[OC] Biggest uranium companies in the worldSubmitted by giteam t3_y7wrvv in dataisbeautiful
BDMblue t1_iszg2cx wrote
Reply to comment by MeMoses in [OC] Biggest uranium companies in the world by giteam
Well for power you got to pick your battles do you not. Unless your asking for just no power. You can destroy miles and miles of land for damns and wind. You can make solar but the pollution is worse than nuclear, or coal gas.
If you don’t want the cleanest energy type by default your arguing for the dirtier ones, or no energy.
MeMoses t1_iszjd0j wrote
Have you got proof for any of those statements? Because it does seem like you've been listening to all those people with the "wind power kills all the birds" speeches too much.
BDMblue t1_iszxl8f wrote
Just search it. I’m at work on my phone so I won’t now, but if you can show me any counter information at all I’ll look it up when I get home.
As far as I know nuclear causes the lest amount of waste. The lest amount of deaths per amount of power made (sorry forgot the measurement they use). On top of that the waste is not sent into the environment it’s placed in a location we know of and have control over. Other good reasons like cost.
Once the media started fear mongering we were doomed to leave the best cleanest source of energy we have ever had. This has taken a real toll on the world today.
MeMoses t1_iszz0ld wrote
>Just search it. I’m at work on my phone so I won’t now, but if you can show me any counter information at all I’ll look it up when I get home.
Make a claim, say the other person has to disprove it, refuse to elaborate. You can't be serious.
>As far as I know nuclear causes the lest amount of waste.
And the only one that has to be stored away for atleast 1000 years in a specially designed waste facility.
>The lest amount of deaths per amount of power made (sorry forgot the measurement they use).
The measurement they use is people dying in connection with the power source. So someone falling of a wind turbine during construction counts towards deaths due to wind energy. And someome getting crushed in nuclear power plant because the forklift operator was drunk is a death due to nuclear energy.
>On top of that the waste is not sent into the environment it’s placed in a location we know of and have control over.
Unless of course we don't anymore. Know a lot of buildings older than 200 years where you'd be willing to bet on their structural integrity?
>Other good reasons like cost.
And that shows me you don't know what you are talking about.
>Once the media started fear mongering we were doomed to leave the best cleanest source of energy we have ever had. This has taken a real toll on the world today.
I mean it is also really expensive. And after all this time 99,9% of countries still don't have a permanent waste storage site. There's also their enviromental impact and dependence, yes eventhough you won't like to hear it, even a nuclear power during normal operation impacts the enviroment.
BDMblue t1_it06pyn wrote
Ok man. Believe what you want. I don’t think show me anything at all is asking too much.
MeMoses t1_it1am83 wrote
Okay. So I'll just take a page out of your playbook then. Renewables have a negligible enviromental impact when standing, the only argument against them is "well they look bad". And if you disagree with that, link me sources that disprove me.
BDMblue t1_it2ci5a wrote
It’s also building them and the land they displace. Also useless when the wind does not blow or it’s dark. You need to store the power in massive dirty battery’s, or you need other plants to take over. The data from places that have swapped from nuclear to renewable see a massive increase of emissions, while places that went hard on nuclear have the lowest emissions.
Dams seem to be top dog, but the land loss and you can only build so much of them.
MeMoses t1_it2gjph wrote
>It’s also building them and the land they displace
Land they displace? How much actually ecological valuable land does a wind turbine or solar power park displace? And how much of it is just renewables on already used land, be it sealed by constructions or used for agriculture.
>Also useless when the wind does not blow or it’s dark.
And when the rivers run low NPPs can't run either. And yes this is not only happening now but also a major risk for the future.
>You need to store the power in massive dirty battery’s, or you need other plants to take over.
And with NPPs you don't have to? You are just going to run them 24/7 and let excess energy burn off?
Also dirty batteries?
>The data from places that have swapped from nuclear to renewable see a massive increase of emissions, while places that went hard on nuclear have the lowest emissions.
What places have swapped from nuclear to renewables and have experienced *a massive increase of emission I'd love to hear some actual names. And the places that went hard on nuclear are those currently buying dirty energy from their neighbour because their NPPs don't work, isn't that the case?
>Dams seem to be top dog, but the land loss and you can only build so much of them.
And you don't think it is funny how you mention land loss and you can only build so much of them as downsides of dams but for NPPs they are good.
BDMblue t1_it2imc5 wrote
Damn you and making me look up stuff on google! Damn you…
MeMoses t1_it2p6z8 wrote
You are making the claims so you gotta provide the facts. Otherwise I can go around making claims and not having evidence to back it up too.
BDMblue t1_it3cb8n wrote
I don’t ask you to back up how rivers running low is a major risk for the future :(.
See I’m nice. It’s just too hard to find everything in the time it takes to go poo.
MeMoses t1_it3pvso wrote
>I don’t ask you to back up how rivers running low is a major risk for the future :(.
But I've got the sources, not like you. One Two Three
>See I’m nice. It’s just too hard to find everything in the time it takes to go poo.
So you are not only taking a shit you are also talking shit since you don't even know what to quickly google to get the sources for what you talk about. I get it. But keep on rocking that nuclear fandom with zero sources.
BDMblue t1_it3tcn2 wrote
I gave multiple sources for things. You find a harder to find fact and act like that’s it. 1st I have to google country’s who moved from nuclear to green then I have to find emissions based on megawatt hour. Not only that but charts or I’ll have to read data sheets. It’s not like it’s a fact pushed publicly, like solar good nuclear bad.
All the elected officials want is to please the misinformed public to get re-elected. Teaching people facts is the best way to lose power.
I’ll find the sources tomorrow. This is like the Musk did not invent the hyper loop. Too much googling sources… why do I hate my self so much :(
MeMoses t1_it3uzml wrote
>I gave multiple sources for things.
In this whole conversation we've had there's exactly one link to any sources from you. You can even get that right.
>1st I have to google country’s who moved from nuclear to green then I have to find emissions based on megawatt hour. Not only that but charts or I’ll have to read data sheets. It’s not like it’s a fact pushed publicly, like solar good nuclear bad.
Ahh so you'll first have to find the multiple countries you've previously so confidently claimed were there and then you have to confirm what you previously claimed as fact. And all because of the conspiracy where people want to keep nuclear down.
>All the elected officials want is to please the misinformed public to get re-elected. Teaching people facts is the best way to lose power.
Haha. They are all conspiring against you, I'll believe it in a second. Beware they are also putting LSD in your water and mindcontrolling your friends with satellites from Mars.
>I’ll find the sources tomorrow
Of course you will. Right after you've fought off all those secret spies that want to kill you now that you've told me all your secret information.
[deleted] t1_it3xdti wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments