Global warm. .. I'm a nuclear physicist, I'm really sick of people thinking when I go to work they feel the need to say "Be safe". Seriously, they put a of safeguards
x
Click to expand

Comments(343):

[ 343 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#182 - TheBagel (08/13/2012) [-]
"OC" Comic makers?
User avatar #190 to #182 - reuploaded (08/13/2012) [-]
what can i say, i ran out of cocks to suck...
#196 - bagofshenanigans (08/13/2012) [-]
Shoulda listened to this ****** . We could have plentiful, wireless electricity, but no.
User avatar #203 to #196 - espegaaaa (08/13/2012) [-]
and everyone would be healthy and not overweight.
User avatar #339 to #203 - overweight (08/14/2012) [-]
You should want to be me. I'm a nice guy
0
#242 to #196 - ryderjamesbudde **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#262 to #196 - breakfastlunch (08/13/2012) [-]
Yeah, because Tesla's idea of making the atmosphere electrified as a means of using power would not cause brain tumors and heart problems in any way, right?
User avatar #328 to #262 - stormeye (08/13/2012) [-]
The electricity would travel through the ground, away from us, and would power anything plugged in. And even if it went through the air, it would be about as harmless as radio waves are today.
User avatar #218 to #196 - lakoonuk (08/13/2012) [-]
Who is he? Could anyone be kind enough to inform me of his name?
User avatar #222 to #218 - ednakrababbal (08/13/2012) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla

i am too old for this site
User avatar #223 to #222 - lakoonuk (08/13/2012) [-]
Thank you for the info.
User avatar #224 to #218 - sotsog (08/13/2012) [-]
That is Nikola Telsa, everything about him is insane just google him. Worlds greatest mad scientist.
User avatar #206 to #196 - ScottMJfan (08/13/2012) [-]
I honestly don't know much about this guy. Could you tell me how that's possible?

I'm not being sarcastic, I honestly just want to know.
User avatar #220 to #206 - allennis (08/13/2012) [-]
Nikola Tesla was a ******* genius, but everyone doubted him. His rival was Edison, who was less of an inventor and more of a business prodigy. He did not invent the light bulb. He tried to improve everything Tesla did, but only failed miserably, proving time and time again that he met his match. Everyone ridiculed Tesla for his ideas, but in today's modern day, we realized that Tesla was a genius. Sadly, only 1/3 of Tesla's plans were actually written down on paper. Most of his ideas and inventions were lost in the abyss of his mind.
User avatar #270 to #220 - ScottMJfan (08/13/2012) [-]
Is there a schematic for wireless electricity? This sounds really interesting.

I should definitely Google this guy. Sounds awesome.
User avatar #282 to #270 - allennis (08/13/2012) [-]
Wireless electricity is actually something that we have begun to develop today. If we had listened to Tesla we'd be much further ahead, but better late than never. Also, there's a rumor that Tesla discovered the Earth's frequency and resonated it in a machine. When the machine (this happened in my city, NYC) begun to cause an earthquake and shake the entire city block, he had no choice but to destroy the machine with a sledgehammer. Simply a myth, but there's plenty of evidence to back it up. He also said that he could create a machine that could destroy the world, a sort of doomsday device. Might have been the same machine, but no one dared to take him up on that offer.
User avatar #289 to #282 - ScottMJfan (08/13/2012) [-]
I've always thought the Nikola / Edison fight was stupid because I never knew it was about...

Sounds like I've been missing out. This guy is awesome.
User avatar #301 to #289 - allennis (08/13/2012) [-]
It was hardly a fight. Tesla was the true inventor. Edison was just a dick.


theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla

You're very welcome.
User avatar #304 to #301 - ScottMJfan (08/13/2012) [-]
Thanks, man!
#331 to #206 - frostbitezt (08/13/2012) [-]
http://www.badassoftheweek.com/tesla.html Read up and be amazed
#217 to #206 - realyboredguy (08/13/2012) [-]
He wanted to build towers of some sort, which produced electricity, but he didn't know why they did. Nobody invested in this project because they soon were able to realize there is no way of measuring the output, or something like that. This information could be inaccurate, I just remember this from memory, I didn't check any sites.
#153 - ritsuka (08/13/2012) [-]
i always thought they looked pretty with a blue sky behind them with a green grassy hill
User avatar #159 to #153 - unknownvsthirteen (08/13/2012) [-]
Sad thing is they are loud as ****** hell
#138 - litobahamas (08/13/2012) [-]
Why is this in OC-comic-makers channel????
#158 to #138 - Rascal (08/13/2012) [-]
cuz my name is OP
#35 - agagafdsgs (08/13/2012) [-]
lol'd at channel
#21 - hausdili (08/13/2012) [-]
I'm a nuclear physicist, I'm really sick of people thinking when I go to work they feel the need to say "Be safe".

