You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] Bitpad 0 points 35 points (+35|-0) ago 

I almost gave up after the same episodes. Bill gets pretty damned preachy and along with that singles out guests on the panels for Bias Confirmation. Watch the one with the Green Energy where he totally ignores the Nuclear scientist where I was hoping he would open up more about Thorium reactors n such.


[–] soae 0 points 35 points (+35|-0) ago 

I noticed the same thing. Why ignore nuclear?? The guy points out that it has ZERO carbon emissions (seems a pretty good point to me), and they all just ignore that and talk about solar/wind which requires HUGE amounts of carbon to be burnt up front, for little payoff.


[–] RonaldMcShitlord 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

Bill Nye ignores nuclear because he's trying to appeal to mainstream popular culture and nuclear isn't "cool" right now. It's "dangerous" right now because all of the high school dropouts are shitting their pants over the deadly Japanese radiation coming to get them. Nye is trying to lick these people's asses and get them to follow his bullshit so he isn't going to bring up nuclear even if it is the most logical option.


[–] Bitpad 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

I noticed that all they said on it was that it was SCARY!!!! and left it at that which as a "Scientist" should he be explaining more to make it less scary? COME ON BILL!!!! Do Better!! :P


[–] facevalue 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Nuclear fission creates no carbon emissions, nor does the ionization in solar panels, nor does the conversion of kinetic energy to mechanical power in wind turbines. The creation and implementation of all of these methods will require some associated carbon emissions though, which you pointed out. Your comment made me wonder what the carbon footprint per kilowatt-hour looks like for different methods. Searching led me to this page which you might find interesting: 1 kilowatt-hour carbon footprint per generation methods


[–] 8887498? 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

they all just ignore that and talk about solar/wind

And aren't useful universally. They require specific geographic/climate conditions. Nuclear is a lot more flexible and can be made more flexible.

And we're going to have to rely on nuclear energy in the future once we get closer to the space age. Wind is going to be completely useless and solar will only be good for electrical shit, nuclear has more uses than just generating power.

''Science guy'' my ass.


[–] RonaldMcShitlord 0 points 28 points (+28|-0) ago 

Anyone who preaches about global warming but doesn't promote nuclear energy is a fucking retarded libcuck shill who isn't really trying to fix things but just wants to use climate change as a platform to get attention.


[–] TrueAmerican 6 points -2 points (+4|-6) ago 

Nuclear energy is not sustainable. Look at Japan Daichi reactor... still spewing contamination.. one big quake is all it takes to fuck over an entire section of the country. Renewable energy is the way to go.


[–] deretsigernu 1 points 14 points (+15|-1) ago 

This is the "science" the March for Science people are trying to promote.

They hope to become accepted by hiding their degeneracy behind unsound "science."


[–] curomo 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

what do you bet that the "March for Science" (held in April and involving mostly standing around), was just a "viral" marketing campaign for Bill's new Netflix show?


[–] prepprep 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

To be fair, we have had two fuckups that cant be unfucked already. The who "don't build x reactor in y place" tends to sound like the excuses of why socialism doesn't work. It was built. It boomed.