>“Nobody’s talking about ‘tomorrowland’ anymore. We’re waiting for our next app,” Tyson exclaims. “Now I love me some apps, don’t get me wrong here.”
>“But, society has bigger problems than what can be solved with your next app, in transportation, and energy and health. And these are huge sectors of society and they are solved by innovations in these fields,” Tyson continued. “Without it we might as well just proceed back into the cave, because that’s where we’re headed.”
U.S. has definitely lost the edge in fundamental research. The fact that CERN exists in Europe speaks volumes.
>transportation, and energy
Hippies cockblocked nuclear power years ago, and market is too retardedly enamored with electric vehicles to ever consider natural gas ICE. We could have had clean energy and transportation years ago.
>The fact that CERN exists in Europe speaks volumes.
What the fuck are you talking about? Europe should be contributing at least as much to modern science as the US.
>physicist thinks his specialized knowledge applies to society in general
Fuck him. And fuck you too.
money cockblocked nuclear power, nuclear plants are routinely billions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule. wind and solar are cheaper and faster alternatives, and also safer
US started their own collider and then left it dormant because "muh taxes are wasted put it into useless defenz instead because we're shit scared of commies still and can't see its just being pocketed by the big families."
No they aren't.
Nuclear is also the cheapest power per watt, only problem is the high start up.
But solar and wind just aren't viable.
Wind can match nuclear in price, but has the problem of low output, and is unreliable.
Scaling up wind isn't doable.
Scaling down Nuclear is damn tricky too though, but that's fine for a big city plant.
I really hope it becomes legal to kill racists in the future.
It's basically the butterfly effect. The longer we allow these socially destructive people to live, the harder it becomes to clean up the problem in the future. We need a preventative measure.
I really hope it becomes legal to kill people that aren't feminist in the future.
It's basically the butterfly effect. The longer we allow these socially destructive people to live, the harder it becomes to clean up the problem in the future. We need a preventative measure.
Except that determining when someone is actually racist, vs someone who doesn't agree with measures like affirmative action, or says equal opportunity rather than equal results.
Essentially, killing people who disagree with you, and blaming them for societies problems is pretty much how the holocaust happened, or how millions died in Russia for disagreeing with communism.
Essentially, as much as you're blaming racists for a toxic society, you're even more detrimental.
I don't have a problem, It should be a human race collaborative effort. OP should have picked up on something else like space program if he wanted to have a dig at the US' attitude.
reading what you linked to:
>The reason the nuclear number is small is that it produces so much electricity per unit. There just are not many nuclear plants
maybe deaths/kilowatt isn't a good metric, then. would you really feel "safer" living 1 mile away from a nuclear plant than you would 1 mile away from a wind farm? when nuclear goes wrong, it goes really wrong; the cleanup of fukishima will take decades. my friend's sister was born in ukraine around the time of chernobyl and has a damaged thyroid as a result of the fallout, and is now dependent on daily medication.
>Nuclear is also the cheapest power per watt, only problem is the high start up.
the "only" problem is significant.
Imagine the United States suddenly pulling all its carrier groups back to their respective mainland coastlines/Hawaii, because every other nation in the world can go fuck itself.
And then watch as China muscles its way into the neighborhoods of Japan and Korea, watch Russia take over Ukraine unimpeded, watch the middle east completely destabilize (even more than it already has), watch Somalian pirates et al. take over the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, and totally abandon South America while focusing our efforts on defending the border when wave after human wave of illegal immigrants attempt to swarm us because those chucklefucks can't even handle their downward spiral drug and corruption problem.
You fucking hippie.
Guy who writes apps for other companies for a living here.
Neil, I agree with you. If I had my way, I'd be doing something that actually makes an impact instead of writing a few thousand lines of code for an app that'll be dead six months from now. Really, I would.
But it's not easy to do that. I was able to get a career developing iPhone apps with practically no cash at all... just a computer and fuckloads of time. No expensive education or degrees or equipment or anything. I didn't even use a real Mac to learn Objective-C; I hackintoshed a used $300 laptop.
That's simply not possible in the fields mentioned. They all require individuals who've been through years and years of highly specialized education as well companies who are trying to make a difference to hire them. For someone like me, meeting those requirements is a little like getting the planets to align.
More people will be doing these things once doing so becomes practical and within reach. Right now, it's not.
That article includes the cost of chern/fuk in it.
I'd feel just as safe, because I already do.
Modern plants cannot melt down like Chernobyl, physically impossible.
Modern plants shut down when something goes wrong, rather than speeding up.
Even Fukishma couldn't happen any more with a modern plant.
Modern plants have coolant which would not leak like Fuk.
Not to mention Fuk was under-maintained on a fault line.
I'd much rather live near a nuclear plant actually, as at least it isn't noisy.
The constant background of a wind farm is a real issue, if you lived that close to it.
It winds up being about as loud as your fridge, but throughout you whole house.
Wind also has the issue of being inconsistent.
It can't be a primary energy source, as when the wind stops, need something that can replace it.
Battery technology isn't there.
It also uses a shit ton of land, which may or may not be a big problem.
Also, need to upgrade the whole damn power grid.
The high start up is significant, but it hasn't stopped nuclear from providing cheap power to many places, and winds issues are far more problematic.
I'd feel just as safe as living near a wind farm, and I already do live near a nuclear plant*.
Anyway, meltdowns just don't happen in modern plants, so please stop perpetrating that myth.
Even with meltdowns, still safer than wind.
Climbing up a wind tower is a bit dangerous.
imagine what we could accomplish if we legit had someone to compete against
if russia was still a powerhouse wanting to go to mars before us we'd actually want to fucking fund but nah man
Thanks for your input! :^)
I have faith in facts.
Modern nuclear plants cannot melt down.
Nuclear has a much better track record, even including Chern + Fuki, neither of which could happen with a modern plant.
Having an irrational fear of nuclear is just going to prevent us from getting clean energy, and is why we still rely on oil + coal.
There are a couple of power sources that can power our world.
Wind and solar aren't among them.
Geo, Nuclear, and Hydro are pretty much it.
Geo is great where it works.
Hydro works in a lot of places, but there's too many places where it doesn't.
Nuclear works everywhere, and is our safest, cleanest, and one of the cheapest per watt.
Those are all facts.
The high start up cost isn't a problem for big cities, or anywhere that needs that much power.
Chernobyl was a failure on both the design and management. Fukushima was a failure of design because it didn't take into account worst case scenarios in an area where worst case scenarios are likely to happen. It also should have been shut down a decade prior to make way for new generation plants.
And despite all of this, if we had a Chernobyl level disaster every 20 years, we would still be far better off over a 100000 year period it would take for the first nuclear disaster to clear up than we would with burning coal.
The amount of matter the lhc is colliding isn't nearly enough to create a black hole that can sustain itself long enough to overcome the decay through Hawking radiation and have a strong enough gravitational force to pull in and strip matter down to its condensed singularity.
I live right next to Indian Point and it has been in the newspapers many times this year and the last. It has leaked 65,000% and it is about 80% worse than when it was first reported.
48 nuclear power plants are leaking in the USA. They are fucking dangerous and cost a hell of a lot of money to upkeep, not to mention once decommissioning takes place. And the stuff remains for years and years, thousands even.
Maybe you'll get cancer from one. Maybe it would knock some sense into you. Keep eating the shit industry spreads on your intertubes.
They are very safe though. The only real issues with nuclear power are uranium mining and what to do with the remainders. That said, environmentalists should get off their high fucking horse pronto. Nature does not give a shit and the only reason these cucks are giving one is self-preservation. Stop pretending like you care about nature for moral reasons. You don't you swines.
Capitalism BUILT modern society, pinko dipshit. But please, do tell us how your perfectly infallible version of communism that has never been tried would have us living in a utopia.
