this post was submitted on
1,246 points (53% like it)
10,192 up votes 8,946 down votes
shortlink:

funny

subscribe2,561,863 readers

9,212 users here now

Reminder: Political posts are not permitted in /r/funny. Try /r/PoliticalHumor instead!

NEW! No gore or porn (including sexually graphic images). Other NSFW content must be tagged as such

Welcome to r/Funny:

You may only post if you are funny.

Please No:

  • posts with their sole purpose being to communicate with another redditor. Click for an Example.

  • Screenshots of reddit comment threads. Post a link with context to /r/bestof or /r/defaultgems if from a default subreddit instead.

  • Posts for the specific point of it being your reddit birthday.

  • Politics - This includes the 2012 Presidential candidates or bills in congress. Try /r/politicalhumor instead.

  • Rage comics - Go to /r/fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu instead.

  • Memes - Go to /r/AdviceAnimals or /r/Memes instead.

  • Demotivational posters - Go to /r/Demotivational instead.

  • Pictures of just text - Make a self post instead.

  • DAE posts - Go to /r/doesanybodyelse

  • eCards - the poll result was 55.02% in favor of removal. Please submit eCards to /r/ecards

  • URL shorteners - No link shorteners (or HugeURL) in either post links or comments. They will be deleted regardless of intent.

Rehosted webcomics will be removed. Please submit a link to the original comic's site and preferably an imgur link in the comments. Do not post a link to the comic image, it must be linked to the page of the comic. (*) (*)

Need more? Check out:

Still need more? See Reddit's best / worst and offensive joke collections (warning: some of those jokes are offensive / nsfw!).

Please DO NOT post personal information. This includes anything hosted on Facebook's servers, as they can be traced to the original account holder.

If your submission appears to be banned, please don't just delete it as that makes the filter hate you! Instead please send us a message with a link to the post. We'll unban it and it should get better. Please allow 10 minutes for the post to appear before messaging moderators

The moderators of /r/funny reserve the right to moderate posts and comments at their discretion, with regard to their perception of the suitability of said posts and comments for this subreddit. Thank you for your understanding.

CSS - BritishEnglishPolice ©2011

a community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

1245
1246

Well that got a reaction! (imgur.com)

submitted ago by apossomness

top 200 commentsshow all 240
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]sevl 66 points67 points ago

full vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggg3C87UVCY

[–]broden 70 points71 points ago

Never been so against green energy than after watching that.

[–]Engineer3227 128 points129 points ago

Did you know a 1000 MW (mega watt) coal fired power plant consumes 24,200,000 lbs of coal daily. A nuclear power plant of the same capacity only consumes 8.36 lbs of uranium a day.

Lets get some more nuclear plants built please.

[–]Blakaflaka 30 points31 points ago

Or instead of have uranium reactors have Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors(LFTr) because uranium is rare as platinum, LFTrs are much safer, Thorium is energy dense, it creates far less dangerous waste, Thorium is common as lead so we won't run out it, and Thorium is stable enough to hold in your hand.

[–]InvisiblePants 16 points17 points ago

YES PLEASE. Thorium reactor tech has existed even longer than uranium reactor tech has, so why haven't we been using it yet?

[–]CaptainMarnimal 16 points17 points ago

From what I heard, back when Nuclear power was being researched it could basically go one way or the other. The Uranium reactor received more attention because of Uranium's potential for creating nuclear weapons, so we went with Uranium.

At this point, Uranium has decades upon decades of r&d behind it, whereas Thorium research has only seen somewhat of a renaissance in recent years. More importantly though, we have billions of dollars of infrastructure already built using Uranium and an industry around it already in place. From what I've heard, a Thorium reactor would be obviously better to use these days, but the cost of developing the industry is prohibitively high right now.

[–]victordavion 8 points9 points ago

These are the types of things that I want to pay taxes for. Not that other bullshit nonsense.

To specify: Have the government initialize an infrastructure and then once the private sector has it under control, the government gets out.

[–]Oscar_Wilde_Ride 5 points6 points ago

One year of war against thorium ought to be enough to get a little momentum. Hey, did you hear that thorium reactors hate us for our freedom?

[–]victordavion 3 points4 points ago

I'm for Thorium, not against it.

[–]Oscar_Wilde_Ride 4 points5 points ago

Yeah. My comment was a joke playing off the idea that thorium needs more investment and the one thing that we are just willing to throw money at is war. Hence, if we could "go to war" against thorium, we'd be all set. We like to go to war against things that hate us for our freedom.

[–]hibbity 1 point2 points ago

I like you.

[–]medievalvellum 1 point2 points ago

Well, not entirely out, yeah? Deregulation of the utilities in Ontario has been somewhat disastrous for the consumers, and rather profitable for the private hands into which they were sold.

[–]victordavion 1 point2 points ago

Probably not entirely, no. That would be far too idealistic. Although, having zero political experience, I don't have an idea how to solve the issue. My goal would be to spark an infrastructure with taxes and then cancel the tax after a period of time.

[–]Shambhalableton 1 point2 points ago

Why not outsource this job to someone like China?

[–]Blakaflaka 0 points1 point ago

I KNOW. I told my Chem teacher about it and he found no reason why haven't been using it. Now I'm very curious why we haven't been using it.

[–]Fordiman 4 points5 points ago

Because while the MSRE did run on U-233 and had the right neutronic properties to act as a breeder, their funding got cut off before they:

  1. Ran the same design with a blanket stream.
  2. Built and tested a batch process for cleaning the fission products from the fuel stream (though a design for this system exists in theory)
  3. Built and tested a streaming process for separating protactinium and uranium from the blanket to be stored and fed into the fuel stream, respectively (though a design for this system exists in theory)
  4. Solved the problem of microcorrosion on Hastelloy-N by in-situ fission products in the fuel stream (though they did identify the root cause and a solution is available in theory).
  5. Ran all of it together.

