ArchimedesTesseract

joined 3 years ago
[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 years ago

Are you going to cry now, troll?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 years ago

Dudes with no sense of irony. Probably dead to Russian shelling that Russia still denies.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 years ago (3 children)

You've sunk from word salad to memes.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 years ago (2 children)

Lol, they dropped that pretense quite a while ago. You're late to the disinformation campaign. The little green men are so 2014.

Also, if everyone looks like a fascist to you, is that because you're a communist?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 years ago

Economically, the long term running costs of nuclear are superior to coal. Have you ever seen the devastation that mining coal does to the countryside? Nuclear fuel costs win in the long run, since you don't need to feed it mountains of kilos per year. In Greece, I saw a beautiful valley ruined by conveyor belts and open pits, because the brown coal there is so poor it's not worth shipping it on a truck. There's no dismantling. The coal burning plants simply dot the landscape, as they build the next one closer to the most recent pit, again because the fuel is so poor it's not worth the cost of taking it to the abandoned plants.

As far as weapons, the nuclear energy industry buys nuclear warheads and uses them as fuel. Nuclear energy is the leading cause of reduction of the world's nuclear arsenals. As a fuel source, nuclear energy has made the world safer!

Coal is a deal breaker because if we continue to pump more carbon into the atmosphere, we threaten our own extinction. That trumps any economic argument. If coal's emissions can be captured, why haven't they? Because to do so would defeat it's only selling point: it's insane cheapness, despite it's toxicity.

I agree that conservation and energy reduction can account for maybe 50% of what we use now. But consumption is increasing exponentially and no one is even talking about dialing it back. Regardless, green energy MUST replace coal and solar can't do it alone. Nuclear must step in.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 years ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 years ago (2 children)

Am I hitting too close to home, comrade?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 years ago (1 children)

Well documented by who? Compare the weak Russian funded anti-NATO "protests" with the raging tire-burning city-wide revolution that was the Maidan. I saw thousands of people wearing helmets the Nazis dropped when they fled Ukraine. Is US pysops that much more capable than their Russian counterparts? Or perhaps, labeling genuine popular movements as NATO conspiracies is the standard Russian party line.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 years ago (5 children)

Little green men?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 years ago (2 children)

Coal, on the other hand, is not even an option. Salt today and poison tomorrow. And so we must replace it with green energy. That includes nuclear, solar, and niche exotics, because no single source is going to cover our growing demand. Hopefully we can hold it together until fusion is viable.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 years ago (4 children)

Are you calling Putin a liar? He said that the amassed Russian troops are withdrawing. So... those troops?

And those satellite photos of military bridges being erected in Belarus really sound like US propaganda. Yep. You doubt the facts and claim doubts as factual, comrade.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 years ago (3 children)

You mean like how you paint the Maidan Revolution as a NATO conspiracy? Those people taught the world how to protest. And less than a year later both protester and police where shoulder to shoulder in foxholes, getting shelled by Russian artillery. Self determination when it suits you, eh?

view more: ‹ prev next ›