Climate Change

When we think of revolutionary solutions to drop carbon emissions to near zero there is one cheap solution that has mass appeal.

Modern Molten Salt reactors don't run the risk of Chernobyl. They are easily marketed to normies due to the reduced cost. I dare say even righty Zig Forums wouldn't bitch about it.

For the Green New Deal to have any chance of success, this has to be a part of it.

Attached: Gen_1_to_4c.jpg (936x592, 267.46K)

Other urls found in this thread:

Leafs are still salty that the Pajeets used the CANDU reactors we sold them to make nukes.

it'll never be a success since it's just a policy suggestion with no legal teeth

More importantly it makes the critical mistake of thinking that we can implement these plans while maintaining and even improving quality of life.
Shit like the huge job creation and infrastructure construction programs it envisions will lead to even more consumption, and more carbon emissions
The real truth of the matter is that these proposals are 60 years too late, 60 years ago they would have been great, but it's too late now and blade is already falling on everyone's necks. We're at the point where we need to make massive changes at gunpoint world wide to even slow down or prepare for how devastating climate change is going to be.
That said, there's most likely going to be nuclear war just from the stresses and more open resource wars/grabs that are going to enter hyperdrive mode this coming decade

We're probably only about 5ish years away from a Blue Ocean Event, once that happens shits going to spiral out of control
Faster than Expected

Attached: 1a0e9964a1e64537e4707b0cbe4c0b1b4043f5306c923a5023b74a3713d5f767.png (1244x524, 311.43K)

So would a patchwork of the current generation of nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal be able to hold us together until we can go full nuclear? I'm worried we'll still be relying on oil for another 10 years then it's too late for most of the earth.

realistically no, oil is used for way more than just pure power, it's far too integral to industrial human civilization
patchwork solution of nuclear, wind, solar and so on would be a good baby step but not enough and too little too late

We build a fleet of spaceships and take 100,000 people with us to a different star-system, leaving everyone else to die on Earth

I thought the oil use for plastics and medicine was tiny compared to its fuel usage, sure we can't actually stop using oil but we could at least prevent the 4 degree Celsius rise

I love Wall E

I guess that does fit Wall-E more than the VN I was referencing lol

the real problem isn't even the 4C increase, it's the stresses of smaller increases that's going to get us. Small changes here and there can and will lead to massive collapse due to how industrial civilization is organized. A few degrees here and suddenly you no longer have pollinating insects since they all died or you have a drought causing crop loss. Failures like that are already happening and will continue to happen, leading to cascading failures up the chain. It won't be globalized either, but localized

and these small things leading to fast collapse aren't 50 to 100 years out, they're years to a decade out.

What did he mean by this?

Any construction projection of any kind will burn fossil fuels. Construction equipment runs on fossil fuels and solar has yet The energy required for us to transition to green energy will require burning more fossil fuels.
Humanity is caught in a catch-22 situation. Either way humanity is fucked and will have to deal with the consequences produced by industrial-capitalist society.

hydroelectric and nuclear power should be the main source of energy in the future prove me wrong buckos

Attached: 20gorges-jumbo.jpg (1920x1080 143.62 KB, 1.22M)

The risk of nuclear power is incompatible with cost reduction, be it search for profit or austerity.

only if the nuclear waste is dropped on america

Had this been the 1970s I might agree.

The plants lampooned in the Simpsons were Gen 1 though.

Right now we have a ticking time bomb in Climate change, vs no more risk of meltdown due to Molten Salt tech.

Nuclear can tide us over until wind/Solar can be made wide-scale.

We don't really have a choice. It's this or certain death.

The future is low energy.

Use your computer to shitpost wisely, this will not last forever.

Plastic and polyester production cause negligible CO2 emissions. They can also be replaced by ethanol when Oil runs dry. Which can be grown by GMOs, when the soil becomes toxic. Same with food.

You create new pollinators via GMO tech.

You build pipes to carry water from where their is no drought to where their is, or you desalinize.

Local disastrous don’t matter though. Industrial civilization might fail somewhere, but as long as it survives somewhere, and technology progresses, the dialectic of linear history is still in play.

Can someone explain to me how nuclear proliferation is bad? If every nation had first strike capable thermonuclear ICBMs wouldn’t this mean that Imperialism would end?

what if some warlord takes control of some random ass country in Africa and launches all nukes?

The people operating the missiles would likely not agree. Their were many times during the cold war that nuclear war happened and the missile operators saw missiles on the radar. Yet they didn’t fire. And they refused to report it to those higher up in their command. I don’t see why this wouldn’t happen again. Also if a warlord takes over a country. The missiles can be destroyed, either by people within the country, or by a foreign state bombing ICBM posts with conventional missiles.

this shit unironically scares the hell out of me, particularly because there's no movement at all to address it.

If i'm correct, a blue ocean event would also vastly increase the chances for the massive pockets of methane to emerge from permafrost in the northern hemisphere, right?