The LFTR was never completed. The task of doing so is presently underway by FLiBe energy and China's DoE equivalent, in parallel. It's an awesome design, but the reasons we're not building them right now is that they don't exist yet.

FLiBe's timeline involves first criticality of a demonstration reactor by July, 2015. I'm looking forward to it.

[–]Lemon_Tile 1 point2 points ago

Yet for some reason, the US refuses to use Thorium, or Pebble-bed Reactors, OR recycle the fuel...

[–]Dracomister7 1 point2 points ago

And one of the largest deposits of Thorium is in or around Missouri from what I heard. It's almost perfectly in the middle of the third biggest user of energy, America.

[–]flinters17 75 points76 points ago

I agree 100%. People need to stop being afraid of nuclear energy, it's much safer than coal for both people and the planet. Plus we have more than enough radioactive materials to last thousands of years.

[–]Kowzorz 21 points22 points ago

I suppose it comes down to what we do with the leftovers. I've heard about Thorium reactors which have relatively benign leftover materials.

[–]Fordiman 15 points16 points ago

False.

The resultant fission products are extraordinarily radioactive - though, they are only such for about 1 year. After that, they're highly radioactive for about 10 years, moderately for about 50, and benign after 300.

Contrast that with spent PWR, which is highly radioactive for about 300 years and benign after about 2,500,000.

They get there quicker, but they start off dangerous as hell. Containment shielding is important here - but thankfully, LFTRs don't have to deal with high system pressure.

[–]nicocote 10 points11 points ago

Another genuine question from an ignorant fool:

nuclear reaction is what warms up and boils water, propelling the turbine to make electricity, right? Can't they use the radioactive waste in the same way they use the radioactive stuff, to produce heat to boil water etc? Or does it not produce enough energy?

TL;DR Is there any use for radioactive waste?

[–]Fordiman 13 points14 points ago

In theory, sure. The engineering challenge is designing a heat engine that can handle the rapidly decreasing power output from waste. Heat engines tend to have an efficient power range, and when you fall below it - well, it becomes like farting on a windmill.

[–]MAKE_THIS_POLITICAL 11 points12 points ago

like farting on a windmill

Ah, science!

[–]DrPreston 7 points8 points ago

So, you're the guy who's been farting on my windmills!

[–]nicocote 1 point2 points ago

But then, why not have a bunch of tiny turbines that catch the tiny energy (farts)? I mean, you have this energy production for hundreds of years, why not, right?

Wait, I've answered my own question: because it's cheaper to dump it / because we don't think in "long view" terms. Sucks.

[–]Fordiman 2 points3 points ago

We don't dump nuclear waste. At least, we haven't yet, and there aren't any plans to do so in the works. All of it, at present, is located on-site, in dry cask storage.

[–]BongoDaMonkey 1 point2 points ago

We could engineer superheroes?

[–]poteaser 1 point2 points ago

I've wondered this myself, my guess is it does not provide enough heat. The only use I could think of for radioactive waste would be a dirty bomb. So no-there is really no good use for it. Maybe in the future.

[–]Cherrytop 8 points9 points ago

OK genuine question here, not being an ass: why cant the leftovers be shot into space?

[–]encaseme 17 points18 points ago

Shooting things into space is difficult to get right, there's a relatively high likelihood of whatever you are trying to shoot into space ending up strewn across the planet in fiery little bits - exactly what you don't want with something radioactive. That is not to say that it isn't done, some spacecraft use thermoisotope generators (radioactive heat based generators).

[–]Cherrytop 14 points15 points ago

"Raining down radioactive fiery bits." Gotcha. No need to say more!

[–]WoodenBear 5 points6 points ago

...So What you're saying is, weaponize it and rain down fiery radioactive bits on our enemies?

I like the way I think you think.

[–]ItsAllrightImRussian 14 points15 points ago

Hmm... Weaponize nuclear technology.... What a novel concept!

[–]Cherrytop 1 point2 points ago

Thanks, but it was totally an accident. I never have any clever ideas on purpose.

[–]ew73 2 points3 points ago

Some people see this as a negative.

Others see it as the beginnings of the most awesome comic book series ever.

[–]Beefourthree 5 points6 points ago

CHILD PORNOGRAPHY DISTRIBUTOR REDDIT ADVOCATES RADIOACTIVE HELLFIRE. MORE AT 11.

[–]witherance 1 point2 points ago

Agreed. Even if we were to find a way to dispose of radioactive materials in this way, all it takes is one fuckup and you have radioactive waste raining on cities and towns. Not worth it.

[–]Mr-Bugle 1 point2 points ago

If we could construct a space elevator, we could transport the stuff up to a rocket beyond the atmosphere and launch it towards the sun from there.

[–]encaseme 1 point2 points ago

Now you're thinking!

[–]AnOid 1 point2 points ago

How about an earth based rail gun that launches radioactive waste into the sun? Assuming we can build a rail gun to do this of course.

[–]cypherreddit 1 point2 points ago

we already have railguns

I think you want a launch loop instead

[–]encaseme 1 point2 points ago

Also a good idea, but the other guy that commented about the space elevator is probably an even safer idea, and probably on-par difficulty with building a railgun that can hit outer space with weighty payloads.

[–]Microchip_Master 5 points6 points ago

My guess is that it would be an inefficient use of rocket fuel.

[–]MajorVictory 1 point2 points ago

Not if we use a rail gun powered by a nuclear reactor! It's flawless!

