Why conservatards are against clean energy like Nuclear but want

>>128033794
I want both

Westinghouse went bankrupt and they like to get BLACKED by coal companies.

>>128033794
>conservatives are running the (((environmental))) groups that have been attacking nuclear for the last fifty years

The Jews purchased Canada exclusively for shitposting, apparently.

File: c29fa31e96fa8d5bb2bac8ea7301fd70.jpg (114KB, 640x956px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 640x956px

>>128033794
white people won't do manual la-

>>128033794

Choose your poison. Carbon emissions or the surface of the Earth riddled with used up radioactive rods.

>>128033794
I'd want to slowly ditch both and move into Fusion reactors.
If they aren't just jewscience.

except liberals are the ones who block nuclear energy any chance they get

File: thorium reactors.png (2MB, 938x4167px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 938x4167px

>>128033970
this

LFTR is the future of energy and we should push money into getting them developed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfLD-7bCtME

File: IMG_9209.jpg (258KB, 1350x1082px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 1350x1082px

Huh? Liberals protest nuke energy.

Because they think it makes them sound tough

>>128033794
>conservatives are against nuclear energy

What?

>>128033794
we gon get sum engy from bananaz n kool aid n sheeeeeeit 100 emoji fist bump emoji

>>128033794
nuclear is great wtf you talking about?
more nuclear too

>>128033794
I want more nuclear but there's so much red tape and screeching from the left that nuclear is going nowhere fast in the US.

>Clean energy like nuclear

Are you fucking for real, senpai?

File: dr-jill-stein-dr-jill-stein-nuclear-power-plants-weapons-3310910.png (29KB, 500x578px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x578px

Conservatives want coal because muh jobs
Liberals don't want nuclear because muh scary green goo (pic related)

The result:
Indonesia buys a bunch of American made nuclear reactors and becomes a world leader in energy while the US squanders its wealth on expensive """""renewables"""""
>https://atomicinsights.com/clean-doable-liquid-fission-lf-energy-roadmap-%E2%80%A8powering-world/
>http://thorconpower.com/design

>>128033794
Fukushima bruh.

>>128034485
>From the left
You've fallen for the b8, it was the oil/companies who financed the lies

File: 1495992026337.png (266KB, 410x387px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 410x387px

>conservatives are against nuclear energy

>>128034112
Both do. Fossil fuel lobbyists block it on the right and retards block it on the left.

>>128034073
Nuclear fuel has significantly higher energy density than coal and its byproducts are easier to keep control over, so I'll take that. And carbon emission isn't the only thing to worry about with coal.

>>128033794
Their campaign contributors own coal mines.

>>128034619
oil is not used for power generation in the US

>>128034051
>The Jews purchased Canada exclusively for shitposting, apparently.

At least they pay for us, you are israels bitch for free.

>>128033794
Boomers in general are against nuclear. It's not really a left or right issue. Young folks will come around to nuclear power soon, I hope.

>>128034619
It doesn't matter who payed for it, the important part is they have a near unlimited supply of lefties willing to go full NIMBY the second any whisper of a new plant happens.

>>128034182
Liberals are against:
-Fossil Fuel
-Nuclear

are for:
-Solar
-Bioheat
-Water
-Wind

Republicans are against:
-Nuclear
-Wind
-Solar
-Bioheat
-Water

are for:
-Coal

What's better?

>>128033794
I'm not?

>>128033794
I'm fully support Nuclear Energy

>expecting American conservatives to make reasoned decisions based on sound evidence and logical arguments

have you been asleep the last few years?

We love nuke power.

Your parents all shouted "Hell no, we won't glow" back in the 1980's and fucked us over. Assholes

>>128034968
Kill the traitor before the enemy. The left can be made to look foolish. We shouldn't allow them to destroy the world for profit.

>>128033794
Both is the option, especially for the UK.

Nuclear to meet our energy needs. Coal because we're sitting on a literal mountain of coal that we aren't burning.

>>128033794
>implying that people other than liberal granola retards are against nuclear.

>>128034182
liblards hear "Nuclear" and flip their shit.
They're fucking retarded.

>>128034073
We will be able to use nuclear waste as fuel soon.

>>128033794
Why do Liberals think moving coal burning plants and factories to the other side of the world with no regulations helps to save the Earth?

