would dwarf the destruction of every war ever and would have much longer lasting negative effects. But people don't care because they don't care about the well being of humanity over the time spans of centuries and millenia. They just care about avoiding war now.
>>467056
>I don't know anything about modern nuclear exchange policy and the infantesimally small chance of a nuclear exchange
Yep, we're arguing with a fucking moron.
>>467050
>Yes yes, good luck convincing Israel, N.Korea, and Russia to give up their nukes.
>Fucking imbecile.
Oh, you got me. You insulted me so now I'm too self conscious to argue against you. /his/ is horrible on the weekends.
You are making a strawman. I just laid it out in plain English that I'm saying a gradual reduction is beneficial even if it doesn't get anywhere close to a full disarmament. That ruins your strawman though because nuclear arms reductions HAVE happened before and is therefore very possibe, so you ignored my post and started throwing insults.
>>467056
>they just care about avoiding war now
How does a large nuclear stockpile, maintained and expanded over generations, NOT prevent conventional war.
Does some kind of magic happen where everyone just would prefer to destroy themselves?
Do you understand modern nuclear exchange philosophy and policy?
I suggest you read a fucking book, you're so far into your delusion you're making things up to justify it.
I'm going to go make 4th generation nuclear weapons, fuck you.
>>467065
Nuclear arms reductions are nothing but like royal marriages. They are for the public to see a new lineage of political relations.
You are a uneducated moron. You really are.
>>467056
>They just care about avoiding war now.
and in the future. Something a full on decommission plan doesn't account for. It seems to me your plan is to fully eliminate the risk of Nuclear war now and damn the future consequences.
as evidenced by this post (I'm assuming that this is your post) >>467012
>>467064
>I don't know anything about modern nuclear exchange policy and the infantesimally small chance of a nuclear exchange
Did you even read my post? Are you that bereft of actual arguments?
Also, a local nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India with just their 100 nukes would affect global climates and may lead to the starvation of the one billion humans currently lacking a stable food supply. I doubt you know that though.
>>467078
No it wouldn't. Are you seriously arguing for "Muh nuclear winter"? You're using the argument that has been completely unsubstantiated and disproven.
If Pakistan and India have a nuclear exchange you cleanse a few billion of poor shitters in the streets.
You really do know nothing, try going to /k/ and ask for Oppenheimer to explain even the basics of nuclear exchange to you. You'll still bleat like a lamb in his face.
Do you know how many nuclear and Hydrogen bomb tests we have had? Even atmospheric tests? More than enough to surpass nuclear winter calculations.
It didn't happen because they are bunk pop-science.
>>467069
Dude, I've been arguing that reducing the number of nukes is good. I didn't say shit about why it was happening.
>>467094
But it's not good and it's not bad, it's nothing but a political tool.
We have more than enough of a stockpile. Reducing a few tens of nukes doesn't do shit.
>>467087
Let me lay it all out for you. People mistakenly beleived nuclear winter isn't a real threat because of two things. First, Carl Sagan mistakenly thought the burning of Iraqi oil fields would lead to global cooling. Second, a non-expert who writes fucking survival guides for a living made the unsupported claim that nuclear winters weren't real. The meme has persisted ever since.
The Iraqi oil fields didn't produce a global cooling because they were spread out and didn't produce nearly the concentrated BTUs necessary to punch above the hydrosphere. Only once above the hydrosphere will ash persist for long periods of time. The ash of burning megacities is more opaque than volcanic ash so it will persist longer in the atmosphere and will block more light.
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockToonSciAmJan2010.pdf
And now you know.
>>467107
Sigh.
Someone is seriously trying to reassert nuclear winter.
I can't deal with this lunacy any more.
I'm out.
Enjoy your circlejerk.
>people ITT unironically defending nuclear energy
>>467101
>But it's not good and it's not bad, it's nothing but a political tool.
It is good, because it lessen's humanity's ability to end global civilization as we know it. Plus bans on certain designs like MIRV drastically reduce the impact of possible of nuclear wars.
>>467111
>gets called out with a well thought out post
>includes source
>says he is wrong and runs away
lol
>>466958
>I'm talking giant flooded fields full of toxic waste for 10,000 years just for some "green" wind turbines or "renewable" energy solar plants.
I see you have no problems using a computer to tell me this though.
>>467118
>mfw plebs unironically lump together thorium and uranium nuclear reactors
>>467120
No it isnt.
There is never a threat to end civilization, sure "global" Civilization. But not civilization.