[–]cypherreddit 2 points3 points ago

or a launch loop!

[–]undiplomatik 1 point2 points ago

Make it nuclear powered!

[–]firelock_ny 4 points5 points ago

No reason to, this stuff is produced in handcart sized loads that aren't all that dangerous. Pick the driest spot in the country, put the stuff in sturdy barrels under a corrugated roof about ten miles inside a security fence that you're already patrolling (like, say, White Sands or some other large military base), pretty much ignore it for the half century or so it will take for someone to come up with a use for it.

[–]Fordiman 3 points4 points ago

  1. rocket failure = scattered radioactives
  2. rockets are expensive per pound, spent fuel is heavy
  3. there's no reason to. Burying the stuff works just as well, so long as you avoid aquifers.

[–]Threedawg 2 points3 points ago

What if the rocket blows up on the way up? What if the uranium comes back down into the atmosphere? What is the cost?

The risk is not worth the result.

[–]sewthesexy1 3 points4 points ago

Quickest way to make intergalactic enemies.

[–]conrad98 1 point2 points ago

Cost. Byproduct is put into a special containment area since there is still reactive products present. Shooting it into space would be really expensive since you'd have to pay for rockets to shoot it up there. Still then, its not "solving" the problem, only abating it...granted space is huge and I doubt we'll run into issues with this.

[–]hibbity 1 point2 points ago

Huge doesn't really cover it.

[–]MajorVictory 0 points1 point ago

Everyone says rockets, what about a rail gun? We could power it up with the nuclear reactor that's generating the waste. It's flawless!

[–]firelock_ny 4 points5 points ago

My dad used to work in power generation on the planning and forecasting side. It was very interesting to see how much radiation a coal plant puts out every day (due to radon dust in the coal going up the smokestacks) compared to a nuclear plant.

[–]Kamon2011 1 point2 points ago

I was very surprised of this fact too. Unfortunately Americans prefer the slow death to the very unlikely sudden one

[–]BitsAndBytes 3 points4 points ago

It's unfortunate what happened in Japan, but then they shut down most nuclear plants afterwards, and guess what took their place? Feel like such a step backwards, and I can't even convince my parents that nuclear energy is still the best green solution in many places.

[–]Vaelkyri 3 points4 points ago

but then they shut down most nuclear plants afterwards

this is the problem, you CANT just turn one off.- it takes years for a reactor to power down to safe levels.

For those downvoting.

The price of energy inputs and the environmental costs of every nuclear power plant continue long after the facility has finished generating its last useful electricity. Both nuclear reactors and uranium enrichment facilities must be decommissioned, returning the facility and its parts to a safe enough level to be entrusted for other uses. After a cooling-off period that may last as long as a century, reactors must be dismantled and cut into small pieces to be packed in containers for final disposal. The process is very expensive, time-consuming, dangerous for workers, hazardous to the natural environment, and presents new opportunities for human error, accidents or sabotage.[133] The total energy required for decommissioning can be as much as 50% more than the energy needed for the original construction. In most cases, the decommissioning process costs between US $300 million to US$5.6 billion. Decommissioning at nuclear sites which have experienced a serious accident are the most expensive and time-consuming. In the U.S. there are 13 reactors that have permanently shut down and are in some phase of decommissioning, but none of them have completed the process.[133] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

Three Mile Island STILL hasnt been fully decommissioned and it fucked up back in 1979.

[–]BitsAndBytes 6 points7 points ago

Turning it off is a matter of seconds, but the remaining spent fuel will take a long time cool down indeed. Of course, this is only a problem when all cooling systems fail, something that should never be able to happen in recently designed plants that are properly maintained.

People draw conclusions from the the major incidents that have happened at nuclear plants and then fail to compare them fairly to the total environmental and health inpact that fossile fuel plants have had over the years.

Until we can generate enough reliable energy from solar/wind/water power, nuclear plants still have an important role to play.

[–]Vaelkyri 3 points4 points ago

I dont disagree with that, I just think that a lot of people dont.,. well.. think.

They beleive its a win win no problems solution as easy as flicking a switch, when its far from that.

Example: Nuclear power plant is built by a publicly traded company- company goes under and files for bankruptcy. Who takes over? Who spends the next few years monitoring and disposing of waste as the plant powers down? Now apply that on a national stage, what happens if the economy collapses in a nation that is run by nuclear power?

[–]darklight12345 0 points1 point ago

Energy companies will always be able to stay afloat as long as someone can afford energy. The economy collapses? Someones still going to be using energy, especially in the areas around nuclear power plants. Your right about the publicly traded company going bankrupt, but there are already methods for that currently in place.

It's a complex issue, but thats not the main worry, or even a secondary worry.

[–]hibbity 0 points1 point ago

You turn off the reactors and the fuel only has to sit for about 6 months before they can be handled and sealed into storage casks. The rods don't produce all that much decay heat after the short lived fission products decay off.

[–]Fordiman 3 points4 points ago

When the backup generators work, you can achieve cold shutdown in under a day. Fukushima's a special case, in that the generators failed, and the passive cooling systems were damaged by explosions the time they would have been useful.

Worse, they could have staved off the disaster by venting the reactors (releasing a small amount of I-131, rather than a mess of radioactive I, Cs, and potentially Sr now) - permitting the inlet valves to open, cooling the fuel by letting it boil more water, and buying them time to get the generators online. Disaster response is seldom perfect, though. At least it didn't kill too many people, unlike the nearby refinery fire and, oh, the earthquake and tsunami.

[–]Fordiman 1 point2 points ago

Three Mile Island STILL hasnt been fully decommissioned and it fucked up back in 1979.

TMI-2 failed cleanly. TMI-1 is still an operating reactor. They will be decommissioned simultaneously, when TMI-1 reaches its EOL. There is no reason to do otherwise.

[–]mexander_ 3 points4 points ago

Radioactive materials for thousands of years? The uranium will just last a couple hundred years. Also what should we do with the waste? It stays radioactive for some hundred thousands years.

[–]flinters17 3 points4 points ago

I did not say exclusively uranium did I? I said radioactive materials, of which there is plenty. Also, the waste would be a difficult problem to solve, but no more difficult than the waste that coal plants just pump out daily. Seriously, nuclear power is the way to go.

[–]Fordiman 1 point2 points ago

"It", in this case being the bred plutonium fuel that we don't use in the united states and other places because politics.

The fission products are mostly benign within a couple hundred years. We should be partitioning off the content of spent fuel so as to fabricate new fuel.

[–]Jkay064 0 points1 point ago

There is enough uranium in solution in the world's oceans to last ten thousand years. An extraction method already exists. Mining it from the ground is simply cheaper at this point. Once we require more uranium, the economy of scale will favor extraction from sea water.

[–]Wazanator_ 6 points7 points ago

I don't know man I always run out of uranium pretty fast when I get to the nuclear age.

[–]Auval -1 points0 points ago

Civ 5 reference?

[–]imkaneforever 1 point2 points ago

People are afraid because of past engineering failings.

[–]honestlydude -1 points0 points ago

Ok so we can't build them on or around any plate boundaries or hotspots, near any known area prone to earthquake activity, nowhere near any kind of coast, preferably only on bedrock and no one wants a nuclear power plant in their backyard. So where can we put them?

The middle of Russia.

Seriously though, the Earth is a fickle, unpredictable thing and any number of things could cause a catastrophic failure of a nuclear power plant. Many of them we can't predict. It's kind of the same idea as shooting shit into outerspace. The consequences for failure are pretty massive. That's why people are "afraid" of nuclear energy, or, as I would put it, apprehensive/cautious.

EDIT: Think of it this way. Would you, as an engineer, want to be personally responsible for the failure of a nuclear power plant?

[–]08mms 0 points1 point ago

Need a secure disposal site though.... Grumble grumble yucca mountain nimbys!

[–]reesmeister 0 points1 point ago

"People need to stop being afraid of nuclear energy" ಠ_ಠ Tell that to Japan. If the wind was blowing the way, it often is, the days of the Fukushima meltdowns/ explosions... it would have effectively cut the country in half for thousands of years. Just wait till the cancer deaths start piling up.

Also: tell that to the children of Belarus and Ukraine (Chernobyl): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QetMhP7q4WE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

If your response is: "but, they are safe NOW" ... then you need to read Nassim Nicholas Taleb's "The Black Swan" (not about freaked out ballerinas... OUTLIERS)

You know how easy it is to break into a nuke plant? Ask a nun:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/11/science/behind-nuclear-breach-a-nuns-bold-fervor.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I'm surprised that al qaida hasn't already done so.... Unimaginative douchebags that they are.

[–]flinters17 0 points1 point ago

I'll just leave this here.

[–]reesmeister 0 points1 point ago

Well, how about this? See that explosion? You know what happened shorty after that? MELTDOWN. No jet needed, just an earthquake. Do you realize HOW INCREDIBLY LUCKY that there wasn't another major earthquake in the months after the initial quake. We had THREE meltdowns at Fukushima... THREE!!!

and... THE NUNS didn't need a jet.

[–]theeeetechkid 2 points3 points ago

What we really need is the Tesseract!

[–]Belial88 -4 points-3 points ago

Republicans have historically been huge fans of nuclear, and Democrats, historically against.

just saying.

[–]COUCH_KUSHN 9 points10 points ago

why does the world have to be split between republican and democrat? you can compare apples oranges, but there will still be bananas

[–]gerken 3 points4 points ago

You take your banananas and... hrm, banas; this shit is bananas b a n a n a s; bananas and get the fuck out of here, ok?!

[–]encaseme 4 points5 points ago

That's exactly what I hate about the US two-party system - you can't pick and choose. I'm pro-nuclear, pro-choice, pro-gun, pro-government-leave-people-alone, pro-school, pro-healthcare, etc... I don't have a party.

[–]Psypriest 3 points4 points ago

Romney likes coal. Thats what he said in the debate. He wants to burn clean coal.

[–]Loanhighknight 3 points4 points ago

I really think this is largely a baseless stereotype. As a Democrat myself, I can say with confidence that I and many of my peers have nothing against nuclear power itself. We'd just like to invest in cleaner competition for it as well. And these days, I think the "nuclear scare" has worn off: nowadays it's the [largely, but admittedly not exclusively, Republican] efforts to ease safety regulations on nuclear power plants that we find to be dangerous.

[–]Fordiman 2 points3 points ago

I'm a democratic pro nuke, myself. I think we should be replacing coal plants with Gen 3 nuclear at break-neck speed to help stave off anthro climate change.

Some of the nuclear safety regulations are a bit ridiculous - to the effect of gaslighting the public about benign events - but I'm in no rush to relax them. The regulatory costs of licensing new designs and plants, however, are prohibitively high, and favor established companies over new entrants. If that's not a recipe for oligopolistic behavior, I don't know what is.

[–]CIRCLE_JERK_LEGEND 1 point2 points ago

Not on reddit they're not.

[–]Fordiman 0 points1 point ago

Democratic politicians in coal states tend to be antinuclear. Democratic politicians in non-coal states tend to not care about nuclear energy.

load more comments (20 replies)

    [–]cannedmath 5 points6 points ago

    Nuclear energy is literally one of the cleanest there is, even if The Simpsons say otherwise LOL

    The only problem is how dangerous its exploration can be.