>>128035024
coal is manly those other options are all really gay fuck you

>>128035024
Given that you can't possibly balance the grid and meet energy needs with just Solar, Bioheat, Water, and Wind (especially in a country as big as the US), I'm going to have to say the Republican position is better.

>>128034820
good carbon capture can not only fix the emission problem but if done right can yield gold as a byproduct
http://www.ibtimes.com/turn-coal-gold-russia-scientists-say-theyve-discovered-alchemy-process-2449193

a ton of coal would almost pay for itself

File: three_gorges.jpg (463KB, 1024x573px) Image search: [Google]

463KB, 1024x573px

>>128035024
they're both retarded

File: tumblr_odfqhioA6z1t4mby8o1_1280.jpg (559KB, 1280x1920px) Image search: [Google]

559KB, 1280x1920px

>not wanting the climate to change so the world will end faster

>>128033794
>against nuclear
1 - it's too good. Nuclear energy could supply you with all the energy you need by the efforts of a few thousands of workers. No workplaces so it's not populist.
2 It's unpopular. The populus is brainwashed to fear it so you can virtue signal by shitting on it.

The backlash against fission nuclear power is pretty bizzare in my mind, renewables aren't able to fill the gap as they currently are and relying on new technology to be invented isn't a safe option. I can see why people worried about how countries have been looking for safe nuclear waste storage for decades and still can't decide would be against more fission power stations being built, but nuclear is not that risky in itself. Expensive at the beginning and end of its lifespan, but there's no better option excepting some miraculous discovery like super dense and convenient energy storage or working fusion power.

>>128035296

https://phys.org/news/2017-03-coal-burning-power-stations-environmentally-friendly.html

>>128033794
only libshit hippie faggots protest against nuclear because muh mother earth crieeees

>>128035464
You definitely can lol
Also, only Sanders was anti Nuclear, while Hillary had a clear pro Nuclear stance.

>>128035241
I'm not really sure how you expect me to do anything to the American coal lobby.

>>128035813
>Hillary had a clear pro Nuclear stance
got a source on that?

>>128035532
If only your plants didn't suck ass.

>>128035926
Just a figure of speech.

>>128033794
>conservatives
>opposed to nuclear power
You've got it backwards, leaf. Republicans have been pushing for MORE nuclear power for decades, but liberal politicians have blocked their efforts.

Hell just look at that little faggot Harry Reid who spent years blocking the Yucca Mountain project: We've got a long-term nuclear waste storage facility FINISHED and ready to go, with enough space to store all the nuclear waste produced in the last half a century, plus anything we produce for the next 100-150 years and yet it sits there, empty, because of a bunch of yuppie, hippy politicians who'd rather dump hundreds of billions of dollars into windmills and carbon credits.

Why didn't you bongs allow us to annex Canada back in 1812? Look what you have done...

>>128035813
>You definitely can lol

No you can't, that's why big countries like the US and China use fossil fuels and only fucking tiny countries with low energy demand use shit like Hydroelectric. Even countries like Norway still have to import energy from Germany/Denmark during high-demand hours because you can't balance the grid with Hydro alone.

>>128035813
Fuck off tard do some research. Google ran their own study into the ability of any renewable source to run the world and their scientists came back with nothing so they decided not to invest. Germany tried to go to 50% wind and solar and in three years they got to 18% and had to stop. They spiked their electricity bills by 300%. It has already failed but goes largely unreported. Read something fuckface.

>>128036344
we use hydropower, mainly, but our energy is expensive as fuck exactly because it is the cleanest in the world

>>128036120
>Just a figure of speech.
Yeah but I'm still not really sure what you expect me to do. You could give me every anti-nuke protester in the past 50 years and I couldn't make a dent in the coal lobby or probably any lobby for that matter.

>>128036111
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/08/16/will-a-president-hillary-clinton-close-down-nuclear-power-plants/#338b8663a1b3

>>128036344
Meanwhile China is at the forefront of going green.

>>128036585
>Meanwhile China is at the forefront of going green.

China is still the biggest carbon producer by a fucking mile. They only invest in shit like wind because they're desperate to pump money into their economy to continue their growth.

Wind and solar are fucking shit, the Chinese know this, which is why they still build dozens of coal power stations every year. It doesn't matter how much they spend on vanity projects like wind and solar if they're still pumping out coal.

It's the same problem with Germany, they spend so much money on wind and solar, but they are still one of the biggest carbon producers in developed Europe because wind and solar are vanity projects and aren't long term solutions.

