Ding Dong Paris Is Dead

File: comeonits2017.jpg (586KB, 2100x1400px) Image search: [Google]

586KB, 2100x1400px

>>128090714
Sounds good muh nigger.

>>128090714
B-but, think of the children!

>>128090714
All aircraft carriers back to steam now! ENV BTFO! MAGA!

>>128090714
climate change is a push for nuclear and a push for taxation of the poor via carbon credits.

The brits have pushed for it for years via bbc wildlife documentaries, nat geographic does the same as an outfit for time magazine in the usa.

>Smart enough to dodge shitty environmentalist garbage

>Too dumb to use nuclear

It's the future. It's safe, efficient power

Why do you faggots want coal so badly? It's shit, outdated, and non-renewable. There are better alternatives out there that can be more of use than this garbage.

>>128090714
I'd become a miner if the company paid me 80k/year and a forced retirement and 80% pension after 12 years to avoid Black Lung allowing me to live an average lifespan!

This would be fucking amazing, but not worth it otherwise.

File: efficiencies.jpg (763KB, 1587x768px) Image search: [Google]

763KB, 1587x768px

>>128090714
Coal isn't about the jobs, it's about the efficiency and low cost

>>128096990
Unless it's 100% thorium there's no point with Modern and increasingly advanced scrubbers minimal CO2 is released and almost zero carcinogens like lead/mercury/arsenic are released.

File: 1450658904113.jpg (56KB, 342x342px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 342x342px

>>128090714
Please do. Oil will look like the new green option.

Please re-focus the entire us economy based on coal. Or atleast 30-40% so it employes most the country.

Then once we cant see the united states from space we countiuny living with oure great tech we funded while you guys where busy decding if lung cancer is a natrual cause of death or not

In all seriousness, how well are miners paid? Do they get health insurance?

>>128097637
In terms of scale it would take 250,000 US Coal workers to power the entire US power grid. It would take 28.9 million solar workers to do the same.
>>128097202

>>128097785
Hardly enough to make a living
Hardly enough to survive until 60

Other forms of energy create more jobs and are less likely to fuck you in the long run.
It's honestly the fault of their ancestors for being so ridiculously reliant on it and having no fallback plan when it eventually got replaced. They actually thought it would last forever.

>>128098062
>more jobs
>>128097202

Agree about the health concerns though. Natural gas would be a better option since it is only slightly less efficient than coal and has a smaller health and environmental footprint.

File: 1484174161443.jpg (137KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 640x960px

>>128097815
>solar workers

Please theres plenty of over enginnerd solar systems requiring minimum maintance.

I know for a fact that most of the numbers quoted regarding us solar is mostly electrictans taking a class so they can install solar panels for larger companies.

When you create farms you need contractors for 1-3 years also boosting the maintance numbers.

This is about installing infrastructure. GIve enginners enough money during the next 4-8 years when the newest batteries are ready for mass production.

Solar is one part.

hydropower is the most valuable resource. Fresh water\water batteries

>>128098274
You literally linked me to something that proves that other forms of energy create more jobs than coal does.

>>128098662
By your logic bicycles hooked to a generator would provide the most jobs. Just because something creates more jobs doesn't mean it is economically sound or practical. A full-solar workforce would absorb about 50% of the labor pool.

File: 1466884573053.jpg (33KB, 304x313px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 304x313px

>>128098662
op is a faggot.

A dumb one aswell

File: eia2016.png (35KB, 673x533px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 673x533px

>>128098565
The inflated # you often see is over 300,000. 260,000 is a very conservative estimate, and yet coal is still overwhelmingly more efficient. Even wind power is by a large order of magnitude.

By cost and labor force hydro is the most efficient, but in the US there are only select areas where it is viable. Plus environmentalists see it as damaging to dam rivers and destroy ecosystems, so there is not much forecasted growth.

>>128099033
Obviously if it were more common the entire process would be much more efficient and there would be less jobs necessary yet still more than coal (especially since the majority of coal jobs are pretty much unnecessary and only exist because some areas are stuck in the 60s).

>>128099595
Yes, obviously the #s will not scale directly, but the process is not going to become 115 times as efficient. At the same time coal and natural gas will also show improvements in efficiency. There will be more technology breakthroughs that will give forth some degree of growth in solar capacity, but in the past few years the majority of installed capacity growth has come from increased installations rather than improved tech.