We want jobs not handouts

>>136386317
I'm not American so I wouldn't preach about what you should do, but as a principle failure to develop is never good. Yes, it's always a shame that some people lose their jobs, but in the end you're also creating more by building new industries (in this case, nuclear).

Climate pollution is hoax!'

https://youtu.be/bVu99o8IWTs

>>136386317
Just remember that Nuke Construction in Georgia provides hard working welders $1,400/week.

>>136387105
My first welding job I was earning $2,200/week, but only taking home $1,400 after taxes.

Hope you enjoyed the handout GOVT Niggers!!!

>>136386317
Yes, only imbeciles who take the oooga booga I can't understand it therefore it must be bad pill are opposed to it. Same applies to CRISPR and other advanced tech.
>[int. 1] Hulk smash!

File: 1500347006371.jpg (113KB, 800x500px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 800x500px

I dont intend on saving coal by throttling the other markets. Thats the entire fucking point, do not throttle any market, including coal!!!!

File: IMG_4590.jpg (48KB, 883x258px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 883x258px

>>136387282
Be white.
Pick up a skilled trade. Weld process piping. Your never without a good paying job.

>>136386317
In a scenario of total war I would assume that nuclear plants are highly valuable targets.
No.
Fuck that shit.

>>136387413
The difficulty is that every method of energy generation has it's own collection of government subsidies and regulations that distort the market.

>>136387587
Yes, they would be targets but hopefully we'd do a better job of safety at our nuclear plants than y'all leafs do. It should be embarrassing to you that one of our presidents had radioactive urine for six months because of cleaning up one of your fucked up reactors.

>>136387676
No we are capable of finding a proper balance. There are some adults in the industry for sure. The problem is gov't involvement.

>>136387932
I'm from Quebec.
We have no nuclear reactors because we're just that based. We used to though.

>>136387318
>the oooga booga I can't understand it therefore it must be bad pill
Mein sides

>>136386317
Coal will still be used to fire steel mills, if Atomic energy is better and safer, then use it, provide adequate warning for coal workers to start preparing to enter another field of work. Technological and industrial progress shouldn't be held back because of an older energy source, but that said, coal will still be used in other capacitys such as steel foundrys/coke plants, and synthetic petroleum products. Also not all geographic locations are safe for atomic energy plants.

>>136389881
Quality post

>>136387318
Funny

>>136389881
Also, if things get bad for oil extraction use the coal for hydrogenation to make oil.

File: thorium reactor.png (146KB, 1278x972px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1278x972px

>>136386317
Thorium reactors are better, and produce less waste.

Greencucks, Al Gore, and Warren Buffet will still try to block them though.

>>136386317
Nuclear plants are incredibly expensive to build in the US. Remember, the Georgia project (the Vogtle facility) was supposed to be a twin of another nuclear plant in South Carolina.

The SC plant was cancelled in favor of gas-fired generation, which was cheaper. The Vogtle plant itself is already years behind schedule, won't open until the 2020's at the earliest, and may STILL be cancelled. And if it goes through, rate-payers in its service area will probably get hit with higher bills than the national average for a long time to finance all of this.

So no; I wouldn't bet on nuclear just on economic grounds.