You can make solar and wind stations until you're blue in the face, but it's clearly not a long term solution.

>>128033794

Because conservatives like to know the costs of something before we jump into it. So go ahead and post the evidence that convinced you that we can afford to replace oil and maintain growth before the cost of oil begins to skyrocket.

Show us how much it will cost.

You won't.

>>128037227

China didn't even make a pledge in this Accord.

>>128033794
I want all energy production used.

>>128036585
>Meanwhile China is at the forefront of going green.
HAHAHAHA! Man the stereotypes are wrong, Austrians have a great sense of humor!

>>128037531
I know, that's not really what I'm getting at with this post.

I'm just saying that spending huge amounts on vanity projects like wind and solar is rarely ever good for the environment in the long-term because they have to fill the energy gap with coal.

Are republicucks really against nuclear plants ? This sounds totally illogical, but then again we're talking about the biggests retards in the history of politics so it's possible

>>128037227
If you take Chinas carbon production per capita, they are bellow many first world countries.

Austria (2015): 8.69t
China: 7.73t

To add, I would way, way prefer to just go full nuclear, but anti-nuke "environmentalists" are sadly brainwashing the general public enough that it will always get protest.

>>128037973

Nobody has done a cost estimate.

How does anyone know if it's a good idea without that?

>>128033794
Conservatives are against nuclear?

I think you meant women, op.

>>128033794
Climate change is real. Even if its not man-made it's bad. Even if it doesn't raise sea levels and destroy cities, it acid-bleaches coral reefs. On SOME LEVEL, climate change is real and exclusively negative for most people. You really think (((they))) won't use an expanding sahara desert as an excuse to bring more niggers in to Europe? STOP THIS MADNESS, GO GREEN. Hitler would have agreed with me.

>Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, the President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, has come out denouncing the UN climate Paris agreement as a massive waste of money that will do nothing to impact climate change. In a January 16, 2017 “The Paris Climate Agreement Won’t Change the Climate,” Lomborg explains that “the agreement will cost a fortune, but do little to reduce global warming.”

>Using the same prediction model that the UN uses, I found that [Obama’s] power plan will accomplish almost nothing. Even if its cuts to carbon dioxide emissions are fully implemented – not just for the 14 years that the Paris agreement lasts, but for the rest of the century — the EPA’s Clean Power Plan would reduce the temperature increase in 2100 by just -.023 degrees Fahrenheit,” Lomborg explained.

>and will cost $100 trillion – To Have No Impact – Postpone warming by less than four years by 2100

>>128034073

That's not how nuclear works you fucking chimp.

>>128039186

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/nuclear-waste/safer-storage-of-spent-fuel#.WTB-BHxtmUk

>>128039186
Oh look it's that retard from who calls everyone on /sci/ a "fucking chimp" all of the time.

>>128036585
i dunno what you mean by green but they're putting billions into nuclear energy lately (which is a good thing imo)

>Nuclear still produces CO2 emission
>Very expensive to upgrade old reactors to more efficient new ones
>Literally takes almost half a century to disassemble facilities when they become outdated

>>128039681

So burn it in modern reactors.

This is the problem with you worthless chimps. You cry about nuclear waste then use it as an excuse to not build reactors that produce next to no waste.

I can't decide if you're all retarded or just mentally ill.

>>128038046
>per capita

yeah because most of their country of a billion people is completely unindustrialised.

File: 14590972_345915392437263_2206022978502656000_n.jpg (43KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 480x480px

>>128035532
holy shit. a russian being RIGHT

>>128040140

Hey fucko if you're so certain that this is a solution then show us the cost estimates for supplanting the other 90% of the world's energy demand while keeping up with growth.

You stupid fuck, you don't have that. You just plagiarize /r/futurology.

>>128033794
there are centuries left of coal reserves. and nuclear energy is not clean, nuclear waste is one of the most harmful things on the planet

>>128040095
Nuclear is a mistake.
I'd rather burn my dick off with >muh solar
At least I won't contract some fucking tumor or suffer from mutation

>>128033794
Republicans are not against Nuclear. They have voted to save and pass several power plants.

>>128033794

> Being against Nuclear Power
> Conservative

Pick one and only one. White people being against cleaner energy is like saying the "white working class" doesn't exist (it obviously does and the statement itself is an oxymoron). It's kind of like the "alt right" meme the left started to fracture the Republican party as much as they could before Trump was elected.