>>467118
Go fuck yourself.
>>467124
>Well thought out
>dubious and theoretical source that doesn't address anything but one unfalsifiable theory
No.
Nuclear winter isn't real, it simply doesn't happen.
>>467118
This is bait.
>>467134
>There is never a threat to end civilization, sure "global" Civilization. But not civilization.
That's why I said global, and global civilization is humanity's greatest hope for surviving into the distant future.
>>466997
Thorium was never developed as an energy source because it was inferior to currently existing uranium-fueled nuclear power plants.
>>467132
The point is you would massively increase reliance on REMs resulting in 10x the toxic waste produced, causing massive ecological damage.
So no, I have no problems using computers because I can't control the demand of it, resulting in no larger usage of REMs.
>>467141
By inferior you mean it doesn't produce weapons grade materials.
>>467134
>didn't read the article
>claims the article is bullshit regardless
>keeps claiming he is right without sources
>>467145
This.
The head of development of nuclear energy in the USA was asked to leave because he cared more about producing safe and reliable nuclear electric power generation than creating uranium refinement infrastructure necessary for making bombs.
>>467146
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter
Critism and debate, Nuclear winter is not a reality.
desu I'm actually fairly excited for post peak oil; analog technologies are much more conducive to mental health than digital ones and the third world is in dire need of a population reduction. I imagine that there will still be a fair amount of electricity about but that most people will slash their usage of said electricity in a big way and consequentially de-urbanization will occur.
>>467133
>I fell for the thorium meme
These feces are impossible to be fabricated
>>467161
MSRs don't just concern thorium.
>it hasn't had any investment because it doesn't produce weapons grade materials
>IT'S WORSE THAN OUR U-235 REACTORS THAT HAVE HAD TONS OF INVESTMENT!
>>467151
Did you even read what you are linking to? You claimed nuclear winter wasn't real and you link to a page that gives plenty of evidence for what I was saying and only points out skepticism as to the degree of cooling in specific cases like the effect specifically nuking American cities would have.
None of it justifies the claim "nuclear winter isn't real".
>>467159
> analog technologies are much more conducive to mental health than digital ones
Argue your claim.
>>467166
>thorium isn't invested in becuz they can't make nukes out of it it's a conspiracy maybe the joos lmao
>mfw nobody is making nukes anyways
What will be the next nuclear fad? Will they come back to the cold fusion meme?
>>467186
This is bait and obviously so, not in substance but in presentation. No one respond to it.
>>467169
Critism and debate
Friend.
You can pick whatever view you want, but it is not substantial.
>>467191
Respond to the substance then, how comes European countries are so happy to keep on buying oil from the fucking Saudi Arabia instead of building these amazing 9000 generation thorium memereactors? What do the French need more nukes for? Or the Germans? Why isn't China investing when they are literally poisoning themselves with the coal?
>muh nukes
As I said, no one and I mean no fucking one is making nukes anymore.
>>467198
The discussion was about nuclear winter being a threat. At very best you can argue that nuclear winter won't be that bad, but you have no basis to claim it is not possible.
>>467207
Because the former doesn't have investment, and the latter is horribly ineffecient and causes massive ecological damage.
>>467214
What causes ecological damage?
>>467222
>Not a reasonable threat.
There is plenty of reason to see it as a threat.
Even if you are on the fence it would be safer to err on the side of caution and consider a threat. There is no good reason to think nuclear war isn't real.
>>467232
It isnt, especially in light of modern nuclear policy.
Along with the development of 4th generation nuclear weapons, it would eliminate nuclear winter threat all togeather.
>>460524
How is this a /his/ thread?
>>467229
Rare Earth metals aren't used in solar panels and are not necessary wind turbines. They are simply convenient for wind turbines. They make them more cost effective.
Asteroid mining of rare Earth metals when?
Also, I let out a sigh of relief when you said rare Earth metals. That's a reasonable complaint. I was afraid you might say because they can kill passing birds.
>>467235
MAD is still the prevailing nuclear strategy.
>>467222
>>what is maintaining and upgrading a nuclear arsenal
A cop out you just pulled out of your severely punished anus.
>what is proprietary investment and development
Shit that can be bought (as in, you know, investment). Seriously it makes no sense, if thorium is so great and so much the future why is everybody researching green energy (especially wind and solar)?
>>467263
Yep, troll.
Not responding.
>>467142
>So no, I have no problems using computers because I can't control the demand of it, resulting in no larger usage of REMs.