    [–]faaaks 2 points3 points ago

    Someone did a study that claimed that nuclear power plants kill the least number of people per year out of all the other energy sources. Can't remember where I read that from.

    [–]Engineer3227 2 points3 points ago

    They do have the least amount of accidents on average than any other form of energy.

    Of course some factors need to be taken into account. Each country which has nuclear reactors has different safety guide lines for them. I believe the United States has the most strict safety guidelines of any country and in some ways this greatly hinders the ability/desire of companies to build new nuclear plants in the U.S.

    Other countries have very relaxed guidelines which can lead to disasters such as Chernobyl (which was such a stupid accident which easily could have been prevented) or the Fukushima Daiichi plant which I also believe could have been prevented if they had built the plant to withstand extreme flooding (which would make sense since it was built right on the coastline).

    France actually gets 78.8% of their power from nuclear power plants and has had very few nuclear related accidents. In fact most of the nuclear accidents in France have occurred as the result of completely unrelated issues like bad electrical wires or flooding which can again be attributed to poor planning/regulation.

    The only major "disaster" in France occurred in 1969; so long ago that it really shouldn't even be considered.

    What's even more incredible is that France has only had 1 death related to nuclear power and it was because a blast furnace exploded.

    Similar numbers are found for American plants.

    Compare that to deaths attributed to Wind Energy: http://www.wind-works.org/articles/BreathLife.html

    [–]faaaks 0 points1 point ago

    Pretty much what I thought.

    On another note,The US views nuclear power as dangerous. This is partly a culture remnant from the cold war, which will hopefully go away.

    [–]Engineer3227 2 points3 points ago

    Whenever I see the topic of energy on Reddit I like to mention how awesome Nuclear power is because I want people to be educated about it.

    I am always extremely pleased by how many upvotes and positive replies I get on the subject.

    I also always get plenty of comments describing different forms of cleaner nuclear energy.

    I think this says a lot about how the younger generation and/or those who use the internet to get news or learn from others have a more positive view of nuclear energy than those of older generations or those who only get their news/education from the media.

    The comments I get about cleaner forms of nuclear energy even seem to suggest that people are doing their own research on the subject.

    I really hope that when the current generation of 20-30 year olds reaches an age to be in more powerful/political positions in the world that we will see an increase in nuclear power.

    : - D

    [–]rocbolt 2 points3 points ago

    For illustration, this is the pile of coal burned each day at this power plant http://www.flickr.com/photos/rocbolt/2740928660/sizes/l/in/set-72157606589149947/

    Each year about 6 tons of coal are burned per person in the US

    Whereas this cylinder represents the waste created from 75,000 kWh of nuclear electricity (~20 years worth of power for a single family) http://www.flickr.com/photos/rocbolt/7375893204/sizes/l/in/set-72157630072938605/

    [–]Engineer3227 0 points1 point ago

    Awesome photos! That cylinder seems to be in relation to France's awesome nuclear energy network.

    78.8% of all energy in France comes from nuclear power. Extremely cheap, efficient, and safe power for everyone!

    France should be what other countries strive to be when it comes to energy production.

    [–]mattysiebs92 1 point2 points ago

    Lets try for some LFTR tech! I wouldn't mind seeing more nuclear power in this country, but uranium is a little too dirty. The problem being that we get a lot of semi-radioactive waste which gets buried in the desert. Thorium holds the potential to use up our uranium deposits

    [–]RPrevolution 0 points1 point ago

    How hard is it to collect that amount of Uranium vs coal?

    [–]megusta333 0 points1 point ago

    They are building one done here in south Georgia

    load more comments (2 replies)

      [–]Sjokomelk 8 points9 points ago

      Green energy is awesome. It lasts as long as the sun does. Its not very efficient though, and advocating green energy as a replacement for nuclear or coal energy is ignorant.

      [–]I_Pee_Sitting_Up 8 points9 points ago

      Green energy only lasts as long as the life cycle of the given tech. Wind Farms are highly inefficient as the cost of degrading performance and end of life replacement outweighs the benefit. The only reason why wind is so popular is due to government subsidy. Until there is some major technological advancements in turbine life expectancy, we can expect wind to be a net drain. Solar isn't much better, but at least there is potential for long term benefit. However, battery tech and upstart costs prevent it from being an affordable personalized power source, which sucks.

      Hydro is by far the best green tech, but good luck finding more rivers that have a suitable elevation drop.

      [–]catchthewheel 6 points7 points ago

      Solar will save you money here in Southern California, just because power is so damn expensive and it's sunny all the time.

      [–]I_Pee_Sitting_Up 2 points3 points ago

      I assume you're talking about personal use? If so, keep in mind that a modest 2KW personal system will run you at least 20K. Assuming you currently have a $200 power bill (above average estimate) then you're looking at 8 years to recoup your investment. Then you're going to have to expend money to replace batteries and other degraded power generation equipment at some point. Yes, it's going to be a net winner, but it's going to be a very difficult investment for the average homeowner.

      [–]ellipses1 2 points3 points ago

      First, I guess prices of solar are different in California than they are in Pennsylvania... because a 3KW system in Pittsburgh is ~15k.

      Second, let's say that that it DOES cost 20k. You are saying that you recoup that in 8 years by eliminating a 200 dollar per month electric bill. That means you are saving 2,400 dollars per year for an investment of 20,000 dollars. That's a 12% annual return!

      If I came to you and said I could GUARANTEE a 12% return per year for 15 years with a minimum investment of 20,000 dollars, you wouldn't take that?

      Shit, I'm looking to put in a 15,000 dollar system to eliminate my 50 dollar per month electric bill because at face value, that's a 4% return and with the 30% tax credit reducing the initial cost to 10,000 dollars, it's a guaranteed 6% annual return.

      And I say guaranteed because the installation comes with a 20 year warranty on all components and the amount of average daily sunshine over a 20 year period is not going to vary all that much. Plus, that return is based on today's electricity prices... if they go up in the future, I "make" more money. So this shit is a good investment here in cloudy Pittsburgh where electricity costs ~8 cents per KwH, among the cheapest in the country.

      [–]I_Pee_Sitting_Up 2 points3 points ago

      Question: Is your 3KW system off-grid w/ batteries? If so, are those covered in your 20 year warranty?

      I need to know this before I offer you a formal rebuttal.

      [–]ellipses1 2 points3 points ago

      Negatron! This would be a grid-tied system with net-metering.

      However, I have looked into using deep cycle lead-acid batteries for storage and "dark time" supplementation. The cost of that is pretty low if you keep up with maintenance. A few hundred bucks approximately 6 times over the life of the warranty on the main system.

      [–]I_Pee_Sitting_Up 1 point2 points ago

      Have you factored in your power bill for evening consumption? I'm not attempting to nitpick your comments above, but I would like to understand how you arrived at these numbers.

      [–]Comeh 1 point2 points ago

      So what you're saying is it would make a lot more sense for government subsidy to go into solar energy than wind energy?

      [–]I_Pee_Sitting_Up 3 points4 points ago

      "If" we're going to subsidize a "green" industry, yes, solar would be the way to go. I would prefer nuclear over anything else.

      [–]Tells_The_Other_POV 2 points3 points ago

      Also Hydro can bring problems to the ecosystem of fish and nutrients in river water.

      [–]I_Pee_Sitting_Up 2 points3 points ago

      Isn't that anecdotal though? Are there any firm studies on that?

      [–]Tells_The_Other_POV 2 points3 points ago

      There are many instances where it has disrupted fish migration or nutrients in river water.

      See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectric_power#Ecosystem_damage_and_loss_of_land

      [–]firelock_ny 1 point2 points ago

      Then there's the problem with hydro that they're not making any more of it - all the rivers that haven't been dammed yet aren't likely to ever be, due to environmental and/or transportation concerns.

      [–]Tells_The_Other_POV 0 points1 point ago

      Yes. TBH, if we want to create sustainable energy in the future, I think what remains feasible is nuclear power.

      [–]AntiLuke 1 point2 points ago

      Wind energy kills bats, lots of bats. The tips move to fast for the bats to detect, then slice

      [–]phenomenos 0 points1 point ago

      I know many advocates for replacing coal and nuclear (but particularly coal) with renewable energy who are far from ignorant on the subject. In fact most of them are environmental journalists or engineers.

      [–]cannedmath 1 point2 points ago

      Even though you just saw a video of it?

      [–]TremendousPete 1 point2 points ago

      Why? those are coal plants...

      [–]broden 0 points1 point ago

      Which the green fans killed, as is shown at the end of the video. The fans have no cartoon faces so I cannot relate to them.

      [–]Luke273 1 point2 points ago

      Are those the Tinsley towers (near Meadowhall, Sheffield) in the third scene? Shout out to those bad boys regardless! /r/sheffield

      [–]DrPreston 1 point2 points ago

      I bet those three windmills that replaced the cooling towers at the end were totally capable of generating as much electricity as that power plant was.

      [–]sibo24 9 points10 points ago

      I made the original film and it makes me laugh that it keeps coming back. Thanks for keeping me happy Reddit!

      [–]ThereReallyIsNoHope 1 point2 points ago

      Why didn't the cups land in the background or all around them towards the end, then? That would have made it even more funny.

      [–]nomaddamon 21 points22 points ago

      Am I the only one who hears this in the Mr. Bill from SNL voice as they fall? "oh nooooooo!"

      [–]chillinwithkrillin 14 points15 points ago

      That made me really sad

      [–]mrsobchak 4 points5 points ago

      You can tell this isn't real because the cups & saucers never fall back down.

      [–]moon_eyes 4 points5 points ago

      This actually made me feel a twinge of sadness :(

      [–]IgotCHRISTinMYlife 9 points10 points ago

      Three windmills will certainly keep the power going.

      [–]ttogreh 13 points14 points ago

      Well, "three windmills" may not keep the United States' lights on, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States#Wind_generation_potential It is disingenuous to assert that wind power cannot adequately replace all other forms of electricity generation in the United States.

      Of course, I don't support the idea of relying solely on wind. That's a little crazy. But the big three; wind, solar, and hydroelectric can get us off of coal and then wean us off of natural gas. Indeed, if more electricity is generated locally, we can attack transmission loss. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Losses

      Finally, the best way to increase renewable electricity sources is to simply use less energy. For instance, an old Catghode Ray Tube 32 inch television would take about 120 watts to run. A new LED 32 inch television takes around 20 watts to run.

      That means that televisions of today use 17 per cent of the electricity of their ten year old ancestors.

      Oh, yeah. I have Asperger's Syndrome. So... maybe I took this a little too far. Any way, I hope it was interesting!

      [–]oceanplexian 3 points4 points ago

      Finally, the best way to increase renewable electricity sources is to simply use less energy.

      Unfortunately physics would have a problem with that. Some technologies fundamentally need a lot of energy. Electric heating, for example, has not gotten more efficient since its conception. Air conditioners are fundamentally limited by physics and can only get so efficient. Motors in electric cars are already 95-99% efficient. Meanwhile world population is exploding.

      On top of that people still have to heat their homes. I don't see how pure renewable energy can meet those needs.

      [–]Thethoughtful1 3 points4 points ago

      Electric heating might not have gotten much better lately, but insulation has.

      [–]ttogreh 2 points3 points ago

      Well, To say that the world population is exploding is to be misinformed. The overall rate of population growth has fallen from 2.07% a year in 1963 to 1.15% a year in 2011. http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_grow&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=world+population+growth#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_pop_grow&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=region:EAP:ECA:LAC:MNA:NAC:SAS:SSA&ifdim=region&tdim=true&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

      The only region in the world that is actually bucking the trend of reduced population growth is Sub-Saharan Africa, which just happens to be the only region in the world that still has room for substantial development in terms of quality of life.

      As for things like heat, it is a fact that huge swaths of the northern hemisphere have homes and building that were built to burn hydrocarbons. Well, you can either use millions year old dead algae, or you can use algae that died last month. I am only slightly exaggerating the dichotomy. My point is that not all hydrocarbons are equal. We can use an increased reliance on renewable electricity to invest in new methods of biological energy STORAGE.

      Indeed, assuming that we maintain our natural gas infrastructure, we could replace our current methane from long dead organisms with methane that we capture from our sewage treatment plants, landfills, and bioreactors.

      Now, am I optimistic? Yes, I certainly am. However, I derive my optimism from a knowledge of what is possible. Indeed, I believe my optimism is more reflective of a race that went from shivering in caves to walking on the moon in less than 1,000 generations.

      We CAN do this.

      [–]CFHQYH 1 point2 points ago

      Less babies, less people, use less energy, need fewer jobs. You can't improve on heating or cooling much, but you can use it more efficiently with smarter buildings. You might not be able to improve efficiencies in cars, but you can build smarter neighborhoods so you need to drive less, make riding bicycles safer, more public transportation.

      [–]be_mindful 1 point2 points ago

      Meanwhile world population is exploding.

      i stand by my belief that way are absolutely fucked in the coming century.

      [–]Fordiman 0 points1 point ago

      Tell me: what's the difference between nameplate capacity and generation?

      [–]ttogreh 0 points1 point ago

      "Nameplate capacity" indicates how much electricity can be generated if the wind were blowing at an optimum speed all the time. The wind does not blow at optimum speed all the time.

      "Generation"... I am going to assume you want to know how much electricity is produced in a year, and how much can be expected to be produced in a year. Well, thanks to government agencies like NOAA, we know the average wind speed of all regions of the country. When I say "average", I mean what you can expect to push a wind vane day in and day out.

      So, if a wind turbine has a nameplate capacity of 4,000 kilowatts at thirty miles an hour, and it is placed in a region with average wind speeds of 17 miles an hour, then that wind turbine can be expected to produce 2,267 kilowatts.

      [–]Fordiman 0 points1 point ago

      Do we know the deviation of wind speeds?

      [–]ttogreh 0 points1 point ago

      Do you mean the average minimum, average, and average gust? Yes. The National Weather Service, NOAA, and other agencies have very detailed records of regional wind activity. These observations are what we use to plan where to build wind farms.

      According to this data, it is indeed theoretically possible to power the nations electrical needs just by turning the entire state of North Dakota into a wind farm.

      I don't advocate turning North Dakota into a wind farm.

      [–]canadianman001 0 points1 point ago

      Can I work for you?

      [–]ttogreh 0 points1 point ago

      I actually am not involved in the wind power industry. I am simply enthusiastic about wind. When I say "we", I mean "we" as in society.

      [–]canadianman001 0 points1 point ago

      Note that more efficient electronics will also result in lower transmission loss.

      [–]JediMasterSam 24 points25 points ago

      Anyone seeking more info might also check here:

      title comnts points age /r/
      O Noes! 6coms 190pts 1dy gifs
      Just having some tea....AHHHHHHHHH 4coms 97pts 1mo gifs
      Oh shit 4coms 13pts 3mos gifs
      Oh what a lovely day for te-OH NO! 1com 11pts 4mos funny
      Yay! About to hit 1,000,000 views! 7coms 77pts 4mos gifs
      Fixed 0coms 12pts 4mos GifSound
      English smoke towers collapsing to classical music 0coms 11pts 4mos GifSound
      Oh I do say...It is quite the lovely day... 304coms 1728pts 4mos funny

      source: karmadecay

      [–]Inimicus 1 point2 points ago

      I was only looking at the comments to see how many times this has been posted before

      load more comments (2 replies)

        [–]phishroom 2 points3 points ago

        But where did the teapot and teacups go???

        [–]pervertedpapaya 1 point2 points ago

        My guess is they got thrown into orbit

        [–]RubTheVeryTip 0 points1 point ago

        "That escalated quickly."

        [–]MessiahX 2 points3 points ago

        Must be the milk. Lactose intolerance sucks. =(

        [–]Freddie_AppsHero 0 points1 point ago

        Congratulations, you've made me feel sorry for buildings.

        Stupid humanity...

        [–]GetStapled 2 points3 points ago

        This is the first time I've seen this today!

        [–]Soveriegn -1 points0 points ago

        Hate to be that guy... but...

        Repost.

        [–]newtothelyte 2 points3 points ago

        TIL: repost my favorite gifs once a week and receive karma

        [–]Trygle 1 point2 points ago

        What a bad coffee/tea date feels like.

        [–]kinard 1 point2 points ago

        So good!

        [–]KUSHimaru 1 point2 points ago

        haha awesome theme! there should be more gifs with characters falling as buildings :DDDD!

        [–]R_johnson 1 point2 points ago

        Baahahhahahah

        [–]sporvath 1 point2 points ago

        This will never get old.

        [–]Se7enUnicorns 2 points3 points ago

        Wow, I don't think that this gif was supposed to make me sad...