>>128040140

Umm I think you got the wrong end of the stick here. I'm not against Nuclear. I was stating that every energy generating source has cons. Coal it's mostly Co, Nuclear is radiation and Wind power killing thousands+ of migrating birds. I'll say it again, pick your poison.

>>128034117

is this real?

>>128040861
Your average coal plant releases more radiation than your average nuclear plant by several orders of magnitude.

>>128040734

Cost Estimate, cunt. Do you have one?

>>128041142

so instead of 0.000003 it's 0.0003?

>>128037973
No, OP is full of shit. Republicans are notoriously pro-nuclear. It's even been used against them by liberal politicians.

>>128041155
see:
>https://atomicinsights.com/clean-doable-liquid-fission-lf-energy-roadmap-%E2%80%A8powering-world/
>http://thorconpower.com/costing

>>128034117
>>128040910
Thorium is a meme until someone actually engineers a working, industrial-scale reactor design.

Until that happens, it's as practically useful to us as nuclear fusion (which is to say, not at all).

You base your energy policy on what you have NOW, not what you MIGHT have 40 years from now. And right NOW we have uranium fission and it works pretty goddamned well.

>>128040910
you bet your ass it is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

there is still quite a lot of R&D left to be done but it could theoretically power the entire US for one year on 500 tons of thorium

>>128038046
Comparing countries like Austria and China is completely fucking stupid. Most people in China have limited access to power.

>>128040910
yes it still isn't ready though
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602051/fail-safe-nuclear-power/

>>128041521

yes, but the numbers makes it such a draw

1 ton is a lot less on the environment (not that I care, but that's easy to push to lefties)

If we had a working reactor in 1975, surely we have come far enough to make more and longer?

>>128041600
we don't even have 500 tons but I get what you're saying

>>128033794
Are they?It's always libtards shilling against nuclear.

>>128033794

nuclear isn't clean and each incident poisons large areas of the earth

>>128035024
One won't work, the other works poorly. Fuck them both, we need to transition from everything to nuclear (mainly), wind, and geothermal. Everything else is retarded.

Conservatives aren't against wind if it works-- Texas has the most wind power generators.

>>128041142

After burning that coal take that coal ash and process the thorium and uranium out of it. You're not only creating energy but concentrating other source of energy sources materials.

>>128041909
>If we had a working reactor in 1975, surely we have come far enough to make more and longer?
Technological development is not a linear process. It doesn't happen at a set rate or with set scaling.

We've had working fusors since the 40s. Making the effect work doesn't mean you've figured out how to make it work on the scale and with the efficiency necessary to make it usable for large scale energy production. Same with thorium. The physics of both are relatively straightforward... the engineering is a bitch.

>>128035495
>unironically promoting alchemy
stop breathing

>>128035024
Republicans are against what isn't cost effective, fag-enabler.

>>128041458

Neither of those links have cost estimates for building enough nuclear plants to supply the 5 terawatts the world uses.

The first one especially seems to be designed to confuse laymen with jargon.

>>128035024
>Republicans are against:
>-Nuclear
Blatantly false.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/226209-gop-gains-put-nuclear-power-back-on-the-table

>>128042486
In the future, please use archive.
>http://thehill com/policy/energy-environment/226209-gop-gains-put-nuclear-power-back-on-the-table
--> https://archive.is/Bn10d

>>128041521
>as practically useful to us as nuclear fusion (which is to say, not at all)

except fusion is a ridiculously more difficult to achieve on any time frame, let alone make a system that is actually economical to run.

LFTR on the other hand is really close to being completed and the projected cost to maintain plants are a fraction of traditional uranium based plants. not to mention the shorter half life of thorium among other objective benefits of an LFTR over Uranium.


>>128041909
>the U.S. government has returned about 3,200 metric tons of refined thorium nitrate to the crust, burying it in the Nevada desert.[8]

we have it, it's fucking everywhere and easy to mine

>>128042300
you right, probably should mouth off about stuff I don't know about.

hopefully someone gets behind it and starts investing in it

>>128042300
Which is why it's a dead end.

>>128042573
Nobody ever will because it's a dead end.

>>128035495
This is such a retarded article I dont even know where to start.