Seriously, they put a ******** of safeguards into nuclear power plants.
More than seems logical most times.

Also, I'm sick of seeing this comic being reposted....repeatedly....
this must be the 100th time I've seen it here.
User avatar #63 to #21 - robopuppy (08/13/2012) [-]
My only problem with nuclear power is that we still don't have the best method of disposing of the rods once we are done using them. They are still dangerous and right now our method for preventing any negative effects on humans or nature is by sinking them in water and the burying them in the ground. It's still effective but there's got to be something else we could do.
#65 to #63 - hausdili (08/13/2012) [-]
Believe it or not, a new method of disposing them is being developed.

I'm sure you've heard of Depleted Uranium shells? Now, it takes a while for uranium to become depleted, but once it happens, it's useful again...

Uranium is not leathal or radioactive without the fissle material known as U-235, which is normally about .75% or so of normal uranium, once that material is spent, it can be used again.

So everyone is happy. Nuclear physicists get to make more power, and the Army gets more bullets.

Happy day.



We're working on getting the spent rods to be okay for use as DU rounds, which is the process known as Nuclear Reprocessing.
#252 to #65 - jakeattack (08/13/2012) [-]
they are quite effective as ammo but didnt they cause gulf war syndrome and alot of mutations?
User avatar #347 to #252 - hausdili (08/14/2012) [-]
You'd have to ask someone else about that, I'm not entirely sure if they did.
User avatar #76 to #65 - robopuppy (08/13/2012) [-]
That's actually really interesting.
User avatar #174 to #21 - EdwardNigma ONLINE (08/13/2012) [-]
Well, this seems a good a time as any.

What exactly are the effects of radiation poisoning?
And furthermore, what kind of mutations can radiation cause?
User avatar #343 to #174 - hausdili (08/14/2012) [-]
If you think mutations are a good thing...

I probably shouldn't answer your question...
User avatar #365 to #343 - EdwardNigma ONLINE (08/14/2012) [-]
I don't I just wanted an answer. :|
User avatar #369 to #365 - hausdili (08/14/2012) [-]
Oh well, mutations tend to be things like...Jellyfish babies...growths...

stuff like that, not extra arms n' **** .
User avatar #382 to #369 - EdwardNigma ONLINE (08/14/2012) [-]
Elaborate on "Jellyfish babies"
User avatar #383 to #382 - hausdili (08/15/2012) [-]
I'd tell you to google it but...It's rather terrifyingly horror-filled.

It causes birth defects like babies with weird proportions and stuff like puffed up legs. The jellyfish comes from a mutation that causes babies to be born without bones.
#384 to #383 - EdwardNigma ONLINE (08/15/2012) [-]
I googled it, and nuclear test babies in general.

Well, that answers my question.
#385 to #384 - hausdili (08/15/2012) [-]
Yeah man, It's some creepy ass **** what it can do.
#386 to #385 - EdwardNigma ONLINE (08/15/2012) [-]
But...the power. Literal power and the evil "Conquer the world" power.

It's ruthless, but by god.

I should go to a mental asylum.
#387 to #386 - hausdili (08/15/2012) [-]
I'm sure you're fine
User avatar #166 to #21 - conquer (08/13/2012) [-]
thumbed because soon i'll be training to be a nuclear engineer
User avatar #345 to #166 - hausdili (08/14/2012) [-]
Welcome to the club son
#251 to #21 - jakeattack (08/13/2012) [-]
there actualy safer anyway they just make a bigger deal about it. more people die in coal mine collapses than in for example the japan nuclear explosion
#327 to #21 - JoshBauer (08/13/2012) [-]
Nuclear physicist, huh?   
   
7 - potato = ?
Nuclear physicist, huh?

7 - potato = ?

User avatar #342 to #327 - hausdili (08/14/2012) [-]
7 - potato hmm?

I'd have to say....

