>climate change hysteria everywhere >people think solar/wind

>>8038349
Radiation is scary, its not that complicated

>>8038350
So are bears and sharks but you dont drive them extinct for that reason.

>>8038352
Nor do we set up shark ponds in the middle of cities

People are totally controlled
The media tells them to be anti-nuclear
Communists are instructed to be anti-nuclear
and oil companies set up paid shill organizations, that are anti-nuclear

So you have lots of useful idiots, completely ignorant, being led by big organizations/companies.

Humanity is awful at calculating risks, more news at 11.

>>8038363

They're called aquariums

>>8038363
>in the middle of cities
Funnily enough, we do actually build coal plants in the middle of cities. And they pollute everything. I'd much rather live next to a nuclear power plant than a coal processing plant, but neither should be anywhere near human habitation.

>>8038363
>what are aquariums?

There's no reasons not to harness solar while we master nuclear power.

Don't think it makes sense to flood the planet with primitive nuclear plants yet.

Because nuclear isn't mastered enough laready.

>>8038851
[citation needed]

>>8038349
well Chernobyl yeah

>>8038895
Chernobyl is greatly overblown.

More people die from falling off their roof each year while installing solar panels than have died in all nuclear power accidents combined.

Because shit like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident

>>8038912
> people in the world doing X causes more deaths than a local accident
wow...
people don't get accidentally radiation poisoning or get their babies with horrible mutations. people also don't accidentally turn their city into an inhabitable ghost town, poisoning the air food and water there.

>>8038925
>all nuclear power accidents combined
>all
I had the same though, but then I actually read the post.

>>8038926
oh i did read it. nice citations right there

fission is tiny cock, we want fusion.

>>8038349
because of Chernobyl, Three-Mile-Island and Fukushima. It's that simple

>>8038349
>Why are everyone so scared of nuclear power, which can be done pretty much in a failsafe way?

its fucking expensive as shit to do correctly, and you have to have a team of highly trained and educated people to keep it running.

solar and wind are idiot proof, and any third world shithole can throw up a couple of panels or turbines.

>>8039048
And all of the others that most people aren't aware of and don't get talked about.

File: TRUMP.jpg (26KB, 660x371px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 660x371px

Nuclear is being paced by natural gas and becoming expensive.

Solar and wind will be a viable source of electricity in a few decades.

Climate change is over hyped.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora's_Promise

Was pretty good. Had me favorable of nuclear power but I was never very educated on the subject to begin with.

>>8039055
Entirely this. Solar is honestly taking off really fast. You can pay off your panels in under 2-3 years now. It's gonna decentralize the grid and utility companies are gonna drop like birds flying into wind farms.

The biggest challenge is literally severing the connection between utility companies and politicians.

File: 1457161750479.png (331KB, 470x470px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 470x470px

>climate change hysteria everywhere
Oh boy, here we go with the denialism again

File: 1446610138095.jpg (9KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 200x200px

>>8038365
Is it because of the oil companies that the media constantly says we're all going to die if we don't cut CO2 emissions?

>>8038349
Solar/wind are viable options. Nuclear is just better (assuming you can afford it).

Also nuclear waste is a thing

>>8039462
>denialism
I think the proper terminology is heretic.
History repeats.

tfw methane traps 100x more heat than CO2 and we still frack and let millions of pounds of food waste rot into our atmosphere.

>>8039804
No, denialism is the correct term.

If you are a scientist working to falsify current climate models and people start calling you a denialist, you've got a right to compare it to the inquisition.

However, if you're just some common retard on the internet who's 'researched' the truth about climate change on fringe websites and Infowars, then you're a denialist.

I would be willing to bet on which camp OP is a part of.