>>128042547
>LFTR on the other hand is really close to being completed and the projected cost to maintain plants are a fraction of traditional uranium based plants. not to mention the shorter half life of thorium among other objective benefits of an LFTR over Uranium.

and how many plants will we need to supply the world with 5 terawatts of electricity, how long will it take to build them, how much annual maintenance cost will they have, etc etc.

>>128042465
>This LF roadmap has many advantages compared to Jacobson’s WWS roadmap.
>>Capital required for the LF roadmap to 2100 is $15 trillion rather than $125 trillion for WWS.

>>128038046
>>128041760
Forgot to add, the important figure is CO2 per unit energy produced.

CO2 per capita is a completely meaningless figure, especially for countries as different as Austria and China.

>>128041264
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
Something like that.

>>128042213
If we're gonna play the reprocessing game then nuclear would produce even less waste than it does now.

>>128033794


because coal IS the cleanest energy + its abundent + it causes zero longterm problems + is zero risky.

Why does OP not wise up ?

File: 6bf5cfb4496ca54137ee662199017259_thumb.jpg (34KB, 504x329px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 504x329px

>>128033794
>conservatives
>against clean energy like Nuclear
Sugoi its a leaf friend who is good at shitposting.

>environmental wackos
>not hating nuclear
uh. Oh! Okay guys do you know of a fag called Mandela by chance? What happened to him in this universe?

>>128042836

the projected annual maintenance costs are far less than uranium plants, did you not even read my post at all?

considering they predicted to be more efficient and use much less fuel than uranium reactors i would say the number needed to build would be much less than building only uranium reactors

the plants are also much more compact so it will probably take much less time to build one than a uranium plant too

I don't see your point.

>>128033794
Coal is literally a clean energy. All it puts out is co2, which is plant food. Fuck off global warming morons.

Anyone that is in favor of "solar" is either in on the money game or literally retarded

File: maxresdefault.jpg (64KB, 884x1024px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 884x1024px

>>128033794
>nuclear energy
>clean energy

What is nuclear waste for 500, Alex.

>>128042852
>15 trillion
Like i said, impossible.

>>128043546
>the projected annual maintenance costs are far less than uranium plants, did you not even read my post at all?

In the 50's they projected that traditional nuclear power would be "too cheap to meter" and with the horrible lack of standards in modern science today i can easily discard what you said.

Also, nuclear reprocessing is impossible.

>>128033970
Its called natural gas fucktard

>>128043546
The point is they don't fucking exist yet.

I'm sure dark energy converters are super efficient and cost-effective and shit, but they're no fucking use to us because they don't fucking exist.

You cannot base an energy policy on technology that is not yet available. Thorium works on paper, but nobody's designed a working large-scale reactor yet.

>>128033970
FPBP

>>128033794
Coal creates more jobs than nuclear.republicans care about families being able to make it on their own. I know you democrats just love sucking welfare from the governments tits and dream of a world run by robots so you lazy fucks dont have to do anything, so its hard for you to understand.

>>128033794
Fucking slave thinks if you don't want government to do something you're against it.

>>128043597
this too.

we've had clean burning coal plants for years now.

>>128043678
also this

solar is a fucking meme and is only good for supplying supplemental energy. unless they get incredibly more efficient in the coming years they will never be a good alternative energy source

>>128044004
which is why funding to make this technology practical is important

more so than the fusion meme which takes FIVE HUNDRED FUCKING TERRAWATTS to test

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Cb7iqaN91c

FIVE HUNDRED TERRAWATTS

>>128044335
>earthwatts

What a moron.

>>128043909
>15 trillion worldwide by 2100
>impossible
lmao ok then m8

because nuclear is dangerous and can flatten an entire city

coal is cleaner

>>128038046
Fuck Nuclear:

all it takes is one accident and your entire ecosystem goes to shit. The Russians (and their neighbors) and Japanese learned all about that haven't they?

>>128033794
Muh three mile island
Muh Chernobyl
Muh Fukushima

"Clean Coal"

tromptards believe this

>>128035495
I sincerely hope this is bait.

>>128044693
>can flatten an entire city
Burger education

>>128044627
Lol

still though, the cost of running fusion power experiments far exceeds that of R&D for LFTR

the chinese are supposedly developing LFTR tech, so why shouldn't we?

>>128044693
A nuclear meltdown is not what the Simpsons Tree-house of Horror told you.