Magnetic chess pieces.
#352 to #342 - JoshBauer (08/14/2012) [-]
Only a nuclear physicist would know the answer to that...
Only a nuclear physicist would know the answer to that...
User avatar #100 to #21 - choasmage (08/13/2012) [-]
I know that feel bro.

AND EVERY ******* TIME I TELL SOMEONE I WORK WITH NUCLEAR POWER, THEY ALWAYS THINK I MAKE BOMBS, GOD DAMMIT.
#103 to #100 - hausdili (08/13/2012) [-]
I know that feel man.



I actually was offered a job working with some, but...I'm not one for Oppenheimering
User avatar #113 to #103 - choasmage (08/13/2012) [-]
I know a guy who "can neither confirm nor deny" working with them, but he always has a smile on his face when he says that... guessing it must of been fun.
User avatar #118 to #113 - hausdili (08/13/2012) [-]
From what I can tell It would be fun, I worked on the nuclear power plants for aircraft carriers for a while, that's the closest I've come to actual weapons...

Government work sure pays well though.
User avatar #121 to #118 - choasmage (08/13/2012) [-]
Guessing you were in the Navy then? Or maybe Naval Reactors?
User avatar #125 to #121 - hausdili (08/13/2012) [-]
I was in the Navy for two years, and worked for the Naval Reactors office for a year.
User avatar #126 to #125 - choasmage (08/13/2012) [-]
I'm in right now, got to say I do enjoy the pay.
User avatar #127 to #126 - hausdili (08/13/2012) [-]
What position do you hold?

I was making quite the pretty penny, but of course, that must have been ten years ago.
User avatar #132 to #127 - choasmage (08/13/2012) [-]
I'm a 1st class, ET. I love the re-enlistment bonus I got few years ago, but I'm looking at going into the civilian sector now, no way I'm going back to sea.
User avatar #160 to #132 - hausdili (08/13/2012) [-]
I guess the money has changed since I was in. Private sector is a good way to go now . I'm making close to 900k a year (after taxes), of course, I work overtime....a lot.
#259 to #160 - breakfastlunch (08/13/2012) [-]
Well, they certainly pay you to make sure you don't cause Chernobyl 2.0
Well, they certainly pay you to make sure you don't cause Chernobyl 2.0
User avatar #346 to #259 - hausdili (08/14/2012) [-]
I wish they payed me that much, this has been a bad year, I made what mr. anon said up there last year, I made about 150,000.
#323 to #160 - Rascal (08/13/2012) [-]
"In its occupational employment and wage data published in May 2009 the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) placed the mean annual salary for a physicist, such as a nuclear specialist, working in the U.S. at $111,250, equivalent to an hourly rate of $53.49. The top 10 percent of earners achieved an average of $165,750, the median 50 percent earned $106,390, and the bottom 10 percent received a mean salary of $56,210."

Sooo... you earn, with a taxation of 34% (1.2 million USD annually), almost 10 times more then the average top paid nuclear physicists? Smells like a pile of ******** to me. Especially with your profile...
#349 to #323 - hausdili (08/14/2012) [-]
Extra Zero, a problem on my part.

Thank you for giving me evidence of your ability to google search.

and also for telling me I make less than average...
#228 to #160 - Rascal (08/13/2012) [-]
NINE-HUNDRED-THOUSAND DOLLARS PER YEAR?!?!?!?!?!?!?
User avatar #348 to #228 - hausdili (08/14/2012) [-]
ALSO

REQUIRES NINE-HUNDRED-THOUSAND DOLLARS PER YEAR TO FIRE THIS WEAPON FOR TWELVE SECONDS.
User avatar #340 to #228 - hausdili (08/14/2012) [-]
OSHT, EXTRA ZERO GUYS

90K, I WISH I MADE NINE-HUNDRED THOUSAND
User avatar #22 to #21 - drewbridge (08/13/2012) [-]
Just look at Japan.
It took an unGodly NATURAL DISASTER to even cause some trouble.
User avatar #37 to #22 - futtashy (08/13/2012) [-]
Yeah, it took like 3 disasters at once..
User avatar #56 to #22 - hausdili (08/13/2012) [-]
That, and believe it or not, the Japanese standards are lower than ours.
#94 to #22 - Rascal (08/13/2012) [-]
herp derp, nuclear people bribe officials to cheat on safety checks.