        [–]RollTideRR 1 point2 points ago

        This made me laugh really hard for some reason.

        [–]Desslochbro 0 points1 point ago

        Wait.. are people actually against green energy?

        [–]jezzey 0 points1 point ago

        I feel that this gif should have been somehow incorporated into the final episode of Lost.

        [–]Lady_DudeBro -1 points0 points ago

        But where did the tea cups go?!

        [–]vaxanas -1 points0 points ago

        This made me really upset :(

        [–]oozeinoz 0 points1 point ago

        It is quite rare that actual lulz are had, but this warranted quite the belly chuckle. Good on you sir.

        [–]Kyle_Crafty 1 point2 points ago

        That is some high quality edits O.o

        [–]50shadesofGandalf 1 point2 points ago

        See a funny gif, then read a 70+ serious discussion on nuclear energy. This is why I love Reddit.

        [–]trevosaurusrex 1 point2 points ago

        they remind me of Frosted mini wheats

        [–]L__McL 0 points1 point ago

        The saddest part is the left one never gets to drink his tea.

        [–]gurana 1 point2 points ago

        Fuck this shit... Just blew snot out my nose getting caught off guard by this post... casually tried to wipe my hands on inside of blazer pocket...

        [–]mcstafford 1 point2 points ago

        I would rather imgur not serve up GIFs when linked as a JPG.

        [–]dishwasha10 1 point2 points ago

        how dare you make fun of 9/11 like that!

        [–]Mr_Charlie_Prince 1 point2 points ago

        MR. SALT AND MRS. PEPPER NOOOOOOO!

        [–]Exallium 1 point2 points ago

        HEYO

        [–]digbus 1 point2 points ago

        Wonder whats on reddit today? oh just reposts..

        [–]lion_queen 0 points1 point ago

        Why did their cups never land!? WHY!?!?

        [–]se7en2727 0 points1 point ago

        still not sure why i watched this so many times

        [–]TheClaw117 0 points1 point ago

        Who could ever forget this repost.

        [–]CaptianTool 0 points1 point ago

        and im going to hell for laughing at this

        [–]karate_kid106 0 points1 point ago

        This is so old now.

        [–]RexBeckett 1 point2 points ago

        You don't include the crucial "pinkie up" component of the procedure and this is what happens.

        [–]YellowPudding 1 point2 points ago

        reminds me a bit of this animation I made when I was younger.

        http://i.imgur.com/vyjF8.gif

        [–]apossomness[S] 0 points1 point ago

        haha /r/imgoingtohellforthis would love that

        [–]YellowPudding 1 point2 points ago

        haha, thanks. I had never heard of that subreddit. I'm going straight to hell for laughing at some of that stuff.

        [–]SBLC 1 point2 points ago

        So this is the best GIF on the internet!

        [–]WimzicalStranger -2 points-1 points ago

        http://imgur.com/U0XkC

        [–]Solidslip 0 points1 point ago

        Mon...Mon.Mon...Mon.Mon...Mon.Mon...Mon.Mon...Mon..Monster REPOST

        Seen this hsit like 10 times in 2 days.

        [–]hot_skillet 4 points5 points ago

        sounds like you may need a reddit break!

        [–]Boozdeuvash 1 point2 points ago

        I havent.

        [–]garysopinion -5 points-4 points ago

        sad to see someone make fun of a disaster like this

        [–]Jeffyfox 10 points11 points ago

        It's a controlled demolition.

        [–]garysopinion 23 points24 points ago

        then tell me why they are so surprised?

        [–]seluropnek 5 points6 points ago

        Expert recovery, 10/10

        [–]FoxGaming 0 points1 point ago

        i don't know man, did you see the looks on their faces?

        load more comments (2 replies)

          [–]RealBean -2 points-1 points ago

          Powerplants in quicksand eh?

          [–]Revontulet 0 points1 point ago

          Huh, that makes me a little nervous about tea I'm drinking...

          [–]xervesk -3 points-2 points ago

          repost

          [–]70000 -4 points-3 points ago

          Lol

          [–]cheatonus -4 points-3 points ago

          Technically speaking, I'm not against nuclear power. However, it is the only form of power we have that has the potential of devastating entire towns and regions provided there IS an incident. Granted, coal and fossil fuel power are also devastating to the environment, they don't neccesarily pose an immediate and grave danger to the people who live near the plants. Long term, yes they suck. Wind, solar, and other forms of non-emission, low waste product energy is really what we should be putting our efforts in to.

          [–]krzlmrps -3 points-2 points ago

          looks like they were teastroyed

          [–]realmodzzzz -4 points-3 points ago

          Anyone seeking more info might also check here:

          title comnts points age /r/
          Well that got a reaction! 25coms 644pts 2hrs funny
          O Noes! 6coms 190pts 1dy gifs
          Just having some tea....AHHHHHHHHH 4coms 97pts 1mo gifs
          Oh shit 4coms 13pts 3mos gifs
          Oh what a lovely day for te-OH NO! 1com 11pts 4mos funny
          Yay! About to hit 1,000,000 views! 7coms 77pts 4mos gifs
          Fixed 0coms 12pts 4mos GifSound
          English smoke towers collapsing to classical music 0coms 11pts 4mos GifSound
          Oh I do say...It is quite the lovely day... 304coms 1728pts 4mos funny

          [–]CIRCLE_JERK_LEGEND -1 points0 points ago

          Anyone seeking more info might also check here:

          title comnts points age /r/
          JediMasterSam 0coms 10pts 1hrs circlejerk

          load more comments (5 replies)

            Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

            REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

            π Rendered by PID 8940 on app-117 running fbb8816.