I presume the computer you're using has a hard drive and the message was sent over fiber-optic cables.
http://www.newelectronics.co.uk/electronics-technology/rare-earth-elements-vital-to-electronics-industry/36711/
>>467245
There is a big problem with asteroid mining, without a space elevator; it's uneconomical.
Our planet is just small enough for us to be able to escape with thrust, like 90% of fuel is just to lift itself; the last 10% is for materials
>>467279
Yes, but you're missing the point, you would cause an exponential increase in reliance on REMs.
>>467145
>>467149
People researched using thorium to breed uranium because they thought they were going to run out in a few decades since they would need to massively expand nuclear power generation to keep up with demand.
It turned out that neither of those things were true.
>>467293
The demand will increase eventually.
>>466640
>Why do you hate humanity?
>nuclear weapons haven't saved more lives than they have taken since their inception
>>467255
>No it isnt you fucking retard.
>The modern nuclear policy is NUTS.
For most major nuclear powers, yes, but France has said they will actively target civilian centres with their nuclear stockpile if attacked (since they scrapped their "stand-off" tactical nukes aimed at Fulda).
>"Moscow will not lose 80 million Russians to kill 800 million Frenchmen, even if there was 800 million French to be killed"
>>467320
For most all nuclear powers, NUTS is the modern policy.
Statements like that don't change policy.
>>467330
>The French military is currently thought to retain a weapons stockpile of around 300 operational nuclear warheads, making it the third-largest in the world, speaking in terms of warheads, not megatons.[4] The weapons are part of the national Force de frappe, developed in the late 1950s and 1960s to give France the ability to distance itself from NATO while having a means of nuclear deterrence under sovereign control.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_de_dissuasion
>The strategic concept behind the Force de Frappe is one of countervalue, i.e., the capacity to inflict so much damage on a potential (and more powerful) adversary's population that it will be deterred from attacking (see Mutual Assured Destruction). This principle is usually referred to in French political debate as dissuasion du faible au fort (Weak-to-strong deterrence) and was summarized in a statement attributed to President de Gaulle himself.
>>467351
K.
>>467287
The goal is shell out enough to create an extraterrestrial industrial infrastructure that can process raw materials in orbit and create new infrastructure. Once that happens everything will become economical because very little will have to be made and lifted up into space on Earth. Furthermore, if we accomplished that then humanity has won. We won in the most general and all encompassing sense. We will be all but immortal.
Space elevators will make the upfront cost cheaper but we shouldn't rely on them.
>>467310
World Wars are nothing compared to the destructiveness of a nuclear exchange.
>>467414
The only reason I wanted Nazis to win is because of massive space colonization.
>>467415
The thing is Nuclear exchange has an almost infantesimally small chance of actually happening.
Shut up.
>>467255
Most nuclear powers haven't adopted NUTS you fucking ignoramus. Just die. Holy shit. Don't ever spread your retarded genes. Burn in Hell.
I'm not even mad. I'm just an asshole like you that can't have a civil discussion and has to rely on insults to make myself feel smart.
>>467415
Has a nuclear exchange occurred? Have World Wars occurred?
The likelihood of a war between the US/Western Europe and the USSR in the aftermath of WW2 would have been infinitely higher had it not been for the U.S. nuclear deterrence.
>>467434
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_utilization_target_selection
US and China are the two main implementators of NUTS policy.
>>467422
If humanity fails it fails forever. World Wars by themselves cannot end global civilization. We can weather them forever. Global civilization could not have weathered a nuclear exchange between the USA and the USSR. There were at least two instances where nuclear war would have happened during the Cold War had other men been in charge.
It's a bad idea play Russian roulette for the next tens of thousands of years just to avoid the occasional fistfight.
>>467438
As time approaches infinity the percent chance of a nuclear exchange approaches 100. You are thinking too short term.
>>467465
Complete and total fallacy, total Nuclear exchange decreases as NUTS policy is fully implemented.
>>467456
World wars are not simple fist fights, a threat of a collapse of global civilization is better than having five hundred wars.
We live in the most peaceful era ever known thanks to Nuclear weapons technology.
>>467456
>If humanity fails it fails forever.
Depends upon a plethora of factors - from what size nuclear weapons are used, to where they are used, and who they are used against.
An exchange of tactical nuclear weapons would not threaten humanity's survival, but mass use of biological/chemical weapons could... It's about scale, and, yes, nuclear weapons do have the capacity to cause irrevocable damage, but they have not done so at this moment, and retiring them is not a possibility considering other sides will retain theirs.
Even countries that have "given up" trying to attain nuclear weapons are still engaged in "nuclear hedging" so that they can acquire a warhead in a short-time (e.g. Brazil, Iran).
>tfw graduated environmental engineer
>still no job
>>467490
Good.
Go suck Osha or NASAs cock.
>>467475
NUTS makes first strikes more sensible, only increasing the chance of war. It's just an absurd middle ground between full scale conventional war and and the insanity of MAD.
>>467524
Except not, NUTS disables nuclear capability and then threatens nuclear destruction to the opposing army.
>>467475
>World wars are not simple fist fights, a threat of a collapse of global civilization is better than having five hundred wars.
You believe that because you don't give a shit about the long term prosperity of humanity. Global civilization can weather ceaceless war but not a nuclear exchange. You are just thinking about yourself, not your species. Better to kill a trillion humans over the course of 100,000 years due to war then roll the dice until humanity all but snuffs itself out. Global civilization is precarious enough without nuclear war due to the depletion of cheaply accessible fossil fuels.
People don't like to think about that though because the only solution is making their lives harder now instead of just praying future generations will solve all the problems the current generation is creating or persisting.
>>467482
>It's about scale, and, yes, nuclear weapons do have the capacity to cause irrevocable damage
At least we agree on that.
I believe the risk outweights the benefits. We need to establish a permanent foothold in space to make the issue moot and we shouldn't take any uneccessary risks until that happens. That means we need to do everything in our power to prevent the collapse of global civilization. World Wars aren't a threat to global civilization but nuclear exchanges are. Biological weapons too but those are currently more under control. We don't have thousands of warheads full of anthrax ready to go.
>>467531
Yeah, which is why I said it makes first strikes much more likely and then walks a tightrope between world war and the very nuclear holocaust I'm talking about.
>>467546
>I believe the risk outweights the benefits
Then surely we should strive to improve the technology involved in nuclear warheads? You're never going to completely eradicate them, Governments are too paranoid of each other to do that.
>permanent foothold in space
I agree with you, and nuclear weapons would likely speed that up if used on Mars, no?
Ultimately, nuclear weapons are here to stay, and we can do nothing (the technology involved in their missiles and such has apparently degraded since the industry isn't producing them on a large scale any more) and wait for the time to run out and hope we don't do something stupid, or we can develop new weapons to counteract the nuclear stockpile or dampen their effects on people and the atmosphere
>>467570
Advancements in nuclear weapons tech won't necessarily be positive but mustering the public will to reduce the number of nuclear weapons would. Just look at yet implemented MIRVs. I don't want you or anyone else designing and building that shit. If you become an engineer then you won't have a day on what the government wants you to build. Are you going to quit if they pay you obscene amounts of money to build a cobalt bomb?
And nuking Mars' polar caps is a non issue when it comes to exploring, exploring, and colonizing Mars. Humanity would already need that permanent foothold in space to consider terraformation.
But seriously, Peak Oil is scary. I hope we artificially inflate the price of fossil fuels in order to ease the transition to alternate energy sources.
>>462218
>Australia
>nuclear-non p(r)oliferation
So you are a cuck working for the coal Jews.
Good to know.
>>467725
Economic terrorism. Good idea, if you want to impoverish people more.
>>466640
>le three mile island face
This is the 50s all over again grandpa, nuclear is the future
>>467680
You're responding to someone different than me.
Cobalt bombs are not economical nuclear weapons, and I probably would never build them.
But I would if someone told me to, and I would love to see the result. I don't know how you can be such a hippy sack of shit and resort to the use of as many false arguments just to get some ideological proliferation going.
It's impossible to get everyone to proliferate their stockpiles, and it's stupid to do so aswell.
I would love to return to the old cycle of warfare but it won't happen, it's impossible to regress technologically in the field of war. Ungodly amounts of resources to produce the world's best peace keeping technology, and you're saying that it will magically one day destroy us all (it wont).
Global nuclear exchange never results in total annihilation and it never will.
NUTS policy is the best preventative for global nuclear exchange, and nuclear weapons are the best preventative for any nuclear weapons useage, and war itself.
You act as if we can control all the world's governments or something, or that reduction does anything at all.
This is like saying
>OH MY GAWWD BAN GUNS, IT WILL STOP GUN CRIME
No, it only leaves guns in hands of people we don't want.
>>467922
Don't even try to argue with the lazy hippy sack of shit.
>>467913
Well memed.
>>467888
>No, humanity will probably never snuff itself out.
It doesn't need to. It just needs to break it's own legs and wait for a natural cataclysm to finish the job.
>>467888
>You're only concerned with preserving your precious "global civilization"
What positive future do you see for humanity 10,000 years from now? Honestly, I don't think you give a damn about our species over the long term.
>>468006
You don't give a damn about our species in the long term, all you see is
>BIG BAD NUCLEAR WEAPONS EVILLLLLL
>LET'S GET RID OF THEM THEY IS BIG AND SCARY
You don't think in any rational terms. You immediately to whatever end case scenario that fits your ruinous ideological state.
You said you'd rather see trillions slaughtered in war than the continuation of the peace that nuclear weapons bring.
You are nothing but some kind of under developed edgy teenager that sees fire all around him, and then wishes for more.
I simply don't understand how you come to these ideological conclusions.
I have very long term prospects for humanity, it's why I encourage nuclear power and hope to get to work on MSRs and LFTRs
But I also hope to work on 4th generation nuclear weapons, the pinnical in human nuclear technology.
High concentrated damage and extremely low fallout/irradiation.
>>468004
You haven't asked for elaborations.
Nuclear war destroys global civilization. Technology and infrastructure regresses. Humanity isn't able to rebuild because cheaply available non-renewable resources are mostly used up. Humanity will never become as able to leave Earth as they were before the nuclear exchange. Humanity limps on for tens of thousands of years, having less pride in itself than it ever has due to it's inability to not destroy itself. Why let lose the human plague on the universe? Eventually a plague, comet, or super volcano finishes humanity off.
We will never be more able to create a foothold in space than we are now, yet we aren't. There is little reason to believe we will do it when we have much much less ability to do so.
We may eventually go extinct without a nuclear exchange. A nuclear exchange makes it much much more likely.
>>468025
Humanity has to leave Earth. The chances of that happening are much less likely after a nuclear war than after a world war. Furthermore, the interdependent economic system is just as much of a war deterrent as nukes. The internet and the widespread use of video cameras among literally everyone on Earth makes war seem more savage to people of developed nations, less ability to hide from the gruesome realities of war, and thus developed nations are less likely than ever to take part in prologue large scale wars.
>>468029
Nuclear war doesn't destroy civilization, much less global civilization.
Especially with the implementation of NUTS policy. It makes nuclear exchange winnable, and able to come to a mutual agreement, or a losing and a winning side.
Nuclear weapons are not preventing space technology, and actually have been the cause of it for the past 70 years (ICBM programs and space defense nets). 4th generation nuclear weapons definitely encourage this.
You're looking for perfect results or solutions or goals.
Not real or practical ones.
>>468060
Doubtful.
War is in all of men's hearts, no matter how ugly or gruesome. You also doubt governmental ability to censure war.
There are many deterrence to actual warfare, but Nuclear capability is the biggest thing preventing symmetrical warfare.
There is no reason why humans cannot reach space colonization now.
Nuclear weapons don't prevent that, and only support it.
>>468063
>Nuclear war doesn't destroy civilization, much less global civilization.
Global civilization is dependent on a booming global economy and defined by international trade and exchange of information. Humanity benefits immensely from it and it is more precarious than civilization in the general sense.
A nuclear exchange would kill millions and destroy some of the world's largest economic centers and infrastructure. The ash of burning megaities would reduce crop yeilds leading to famine among the billion humans currently without a stable food supply. Brushfire wars would pop up to fill the power vacuum left by the destroyed nations. The global economy would collapse and humanity wouldn't have the cheaply accessible non-renewable resources left to attain past heights.
MAYBE it wouldn't happen that way. Believing it couldn't happen that way sure makes it easier to selfishly spend one's time and money on faster smartphones and bigger televisions. It's easy to not think about existential threats to humanity.
>>468105
Nuclear warfare isn't an impeding threat on global society.
And it doesn't prevent space colonization.
>>468075
>War is in all of men's hearts
It's not all or nothing. Scale matters. Humanity doesn't have to kill each other by the millions. Furthermore, the average human goes their entire life without killing anyone. It's hard to argue that murderous violence is ingrained it us. It's a matter of the institutions we create and operate and we change that.
Human nature is such that we don't have a hard wired nature. We are the most adaptable animal species to ever exist.
Killing millions of people and destroying the global economic system makes space colonization much less likely. It not only will gut humanity economically but it will forever scar the human zeitgeist. Why unleash awful humans unto the universe if they can't even hold themselves from nuking one another?