If cunts are in charge of your hydroelectric dams, they still won't be safe you retard.
User avatar #24 to #21 - krazyms (08/13/2012) [-]
A nuclear physicist, on funnyjunk? Seems Legit
#55 to #24 - hausdili (08/13/2012) [-]
How would I prove it? My employers won't let me take pictures inside the plant or around it.   
   
So no pics or it didn't happen here.
How would I prove it? My employers won't let me take pictures inside the plant or around it.

So no pics or it didn't happen here.
#93 to #55 - tulioandmiguel ONLINE (08/13/2012) [-]
If you realy want to prove it you can post a picture of yourself in front of the pc with funnyjunk open, and holding your diploma...

But I belive you anyway.
because well why would'nt a nuclear physicist browse fj?
#101 to #93 - hausdili (08/13/2012) [-]
Shoot, diploma's at the office :C   
   
   
   
But you believe me anyway so...   
   
Pic is relevant.
Shoot, diploma's at the office :C



But you believe me anyway so...

Pic is relevant.
#179 to #101 - tulioandmiguel ONLINE (08/13/2012) [-]
I like you, you are a cool guy.

Have a great day!
#205 to #179 - hausdili (08/13/2012) [-]
Also, I love that movie.
Also, I love that movie.
#235 to #205 - tulioandmiguel ONLINE (08/13/2012) [-]
Ha sweet, I love it too ! ( obviously )
Ha sweet, I love it too ! ( obviously )
#325 to #235 - kampi (08/13/2012) [-]
Oh.   
   
Hey.
Oh.

Hey.
#335 to #325 - tulioandmiguel ONLINE (08/13/2012) [-]
Hi, I know that expression on your face, and I know just what you want.
#362 to #335 - kampi (08/14/2012) [-]
Dats right!   
   
Gimme som sugar baby!
Dats right!

Gimme som sugar baby!
#364 to #350 - tulioandmiguel ONLINE (08/14/2012) [-]
But I wanted it today...
But I wanted it today...
#370 to #364 - hausdili (08/14/2012) [-]
BUT WHY!?
BUT WHY!?
#372 to #371 - hausdili (08/14/2012) [-]
You never seem to run out of these images.   
   
I love you.   
   
5evr.
You never seem to run out of these images.

I love you.

5evr.
#373 to #372 - tulioandmiguel ONLINE (08/14/2012) [-]
Oh, stop it you!   
   
I love you too.   
   
"5"ever.
Oh, stop it you!

I love you too.

"5"ever.
#374 to #373 - hausdili (08/14/2012) [-]
I'm out though, no mas awesome reaction images for me
#375 to #374 - tulioandmiguel ONLINE (08/14/2012) [-]
your face when you don't  have any more.   
   
   
   
( I just wanted a excuse to use this one, i barely get to use it. )
your face when you don't have any more.



( I just wanted a excuse to use this one, i barely get to use it. )
#380 to #376 - tulioandmiguel ONLINE (08/14/2012) [-]
( had to reply to this one because there were too many purple lines alread )
#377 to #376 - tulioandmiguel ONLINE (08/14/2012) [-]
soo... we already confessed our love for each other, and had a good time togheter, I think we can get our relationship a set further,

I hope you don't mind the fact that I am married... twice actualy...
User avatar #378 to #377 - tulioandmiguel ONLINE (08/14/2012) [-]
step*
#278 to #101 - Rascal (08/13/2012) [-]
I like you, you are a cool guy.

Have a great day! And be safe.
8====D~ FIXED
User avatar #388 to #278 - tulioandmiguel ONLINE (08/16/2012) [-]
Why yes anon, I do enjoy cock.
User avatar #227 to #93 - xnaitomea (08/13/2012) [-]
don't forget a shoe on his head.
#98 to #24 - Rascal (08/13/2012) [-]
I'm a physicist too and I'm on funnyjunk.
#51 - Rascal (08/13/2012) [-]
Why not put solar panels on the wind mill?
User avatar #71 to #51 - sirformidio (08/13/2012) [-]
THAT JUST MIGHT BE CRAZY ENOUGH TO WORK!
#58 to #51 - epicwafflez ONLINE (08/13/2012) [-]
for once, anon had a good idea
#72 to #58 - spiderfan ONLINE (08/13/2012) [-]
It must be a cold day in hell.
#202 to #72 - epicwafflez ONLINE (08/13/2012) [-]
it is indeed
#61 to #58 - Rascal (08/13/2012) [-]
suck mine dick
#64 to #61 - Rascal (08/13/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #68 to #61 - eonsmashface (08/13/2012) [-]
suck MEIN dick*
#239 - greasynips (08/13/2012) [-]
I love how he posted this in oc comic makers lolol
User avatar #244 to #239 - maternation (08/13/2012) [-]
Well look at ops user name
-1
#248 to #244 - greasynips has deleted their comment [-]
0
#249 to #248 - maternation has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #1 - dipshitz (08/12/2012) [-]
Love the Irony...

its in an OC channel
#54 to #2 - Rascal (08/13/2012) [-]
**** you.
User avatar #134 - hsm (08/13/2012) [-]
nuclear oil coal
NUCLEAR ALCOAL
NUCLEAR ALCOHOL
AHHAHAHAHhahahahahah uhggu ughhh
#181 to #134 - Rascal (08/13/2012) [-]
+11
#87 - baconseed **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #53 - mylazy (08/13/2012) [-]
The only problem is that that isn't the argument against it. The argument is that they are expensive to begin with. After they are made, they aren't expensive at all, since you don't have to buy the fuel, but while they are being made they are extremely expensive.
User avatar #67 to #53 - funnyisntjunk (08/13/2012) [-]
And it doesn't produce nearly as much energy as what nuclear does.
User avatar #70 to #67 - sirformidio (08/13/2012) [-]
funny thing
Nuclear energy operates an average 15% efficiency. Remarkably, this makes them the single most efficient form of energy on the planet.
User avatar #169 to #70 - artillerysmith (08/13/2012) [-]
They can be more efficient. Breeder Reactor. Look it up. The reason we don't use them is because if you put energy into the process then you end up with weapons grade material.
User avatar #168 - glasgowrangers (08/13/2012) [-]
Or you know... it's pretty inefficient
+7
#194 to #168 - mrgreatnames **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#83 - Rascal (08/13/2012) [-]
I did a research paper on nuclear power.....and I have to say that it is the most safest energy producer so far on this planet. Nuclear disasters are rated on a special scale, and if I'm not mistaken only three have been rated the highest (one of them I don't even understand why). Chernobyle, Fukushima, and Mile islands were the three. Mile island released nuclear steam that was the equivalent of an xray scan. wtf. And no one died or even got injured. Hell, more radiation is released every year from coal ash from plants than from all nuclear disasters combined. The disaster at Fukushima was caused by an earthquake and tsunami so strong Japan had never experianced before. It would be like New York getting hit by a Category 5 hurricane. (It could happen, but it's HIGHLY unlikely). And as to Chernobyle....one answer. SOVIET RUSSIA. The safety policies in place there were soooo attrocious. There was a lack of communication, faulty equipment, and crews that were not properly trained. Not to mention the government didn't even tell the people nearby of the disaster until 3 freakin days later. They threw hundreds of innocent firefighters in there to put out the fire that so many died later from radiation sickness. Also for a plant to blow up, it would require uranium to be enriched (i think) to about 95%. Nuclear plants use uranium that is only enriched to about 4-8%. People are just scared of the word "nuclear". Don't care much for france (lol) but they use a huge chunk of there national energy from nuclear power, and I don't even think they have ever had an accident where someone died.
#92 to #83 - mrboombastico (08/13/2012) [-]
Chernobyl was in Soviet-Ukraine, ffs, Ukraine and Russia are 2 different countries, how the hell can you mix up the two, considering the fact that the Chernobyl disaster is known worldwide?
User avatar #170 to #129 - mrboombastico (08/13/2012) [-]
How is it least intelligent? At least I know where the freakin disaster occured
#173 to #170 - satrenkotheone (08/13/2012) [-]
Mate, seriously. I am pretty sure our anonfriend up there know that Chernobyl (Tjernobyl or whatever you might spell it as) is in Ukraine which was formerly Soviet Ukraine. But his point was that the ruling body of the whole Soviet Union was seated in Moscow so thererfore all the safety policies CAME from Soviet Russia.