Living near a nuke plant is actually quite safe provided it's up to current standards. The biggest problem is we (in America) haven't built nuke plants in decades even though, dispite governmental interference, research has lead nuke power has become increasingly safer and more efficient provided we rebuild/ build new plants. Unfortunately loads of people are too retarded to embrace the future because of The Simpsons and their hippy three eyed fish.
It's not expensive to maintain, it's just money the government doesn't want to spend on maintaining. Beyond that, most nuclear plants in the US should have been decommissioned over a decade ago. They don't just shut it down and let it sit there, they're supposed to dismantle and upgrade to new generation. That up front cost is expensive and if the same government isn't willing to part with the relatively low cost of maintainence, likely they're going to balk at the cost of upgrading purely on the basis of it being a big number.
I'm an actual racist. 70% of black people carry a gene that makes them predisposed to violence and crime. 90% carry a gene that makes them feel less guilt and empathy. They are not a suitable people for a civilized society. Most also make poor programmers.
Calling bullshit right there.
Cheaper: with gov. subsid. and ignoring the waste disposal, maybe, probably not even then.
Modern powerplants? There are not even five of them in the world. And running them in the private sector where costs are the driving factor. Not safety, does not make it better.
Clean: i can not even think of a way how you mean this seriously. Surely the contaminated water in japan does not count?
MAOA low activity alleles are found in higher percentages in Africans.
Adra2 empathy boosting variant is found in only 10% of Africans.
I love how when data is pointed out to people against nuclear power on the basis of safety, Chernobyl and Fukushima being specifically pointed out as exceptions because regulations on maintainence and decommissioning were not followed, they point out the result of those disasters as if doing so is adding anything of worth to the point which had already been dismissed
Nuclearfags will spout heir bullshit about how nuclear is the safest and cleanest, but conveniently fail to mention the waste problem. Also the US has massive amounts of land which could be used for solar & winds (like the planes of Wyoming wherever the fuck, i dont live in the US). Nuclear was a nice idea, massive amounts of energy no doubt, but the technology for solar and wind is incredibly advanced. Just look at the solar plant they built in morrocco (i think) just a few weeks ago
Instead you just believe what the media tells you, don't you?
Coal plants are more radioactive even than your leaky plant, and they nuclear is still cheaper.
Keep spreading fossil fuel industry shit.
Nuclear waste is very safe once we put it in containers.
Those containers are some of the strongest structures ever made.
We're also working on recycling it, and making waste that lasts shorter periods of times.
Despite all your anecdotal attacks, nuclear is the safest form of power we have,
Try providing an actual source for nuclear power doing harm, and please not a rag like nature.com
Even when you do faster in the waste, it's cheaper than fossil fuels, and solar.
Hydro, Geo, and Wind can beat it in cost, but two of those are limited in where you can use them, and the third isn't able to make the power we need.
>listening to a nigger
if he's so clever, why doesnt he go and fix africa?
Err, let's break this down.
I've already posted a few links on that.
For the dangerous part, right here.
Good, but noisy, and impractical for large scale.
Even if we put wind farms all over the plains, getting that energy to say, NY, is a massive problem.
Wind and Solar cannot power the nation, period.
You need something to handle night time, and when the winds stop.
Batteries cannot do this, so you need a second source of energy, that can put out as much power.
This can either be
A) Fossil fuels
Great, we're back to destroying the environment, and doing far more harm than nuclear waste ever will.
B) Nuclear, Hydro, Geo
Why do we even have these solar/wind farms, when this is able to handle the load, and is already completely clean?
So there we go, wind and solar simply aren't viable.
End of story, and something which wind and solar fags always conveniently ignore.
It's also getting far, far more subsidies than nuclear.
4) Nuclear Safety
Nuclear is already, the safest power source we have, beating solar and wind.
See the post linked earlier which has an actual source.
This includes nuclear waste.
Unless you can provide an actual source for nuclear power being dangerous, then gtfo.