I'd rather we get wiped out by comet than linger after a nuclear war. At least with a comet we nobly went out fighting a shitty hand of cards. Going out because of a nuclear war sabotaging our hopes of leaving Earth is like humanity proclaiming to the universe that we aren't worthy of existing, that we are as a whole a failure of a species.
>>468113
>Nuclear warfare isn't an impeding threat on global society.
It's not impending, it's lingering, and people don't care because they only care about the well being of themselves and maybe their grankids. Beyond that they don't give a shit if humanity goes extinct or not. That's why nukes are tolerated. The day we get most people to care about the long term survival of humanity is the day we would agree to stop pointing a gun at our own heads.
>>468163
>It's a little hard when there are 400 million guns. (Thousands of nukes).
I don't care about guns. Guns can't harm the human species like nukes can.
>>468075
>Nuclear capability is the biggest thing preventing symmetrical warfare.
That, and the interdependent global economic system and the internet helps prevent world war as well, and neither is an existential threat to humanity.
>>468025
We've had many wars and millions of deaths caused as a result after the invention of nukes, they might prevent all out total wars between nuclear States, but they sure as fuck don't prevent proxy wars in less developed countries or minor skirmishes between nuclear powers that still end up in the death of tens or maybe hundreds of thousands of soldiers.
>>462177
The scientific consensus disagrees with you
>>462218
>I'm a geologist
Suuuuure faggot. I'm a brain surgeon.
>>471210
>Science doesn't work on consensus.
It literary does. Look up Kuhn.
>>471216
If science works on consensus then it becomes dogma.
>Fossil fuels are the greatest thing that ever happened to humanity
It's a little too early to say so. It all depends on how rapidly fossil fuel production declines. If we have time to convert to nuclear and renewables, then sure.
>>471370
This.
of course, and we are whittling them away in making plastic bags and dildos, when we should be using them to make the world a permanent paradise, and explore outer space, get life on other worlds. we have another 50-200 to use them properly until they are mostly gone.
>>466671
Peak oil literally will happen
fixed that for you
>>460524
>>460537
literally pic related
>>471437
>using unfalsifiable theories as fact
>implying we can't synthesize new fuels
>implying we can ever gave a "paradise" on earth
>>471517
>the money did some good stuff
>that makes up for destroying the planet right?
I wish we could send you people to another planet so you could stop messing up ours
>>471630
>us verses them
>implying it's destroying the planet
>implying we can ever overcome nature
Wealth, health, civality, technology, culture.
All of it, has come to fruition because of "le ebill carbon fuels".
It's not destroying the planet, the planet climate changes slowly over many hundreds of years. We have been steadily warming since the last little iceage.
>>471517
>Not it's cataclysmic effects the alarmists will have you believe.
World Wars are pretty cataclysmic.
>>471683
Fucking lol.
That is going to be caused by policy regarding relations and immigration.
There will never be another world war.
>inb4 Muh water wars
>>471697
World War is partially kept at bay by the interconnected nature of global trade. Significantly decrease the significance of global trade and the chance of world war significantly increases.
>>471697
>There will never be another world war.
People said the same thing after WWI
>>471997
People didn't have nuclear weapons.
>>472034
Most people also didnt have the maxim gun before WW1
Then everyone got one
>>472087
>Most people also didnt have the maxim gun before WW1
hahaha
>a firearm is the same as a Minuteman III
hahaha
>>469099
Ben Carson pls go.
>>469099
Another Geo here.
He's right you know.
..... But arguing this point every single day, and even almost getting a royal enquiry for 'fixing' data because Abbott didn't believe in human driven climate change, makes you very, very tired of living.
>>472172
Hello friend.
I wish there was some more books on Milutin Milanković. I've read a ton of his work and would highly recommend it.
Also, based Tone
>>472180
Thanks
Yeah he comes up now and then, based dude but his work has been thrust in the face of climate dudes as evidence for 'natural warming'. It's like everyone forgets we're supposed to be getting colder.
Seems odd no one considers the very strong relationship in the rock record about temperature vs. CO2 ppm in the atmosphere either. I thought that'd be a really obvious give away.....
Ah well. Life goes on.
>>472216
But Multins work is actually still correct friend.
>>472227
I didn't say it wasn't.
>>472227
Sorry. I'm exhausted and probably not explaining myself well. I'm home and heading to bed, maybe I would make sense after a nap.
Adios.
>>472108
People with thinking like yours are the reason history repeats itself.