If otherwise, then please educate me on it.
#95 to #92 - Rascal (08/13/2012) [-]
k ummmmm.....what? I'm really trying to figure out what point your'e trying to say there. >.>
#109 to #83 - alexzerian (08/13/2012) [-]
Im ukrainian and I find this post Informative
#177 to #83 - Rascal (08/13/2012) [-]
I love how everyone supports this because it's pro-nuclear when whoever wrote this clearly can't even string a sentence together without spelling half the words wrong. Not to mention half the facts are wrong. Japan HAS experienced earthquakes this strong, most likely hundreds of times, it was the tsunami that had the most effect and the region it hit was highly developed (like most of Japan's coast because inland is al mountains) and uranium is enriched to 95% if you want to make a nuclear warhead... the uranium used in power stations is about 4-8% like you said, but it's not the uranium that kills you! it's radioactive particles like Caesium-137 that are present after the uranium decays that are dangerous. You see, once they land on your skin, you get radiation burns, if you ingest them, they accumulate in your thyroid glands and massively (really massively) increase your chance of getting cancer, which is why 2 million people are now dead as a result of Chernobyl. I don't care if people say 'HERP well chernobyl was by soviets in 1986' I think Fukushima, three mile island and several fires in UK stations are evidence that accidents do happen! and when they do millions die.
User avatar #99 to #83 - perronfan (08/13/2012) [-]
thank you..people think they are giant nuclear bombs waiting to ass **** us in the night with the power of a billion suns..
#114 to #83 - amnesiacpatient (08/13/2012) [-]
Thank you Anon   
Nuclear power should be used more   
these are all true facts
Thank you Anon
Nuclear power should be used more
these are all true facts
#175 to #83 - dickynix (08/13/2012) [-]
Giving you a thumb and fav. Wish I could give more so take this gif
Giving you a thumb and fav. Wish I could give more so take this gif
User avatar #85 to #83 - isradam (08/13/2012) [-]
Plus the Fukishima incident was caused by an external factor. It's not like they can stop earthquakes and tsunamis.
#230 - silverlance (08/13/2012) [-]
Implying that a turbine could generate anywhere near the amount of energy that the rest provide
#241 to #230 - jrondeau **User deleted account** (08/13/2012) [-]
Also implying that nuclear plants now aren't ridiculously secure and safe.
Also implying that nuclear plants now aren't ridiculously secure and safe.
#240 to #230 - sreggin (08/13/2012) [-]
of course a single turbine couldnt, thats stupid. however TWO turbines......maybe
User avatar #243 to #230 - dangler (08/13/2012) [-]
"Let's build our nuclear plant where typhoons frequent and ignore safety regulations" -Fukushima
User avatar #105 - Lambda (08/13/2012) [-]
1. this isn't an OC comic.
2. Nuclear is actually quite safe
3. mines are actually a lot safer now that much of the work is done by machines, the real concern with coal is pollution
4. wind turbines have been known to chop up birds
all in all, 0/10 would not thumb.
#110 to #105 - Rascal (08/13/2012) [-]
like i give a **** . 748 people said otherwise.
User avatar #112 to #110 - Lambda (08/13/2012) [-]
748 people did say otherwise. This is just my opinion.
User avatar #111 to #105 - inyourmind ONLINE (08/13/2012) [-]
while a agree with points 1-3 the number of birds chopped up is so minascule that you can't really count it (far less then 100000 world wide each year)
User avatar #120 to #105 - hippyinblack (08/13/2012) [-]
yeah, nuclear's safe until chernobyl's repeated and decades later is still not entirely safe to live in the area... not to mention emissions and nuclear waste.
And about coal: i dont really think you fully understand the situation, it's not just the pollution, but also the area surrounding the mines (the towns where the workers live) have huge problems with coal dust, so big that the workers' kids are getting cancer.
User avatar #207 to #105 - millennial (08/13/2012) [-]
I agree except with the coal.
You can actually "Clean" coal now. That's what a lot of places are doing now because of the EPA and such putting out a clean emission act last year.
Also, not only do wind turbines do that, it takes more money to install them than what power and electricity they will actually provide. It's just not smart financially.
User avatar #15 - politicsarefun (08/13/2012) [-]
Nuclear: Although it is almost always well controlled, a bad emergency can be devastating to a large area. Bi-product is also harmful to the environment and storing it is somewhat dangerous.

Oil: Dangerous to collect in many situations, and a large release into the ecosystem can cause major damage. Even converting it into useful energy causes harm to the environment. Non-renewable.