It just means that the radioactive material fission rods melt the container due to it's extreme heat, causing either the nuclear material to melt into the ground and cause a steam explosion in the process, or just overheat and explode. The nuclear energy expelled gets into the air and burns people from the inside out, wirthin a couple of hours their organs are fried, their skin is black, they taste metal, and they're dead in a minute.

>>128044794

>i learned about nuclear power from the china syndrome

>>128045739
The fuck is The China syndrome?

>>128035265
>You can't power the country with a bomb you idiot!

>>128036234
>You've got it backwards, leaf. Republicans have been pushing for MORE nuclear power for decades,
no they haven't nigger, nuclear power users are republican, that doesn't mean the aims of the republicans align with pushing nuclear power. you don't hear about this in climate change debates, you hear denial. its just as disingenuous as proclaiming the right is for states rights when they only ever bring it up to virtue signal but never try to truly scale back federalism

>>128040861
>>128041142
I think what this idiot means is the possibility of having the the plant explode like 3 Mile

>>128042440
THIS

>>128046190
Five months ago Republicans passed the first meaningful piece of pro-nuclear power legislature in a decade.

Meanwhile Democrats are STILL blocking the use of Yucca Mountain.

File: sdsdsddssd.jpg (95KB, 600x431px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 600x431px

>>128033794
nuclear are not clean energy, because they have tendency to blow up time to time. Nuclear power is about 50 years old, and so 4 have experienced complete meltdown. That is pretty sad success rate.

>>128045890
A movie about a fictional reactor meltdown that became super popular in the late 70s. It was a major turning point contributing to the public's irrational fear of nuclear power.

>>128033794

job loss = no re-election

jesus fuck do i have to fucking explain everything to you fucktards. i swear the iq here is dropping by the second

ITS ALWAYS ABOUT FUCKING OPTICS AND KEEPING YOUR GODDAMN JOB

>>128047320
bullshit.

>>128033794
Actually left wingers protested nuclear power the most you retarded leaf faggot. Im sure the coal industry lobbied, but the smelly hippies were on the ground kicking and screaming.

>>128039186
>Works
>Has worked

Say it however you'd like, that shits buried in the deserts of the US, or in bunkers.

File: IMG_4695.jpg (65KB, 750x443px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 750x443px

>>128045642

Tell that to Hisashi Ouchi

>>128033794
>can't into geography
>can't into history
>can't into economy

Why do retards focus on the product and not the conditions? If you got a lot of coal in your backyard, why shouldnt you use it? If there only a handful of nuclear energy companies then why place restrictions on states developing thier own idenpendent company?

Every time a nuclear plant goes up some other state or country gets money. And because NP requires licensing from a commision controlled by NC's you still end up paying them for shit you should be able to do on your own

If you really want Nuclear power...

DEREGULATE

>>128048150
Finland is going to bury used rods inside of mountain over 400 meters deep, that is 1/4 mile for you rollercoasters. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqv_J5EnA0s&t=625s

>>128049088
>and no proper qualification and training requirements appear to have been established to prepare those workers for the job.
Stupid games, stupid prizes

>>128033794
Let it all burn. Salvage what's left afterwards

>>128022215
>>128022215
>>128022215

>>128049243
>Why do retards focus on the product and not the conditions?
>If you got a lot of coal in your backyard, why shouldnt you use it?
Choose ONE. If you want to breathe toxic dust and have it scattered all over downwind, that's not just a matter of muh choice. Under the NAP, everyone downwind will have the right to torture, kill, and exterminate you and your family. Think

>>128034068
>A pathetic fuck incapable of anything but breaking rocks
>Generation after generation of equally useless people
And these are genes worth preserving, dear cheeseburger?

Jews won't let go of the petroshekel because its a guaranteed protection by the US in the middle east.

>>128047320
>>128047724

Notably it came out three weeks before Three Mile Island. The media basically used it as a reference and permanently warped the mind of every libtard on the planet.

>>128052239
i will laugh when petrodollar collapses.

>>128037973
>France

>>128035676
I wonder why nobody has suggested we just the nuclear waste on a spacecraft and launch it into space shit sun could probably use it

>>128050035
wow you seem to be smart. Can you tell us all the difference between kill and exterminate since there is obviously a difference to one so smart?

>>128033794
I'm conserv and all for clean nuclear energy.


Although the liberals seem to yhink that these things are bombs or something.