5) Ignoring waste
We are very good as disposing of waste, and are making uses for it/finding ways to get more power out of it.
It's a lot more benign than the shit you get from mining what you need for solar, and don't get me started on coal production.
Wind gets away here, but again, not viable.
Nothing has posted has ignored waste, it's factored into nuclear safety, but it really isn't all that relevant. Fossil fuels make a loss worse wastes, and so do solar panels.
6) Modern Power Plants are privatized
7) The safety isn't tested
Plants that can't do a Chernobyl are plenty tested.
Plants that can't do a Fukishima :
New, but the technology has been shown to work, and a reactor built with this design would leak like Fuki did.
We know the technology works, that's all that matters.
We can use that same technology in public ones, where safety is a concern.
(We're ignoring the fact that the nuclear industry has one of the best safety records of any industry out there.)
That we aren't building new reactors because a bunch of hippies protested against the only viable energy source we have that doesn't destroy the environment doesn't change that.
6) Contaminated water in Japan does count.
Coal and Solar do a lot more damage.
Coal especially releases a shit ton of radiation into the air.
Also, newer reactors would not do that, but even taking that exception into consideration, Nuclear remains one of our cleanest forms of energy, beating solar.
Please stop mentioning solar, it makes you look bad, as it's quite dirty compared to anything not a fossil fuel.
Wind is great, but not viable until we get a crazy revolution in battery power.
Also, reinforcing the power grid to handle wind surges is a huge cost.
Geo and Hydro are great where they can be built.
Fossil Fuels are atrocious.
Nuclear is actually a viable source of energy, unlike wind, and is, even considering Fuki and Chern, again, things which newer plant designs prevent, very clean.
If you do reply, please provide an actual source.
nuclear is some boogieman everyone is afraid of
The majority of deaths from say Chernobyl will come from cancer you will get decades much later in life.
> SEPTEMBER 2005 | GENEVA - A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.
Meanwhile in China smog kills thousands a day and it doesn't seem to scare people nearly as much into action
>Physicists at the University of California, Berkeley, calculated about 1.6 million people in China die each year from heart, lung and stroke problems because of incredibly polluted air, especially small particles of haze.
im just saying when put things into perspective nuclear isn't nearly as bad as it is made out to be, even with its accidents on record.
And, especially, please provide an alternative.
If you have to include fossil fuels, it's not valid.
If it's something that can't be done everywhere, not valid.
So, no hydro/geo, great where they work, can't do it eveywhere.
For solar and wind, please address the reliability problem. Battery technology is no where near there.
If we had just built nuclear 40 years ago, rather than protesting it, with designs that can't chernobyl, we could be completely off fossil fuels for electricity, and would have a lot less pressing of a global warming problem, and if you're an USA citizen, probably wouldn't need to be in a war in the middle east.
On top of that, Chernobyl cannot happen again, since we don't do idiotic designs like the Russians did.
I think it's because there are so many stories from the media that are about some mysterious power source, that's too dangerous for mankind, that are direct analogies for nuclear, and are horribly inaccurate, and completely out of date.
While I am pro nuclear, I mentioned that it might end up being a small slice of the pie simply because nuclear reactors are very expensive to built.
Renewables/nuclear might really be put in the spotlight if/when countries take serious steps to fight climate change instead of just paying lip service.
>U.S. has definitely lost the edge in fundamental research.
Correction: we haven't lost anything, we've simply given it away for no good reasons whatsoever. There's a big difference between losing something and willfully fucking it away.
Learn the difference.
Sorry, i still disagree partially. Especially regarding the effect nuclear waste has and the level of storage-safety. I guess we need to leave it that way.
Your link btw goes on about the carbon footprint btw. I would expect this to be low i npower, nothing new for me there.
This discussion woun't get me anywhere and i do not feel like i could learn a lot here. So i will move on. Have a nice day
>I really hope it becomes legal to kill racists in the future.
So all SJWs should be killed then. Hmm... you have my attention.