Coal: Harvesting is dangerous, but on a smaller scale than other energy sources. Converting it into energy affects the environment negatively. Non-renewable.

Wind Turbine: Not harmful to the environment nor very dangerous. However, it is expensive especially at a large scale, and the energy return is relatively small for land area consumed. Not efficient all the time or in all places.
Solar Panel: Creating panels often involves the use of non-eco-friendly materials and chemicals. If maintained, not harmful to the environment. Expensive at a large scale, and not much energy produced for the land area consumed. Space can be made, though, in most places where they can act relatively efficiently.

Geothermal: Cheap. Buildings are very small in comparison with other energy harvesting methods. However, it can only be done in places where there are sources of heat close to the surface of the earth, often in places which are far away from cities. Energy produced is moderate. There is a minor byproduct of waste water which can be harmful to the environment if not disposed of properly.

Bio-mass Combustion: Not dangerous to harvest biological material fit for burning. The fuel though can be somewhat expensive due to the fact it is usually bought from the food market. Produces a good energy return, but smoke is produced which affects the air and environment.
Hydro-electric: Renewable, no smoke produced. However, it is very expensive to build the large facilities (Dams) necessary for harvesting, and they can severely disrupt ecosystems.
#16 to #15 - Rascal (08/13/2012) [-]
if only the government would listen
User avatar #23 to #16 - drewbridge (08/13/2012) [-]
To what? Every option on there has a tradeoff and is less/more effective than the last in certain specific circumstances.
User avatar #19 to #15 - xedeid ONLINE (08/13/2012) [-]
Cold fusion- infinite safe energy, as of yet impossible to acheive
#52 to #19 - finishhimlarry (08/13/2012) [-]
This image has expired
Not impossible, but it will take a while. I think the average estimate is something like, 2050 or something before it's implemented.

There's a lot of research going into it and nuclear fusion has been achieved,

http://www.guardian . co.uk/environment/2011/aug/23/fusion-power-is-it-getting-closer

so we know it's possible, it's now just an engineering problem as opposed to a fundamental "It can't be done" problem.
User avatar #193 to #52 - jlyoung (08/13/2012) [-]
That's regular fusion,cold fusion is a fusion reaction where the reactants are the products and thus the process repeats itself infinitely, which is scientifically impossible.
User avatar #337 to #193 - finishhimlarry (08/14/2012) [-]
themoreyouknow.jpg

Thanks, I was unaware of that.
User avatar #20 to #15 - mcshwagger (08/13/2012) [-]
You know you can recycle the fuel rods from nuclear fusion, we don't do it because it is expensive but we could if we want.
#104 to #20 - Rascal (08/13/2012) [-]
Sigh, another one.

Define 'a bad emergency', Japan? How many deaths and how much damage to the area was there? **** all, and they skipped so many safety checks.

Chernobyl? If you based the purchase of your pc/laptop based on performance on pc/laptops 50 years ago, you are a complete asshat.

Wind turbines - the process making them releases more CO2 than they'll save in 10 years of good operation.

Hydro-electric - Gases released by pouring and setting concrete are small atrocities to the atmosphere, so you want to build an entire dam's worth.

Do yourself a favour and read a book before forming an opinion.
#234 to #15 - Rascal (08/13/2012) [-]
Geothermal's no way in a million years cheap, and in fact it produces a lot of energy - they were talking about supplying 33% of the UK's energy using Geothermal plants in Iceland.

And wind turbines.. I have a lot of faith in them to be honest. With private sector investment, I think they can be good energy outputs.

Also, look up wave and tidal energies, that's rather interesting.
User avatar #8 - shiftyscent (08/13/2012) [-]
I'll never understand the people that think windpower is 100% clean, I worked at a foundry that cast the hubs, bearinghouses and frames for those monsters and the work put in to make just one creates pollution that'll take a few years for that mill to make up for.
#154 - iamphoenix (08/13/2012) [-]
Nuclear power isn't that unsafe.
User avatar #216 to #154 - neonthethird (08/13/2012) [-]
they fixed about every ******* problem- but the public's view is that "radiation causes cancer" and this is true, but almost everything causes cancer- smoking, the sun, Agent Orange- and a bunch more
User avatar #167 to #154 - thinkwithportals (08/13/2012) [-]
The only real danger is in the enrichment process
[ 343 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)