Fuck off democrat shill

nothing is new

This is the worst kind of poster on this site. Did you vote for Trump?

You know Command and Conquer? It's gonna be like that.

But without Tiberium.

hello water my old friend.

Attached: 136144-050-200CA3A5.jpg (1600x979, 723.25K)

I didn't realise when people were saying flooding caused by climate change would cause sewage to enter the water that they meant India would drift off to sea.

Without proper battery technology fossil fuels will never be replaced for energy production.

Environmental protection is a major part of class warfare.

The rich can afford to live in the most pristine, protected parts of the world, or even afford to have it cleaned up for their own personal use.
The working class can't afford this and it puts another form of financial burden on them.

Environmental protection is definitely a classed issue.

Dropping emissions isn't enough. We also need to recapture carbon, which is going to require shit like reforestation and possibly developing geoengineering methods to fix carbon in organisms or minerals.

Genetically modified algae that convert CO2 into ethylene (which is already used as a plant signalling chemical, therefore there are extant pathways to make it) would make for even cheaper plastics and start getting at carbon emissions that already exist.

As long as it's not disposable plastic that ends up in the ocean. Make some affordable housing out of it or something.

But they don't. They breathe the same shitty air in every metropolis.

Health is ranked on a scale of 1 (worst) to 100 (best).

Beverly Hills air quality is 21. (The US average is 58.)
This is based on new measures of hazardous air pollutants from the EPA, called the National Air Toxics Assessment. This analysis models respiratory illness and cancer risk down to the zip code level, providing better detail and insight than the previous analysis based solely on results from air monitoring stations.

You might as well say that the solution to climate change is cold fusion.

Magic solutions that don't exist in the real world and are confined to simulations are ALWAYS "cheaper" than real solutions, because the magic solutions can be presented with the best-case simulated cost while the real solutions have to actually use data from real world projects to project the cost. Keep that in mind whenever you compare the costs of these projects - one is a cost of real things, and one is a simulated cost that hasn't actually been done in the real world.

So is it praxis to seed blooms of the modern fern in freshwater areas?

Good point. I'm by no means an expert, I have watched a Thorium video or whatever. But if this shit was so magical, and only being supressed by our corrupt government and corporations, why doesn't a North Korea or a Iran or someone build it?

because magic isn't real dude

Then what's with all these gay Thorium posts and videos? Jesus Christ, just did a news search of Thorium and every headline is another hype piece on this shit. And yet people still come on forums all the time to shill this shit with "WHY IS NO ONE TALKING ABOUT THORIUMMMMMM!!!!"

Thorium Power Is the Safer Future of Nuclear Energy
Discover Magazine|4 years ago

Thorium nuclear reactor trial begins, could provide cleaner, safer, almost-waste-free energy
ExtremeTech|6 years ago

Should Australia consider thorium nuclear power?|4 years ago

Is safe, green thorium power finally ready for prime time?
ExtremeTech|6 years ago

Thorium backed as a 'future fuel'
BBC|5 years ago

Why not thorium?
Mining|7 years ago

Why Aren't We Using Thorium in Nuclear Reactors?
Discover Magazine|5 years ago


Attached: 900.jpg (400x297, 34.66K)

Have you ever thought of the thing that actually has mass appeal and way more of it: reduction in labour hours?

Attached: chad jehu.jpg (600x481, 99.95K)

no bruh we gotta build the productive forces
communism isn't about that freedom and leisure shit, it's about maximum efficiency and bigass arcologies and robots everywhere

This makes me strongly suspect that this could rapidly be used to drop global CO2 concentration on its own again, and with proper modification could be a seriously effective natural chemical producer


Climate scientist here.
Nuclear power is fucking retarded. The initial investment cost means that plants are only viable if supported by governments. Lifetime costs are enormous, nobody decommissions their old plants properly as it costs so fucking much.

Meanwhile wind is price competitive, can be built everywhere, turbines can be built on different scales, is cheaper, safer, no pollution and faster to build.

Moving the whole world to nuclear is also fucking retarded as a handful of countries (russia) have all the nuclear raw materials making the whole global energy infrastructure at their mercy. A stupid move.

Current nuclear tech is retarded. 4th gen and nuclear fusion - if they can move from mere theory to real life - would produce clean energy with little needed materials once the initial capital and investment costs were paid for. Also for a climate scientist you’re shilling for meme tech. Wind is not price competitive otherwise it’d be fucking everywhere by now. It only exists due to heavy government subsidies. Also it has a shit EROI and can only be built in areas that obviously have enough wind.

We could scrap coal and oil plants for their actual generators to subsidize nuclear plants though.

hint: they can't

The liberal thinks this is a point against nuclear power when in reality it is a point in favour of it

Whether they can or can't is irrelevant [pic related]

Attached: 1551602825098-608080783.jpg (500x375, 27.7K)

what on earth do you think your pic proves?

that you are a dumbo and nuclear power will replace wind and solar energy niggas

Wow, that really sounds like a problem.

For capitalism.

Which is already a problem.

Because France subsidizes nuclear energy?
Also your pic clearly shows nuclear plateauing/declining while renewables are growing. And that was 2012, I bet that trend has continued.

explain this climate niggers

Attached: co2_temperature_historical.png (791x562, 298.24K)

Attached: earth_temperature_timeline.png (740x14957, 803.93K)


Attached: TIMELINE_FULL.jpg (1509x549, 175.2K)

Carbon isn't the only factor in warming over geological timescales. It's just the current dominant factor because nothing else has changed.


Attached: FUCKINGLOVESCIENCE.jpg (1024x764 40 KB, 218.91K)

okay cancel alternative energy options let's drill Titan for more oil

Fuck Titan. Literally nobody lives there.

oceans of liquid methane though, you could set up a chemical plant there and rake it in

you can say the same thing about jupiter but that isn't stopping me from capturing one of those gasbags i've heard about

Attached: jupiter_gasbag11.jpg (450x468, 29.78K)

hey retard? you notice that one chart that shows temperatures at 25C?

humans would go extinct at those temperatures.

Just wear a tshirt

You will die regardless. Dismantle all modern shit and the temperature will go up because of science relate reasons if it wants to go up. I would believe the climate grift if all the liberals were shilling to return to a pastoral lifestyle and abandon the culture of hyper consumption instead of gay programmes that do nothing and fund gay foundations and tech startups.

underage b&

I'm not denying that the climate changes. I'm pointing out that you are fucking death cultist doomers whose entire world view is based around panic and appeal to authority. You are like neo-naizs who fap to doom and wh*te genocide.

Attached: AP-story-1989-doom_n-720x386.jpg (720x386, 37.91K)

Yo bruv you ever heard of the Carbon cycle?


You know how most of those are measuring over tens of thousands or millions of years?

Most of those major climate changes that happened more quickly were somewhat catastrophic.

It doesn't say "the world will end in the year 2000" you retard
It says "if we don't address climate change by the year 2000, we're fucked"
And we ARE fucked. They were 100% right. We're just in denial about it.

Name these reasons. You can't just handwave it as "science reasons". You have to be able to provide an alternative hypothesis to the observable warming we are experiencing. We've already ruled out the other most likely causes (the Sun and volcanism) so whatever the cause is has to be something else. So, what is it?
That's the liberal solution to literally everything. Addiction? Foundations and tech startups. Hunger? Foundations and tech startups. Obesity? Foundations and tech startups. That's just because liberals are fucking stupid and literally can't imagine anything outside the capitalist system.

First off, this.

Second, I want you to think long and hard about what the fundamental difference is between jumping out a plane at 20,000 feet with a parachute and without a parachute.

Most natural climate changes happened gradually over hundreds of years. It gives ecologies time to adapt and change in response to it. What we're talking about as climate change now is happening in the span of less than a century.

Is this projection or did you forget to take your meds, user?

I don't see where your argument (if there is one) goes from here. You say that climate change is real. It's apparent you don't think human activity has any bearing on accelerating or decelerating this change. Don't you think we should be preparing societies for more austere environments?

Also, all the liberals I know think climate change means beach property is probably not a good investment because of rising sea levels, paper straws are good for the oceans, polar bears won't have homes, and we all deserve clean air so let's try and use more wind and solar power. None of them have any understanding of what a 2-3C increase actually means, so why would they demand "pastoral lifestyle and abandon the culture of hyper consumption". What is this "climate grift" that you think liberals are shilling and why do you think that has anything to do with what this thread is suggesting. I ask because if those two are the same, you need to go outside once in a while.

The Maldives have been pretty much wiped off the map though.

Totally agree with spurdo poster. Fuck w*Sternoid death cultists an so on. What if zhe nature is itself unnatural

Colder temperatures are produced by melting ice caps, which is attributed to global warming.

Attached: Arctic Sea Ice.png (606x402, 290.06K)

Try thousands or tens of thousands.


le charlie epic random wildcard fake vidya xd tv/ editon ;^^^)

gentleman :—)


[YouTube] Epic sax guy 10 hours (embed) [YouTube] Epic sax guy 10 hours (embed)
[YouTube] Epic sax guy 10 hours (embed) ]

le epic so ebin dae le epin win xD pwn’d ftw le bacon narwhale xP
*unsheathes katana*
wellllllllll m’goodsir, I think u thought u had me beat, but wacht this !!!!
*charges up energy*
*goes super sainant*
*raises paw*


xD xD
[YouTube] eiffel65 im blue 10 hours (embed)


le epic so ebin dae le epin win xD pwn’d ftw le bacon narwhale xP

le epin troll i coax youed int o al e ruxze xD D D tfw no gf xD ayy lmao! :p
upboated good sir i tip my fedora to you, fine gentlemen le real men have class xD real human bean!!1 dae cake is a lie lel
epic fail!!!!!!!! ;p for YOU!! :DDD XD we r :)isiwnsnms