So how badly will trumps new cuts to alternative energy programs

hold on, let me just plug it into my calculator

I don't even want to think about the future at this point. Time to do coke and forget about life.

trump will make climate science real again, none of this fake politicized stuff to line al gore's pockets

>>8625354
Have funnchoking onnthat red pill when the world literally burns because of pollution, capitlaist scum.

>>8625354
>line al gore's pockets
You need to get some new lines. I see you posting this here daily.

instead of telling you that nobody actually knows, i'll give you the answer i think you want

trump is going to fucking destroy the environment

now back to /pol/ with you

>>8625358
the truth doesn't change day to day, unlike the alleged effects of 'climate science'

>>8625364
Go, retard.
>>>/pol/

trump literally wants to murder everyone with smog and lung cancer

>>8625364
I want to beat you like you scum would to a fucking seal. The world is fucking dying and you try to deny it so you can power your fucking humvee and hunt big game in africa. I hope you get raped you fucking bitch.

>>8625364
>DA TROOF

>>8625377
>DELOOSHINAL

>>8625344
It wont change the environment. It will however remove corrupt climate 'scientists' who fake alarmist papers for grants.

>>8625432
Please, please go back to your containment board.
I'm asking you nicely.

>>8625344
>Stephen Cuckverse
Kill yourself right now

File: 1yzke24d2mhx.png (162KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 800x600px

Better question: how badly would the us economy be hurt if if renewable energy like solar or wind could be made efficient enough to completely replace gas?

>>8625344
This much:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/11/trump-carbon-and-the-paris-agreement/#more-19725

The US doesn't matter all that much

>>8625456
99.99% of the united states economy relies on fossil fuels, it would completely destroy us

>>8625646
Does not follow. More efficient renewables wouldn't make fossils go away.

>>8625648
I said "efficient enough to completely replace gas", as in every house and every car could be powered entirely on renewable. (once you buy it you don't need fuel, a la wind and solar) If that is the case, why won't fossil-fuel go away?

And don't say "that'll never happen", because that's not what I'm asking.

>>8625658
You're assuming fossil fuels become obsolete while there's still a demand. It doesn't work like that.
Better renewables won't make fossil fuels go "poof".

>>8625663
>Better renewables won't make fossil fuels go "poof".
Why? Who would want to keep paying for petrol if they can get energy that doesn't pollute or need refueling?

>>8625668
People who got a car running with gasoline.

>>8625674
They can be converted to run on hydrogen. But my point remains: assuming the efficiency is high enough that it can completely replace gas, how badly would it damage the economy?

>>8625684
You have internet no? You use go here https://www.google.com
You type " how much energy *the country you are intersted in* export", and you substract that to it's GDP, is it really this hard ?

>>8625695
It's about import to export ratio, more than anything else.

>>8625684
Oh look it's the "once we start powering cars with hydrogen the petroleum fuels will disappear" bullshit again
Do you know how hydrogen fuels are made? Electricity. How do we make the electricity? Fossil fuels.
>no we'll just use solar and wind to make electricity
solar panels aren't efficient enough, the sun is only out 12 hours a day, and sometimes there's no wind
>then we'll get really dope-ass batteries and better solar panels
Maybe in a hundred years

>>8625344
>Stephen Universe
>>/out/

>>8625358
Fuck off Al

>>8625834
You're missing the point entirely.

>>8625344

I don't know but I feel as if they're trying to slide the argument to one side of politics so that in the future even worse changes can be made

>>8625368
The world isn't dying. Earth is going to be around for a very long time.

The truth is that 7.4b people is too many so we're tapping future resources now to sustain. Something has to give but green energy isn't the answer.

What the us puts out compared to China and India is nothing. Increasing the us green energy by 10% will do nothing.

>>8625942
>Earth is going to be around for a very long time.

When people say things like "the Earth is dying", they're talking about the biosphere and diversity of natural organisms and ecosystems, not the literal rock ball that the planet is made out of.

>>8625344
>how badly will trumps new cuts to alternative energy programs and other enviromental guilds hurt the enviroment?
Well my understanding is that so far all he's really proposed is consolidating a bunch of redundant offices.

That probably won't have a big impact on actual research funding or the environment, but it will have a measurable affect on the budget.

I think it's time for everyone in this thread to go back to /pol/

the only viable "alternative energy" is nuclear, which leftist seem to hate.

>>8625947
I realize that. It's a very arrogant view. The earth has seen many extinction events and will most likely continue to. And, the earth will probably bounce back with new life in the future just as it has before.

Unless we start treating this as a direct threat to our existence instead of some altruistic noble cause, I don't think we as a race will save ourselves. And this is why I don't give a shit about global warming or its whiny ass supporters because at the end of the day, you're all hypocrites.

>>8626006
Problem with nuclear is the fact that if a meltdown occurs an area could become uninhabitable for a period of time. Compare that to a Coal or Gas plant going in which cleanup is the only thing you need to do and takes a far less time to deal with than having to wait for the half-life to be reduced to safe levels for an area to become habitable again.

Both are risky, but Nuclear has a far higher risk factor when it comes to areas having a less likelihood of being considered dead zones.

>>8626326
t. expert on nuclear security

fuck you bitch it's because of retards like you we don't have nuclear
at least we have Trump

>>8626326
Coal and gas power has caused far far more deaths per kW of power generated than nuclear. Comparing the effect of nuclear meltdown with a coal plant while ignoring all other effects is stupid.

File: 1466196864760.jpg (45KB, 540x303px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 540x303px

>>8625344
Nice dubs Peridot.

>>8625368
Chill out there sperg-o. You probably have bought stuff that was transported by cargo ship, and by this admission you carry the burden of allowing these businesses to flourish.

Fun fact: The 16 largest cargo ships in the world produce more pollution than every automobile on the planet combined.

Take this thread to >>>/pol/ please

>>8625344
In a word: bigly

Go to bed, /pol/

File: 1467661014687.jpg (26KB, 186x243px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 186x243px

>>8626326
>fast breeder reactors are the only ones that exists (or could exist)

>>8626326
Yeah but what does it actually fucking take to trigger a meltdown?

Chernobyl suffered a meltdown because it was built by retarded inbred Soviet serbs, was held together with bits of string and duct tape, and was being run at the red line without safety protocols.

Fukushima survived the largest earthquake in Japan's history, the worst tsunami in Japan's history, and only failed because a prefecture-wide power failure took all the safety systems offline and the backup generators were all flooded.


That's a pretty good record for 60 years of nuclear power.

>>8626326
the Fukishima nuclear """disaster""" occurred thanks to an earthquake and tsunami. 2 (two) workers died.

Nuclear power plants have a much better track record than hydroelectric energy, for instance. Go take a lot on the amount of dam failures just in this century and the dozens of deaths each of them caused.

>>8626621
*take a look

He's planning to return nuclear energy which is a good non meme alternative. Maybe he doesn't know it's good for the environment but hey let's just shut up and let Trump deal with the hippies.

>>8625344

It won't because leftist pseudo-academics have been embezzling that money anyway.

>>8626621

Not to sound like a heart-less asshole or anything, but I'd take a few dozen people dead from dam breaks over cancer causing radiation seeping into the ground water. At least the dam causes a quantifiable amount of short term damage. When nuclear reactor fails and a fuel rod burns down into an aquifer you never know just how many people that will kill.

>>8626661
And yet there's been no plague of cancer deaths across Japan. Gee it's almost like a meltdown can be contained and cleaned up with greater efficiency and safety now than 40 years ago.

>>8626673

>he thinks Fukushima is over

Ha!

http://www.sciencealert.com/the-robots-sent-into-fukushima-have-died

Oh and there's still fuel rods unaccounted for my dude.

>>8626686
>sciencealert
About as credible as those hysterical hyperbolic faggots over at enenews.

>>8626700

Wouldn't kill you to click on their citations.

http://www.newsweek.com/robots-sent-fukushima-have-died-435332

>>8625436
Studying physics and mathematics, this is my containment board.

File: tepco_3dprintedrobot1.jpg (42KB, 508x453px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 508x453px

>>8626686
>>8626704
uh ok, so how does that show that fukushima is killing people? Sure, fukushima is killing robots, but this does not show that fukushima is killing people.

We know that two of the five robots that have gone into fukushima did not fail from radiation, they failed from getting stuck[1][2][3]. It is hard to make robots that crawl through pipes and debris. In addition, some of the robots sent in have used cheap and expendable non-radiation hardened components. Pic related uses a smartphone for fucks sake.[4]

It is expected that the robots would eventually die due to radiation. Sensitive components like the camera can only last 10 hours in the radiation.

[1]http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/industrial-robots/robot-stranded-inside-fukushima-nuclear-reactor
[2http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=14678
[3]https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1626/ML16267A397.pdf
[4]http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2015/11/27/tepco-arms-fukushima-crawler-with-commercial-smartphone/

>>8626381
>Fun fact: The 16 largest cargo ships in the world produce more pollution than every automobile on the planet combined.

http://www.industrytap.com/worlds-15-biggest-ships-create-more-pollution-than-all-the-cars-in-the-world/8182

>>8626673
>no plague of cancer deaths across Japan

That wasn't by design, Japan was very, very lucky because the winds blew the pollution towards east, out towards the sea.

File: Screen Shot 2017-01-15 at 11.42.38 PM.png (169KB, 270x334px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 270x334px

>>8625344
Why do liberals claim to love clean energy but hate nuclear power? Are they retarded? Why would they reject the most efficient clean energy there is?

>>8629354
Petty fear of death ?

>>8629354
Because bombs and shit, don't tell them a cars engine uses explosions to propell the car or they'll freak out.