See, stuff like this is why we need photographers and photo journalists. They're not just documenting things, they're making a point. They're making art.
this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2026
646 points (98.6% liked)
Political Memes
10942 readers
2649 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Fuck you and your ~~sour grapes~~ tulips, Dutchman!
Signed,
A jealous Estonian
More wind turbines, less oil rigs on the horizon please.
okay but also, those are nuclear cooling towers in the foreground, right? that's another renewable energy source. like, id be fine with the stuff coming out of the cooling towers bc it's water. don't care if it ruins the skyline.
Nuclear fission is not renewable. It relies on mined uranium, which is rather limited.
Also, cooling towers are not seen exclusively with nuclear power plants. Many chemical refineries need lots of process heat and need to get rid of that as well. Evaporating water to steam is a great way to disperse excess heat.
Any kind of heat power plant also needs some way to expel excess steam, so oil and gas plants have them as well, just usually different designs.
And if you have to always evaporate a lot of water to cool your power station you will have a problem in a drought, you will either have to turn off the power station or use a lot of water for it when you already don't have enough.
It's another advantage of wind turbines and solar panels since they don't need to be cooled like that.
Has anyone ever tried using the heat from those chemical refineries to supplement a power grid? We convert fossil fuels into electricity by boiling water to turn turbines, so pretty much anything that creates adequate heat could be a potential energy source, right?
A HRSG (heat recovery steam generator) type boiler uses waste heat from a gas turbine to generate steam that can in turn spin a steam turbine, so, kinda. You'd just need to tightly control the temperatures and flow of heating medium (flue gasses or process heat I guess) which I'd imagine is the problem. We pronounce HRSG's as "herzig" at my combined cycle plant. They massively improve efficiency by basically spinning two turbines for the price of one. Problem is they still rely on natural gas or diesel to operate that initial gas turbine. Coke oven boilers are also a thing but I've never personally worked directly with them, just learned about them. They use biproduct waste heat from making coke (component of steel) to operate boilers/make process steam/spin turbines. Im sure there are other systems too but there could always be more/better. Those are just the ones I thought of quick.
Nuclear fission is not renewable. It relies on mined uranium, which is rather limited.
The uranium is gonna continue to undergo fission, whether we mine it or not, whether we enrich/refine it or not. At that point it's like collecting energy from our surroundings, really functionally no different than harvesting geothermal, wind, solar, hydro, etc.
Different rates of decay vs the natural state.
Radioactive decay is not the same as fission. It's not entirely unrelated, but definitely a different process.
Exactly, nuclear is no less renewable than solar. Where does everyone think the solar energy comes from? Nuclear.
We might as well capture the uranium decay, as you said, it will release the energy whether we collect it or not.
That's such a disingenuous presentation of the facts. Of course there is no such thing as truly renewable energy, but there is a difference in kind between a supply of energy that is practically inexhaustible on the timescale of human civilisation (what people mean when they say renewable) and energy produced from a limited fuel supply on earth (non renewable).
Solar (and its byproduct energies wind, hydro, biomass), tidal, geothermal are not in the same category as fission of rare heavy metals.
I say all this as someone pro-nuclear who agrees that we should use it while it is still fissionable.
We are talking about dozens of millennia of uranium supply on Earth. Other fuel types and nuclear technologies look to extend that into billions of years. For all functional purposes, it's infinite. Just as solar energy is functionally infinite.
a supply of energy that is practically inexhaustible on the timescale of human civilisation (what people mean when they say renewable)
As I said: Nuclear is Renewable, in the exact same way everyone uses the term.
Fusion and fission are two different processes.
I think the point he's trying to make is that the sun technically has a finite lifetime, albeit in that case one that's long enough to be functionally irrelevant from the perspective of human time scales.
And think of the birbs! Would someone please think of the bribs! They get confused by the propeller blades, and start migrating under water, where they get stuck in whale blowholes, causing problems for the shipping industry. Damn you, liberals!
I enjoy seeing wind turbines along a landscape. Feel this this is some boomer shit
Maybe check the image again. Got a feeling you got WHOOSH'd here.
So the image in the post communicates sarcasm for sure, but the post text itself doesn't communicate sarcasm to me. Could just be dense.
Either way, the underlying concern is that boomers are old and don't like change. Younger people enjoy seeing wind turbines, so this whole issue is getting smaller and smaller year over year.
The argument that they mess up landscapes was always made in bad faith. Grasping at straws.
Rather than that, it's a veiled NIMBY argument. They don't care that nuclear, gas or coal power plants look uglier - they would if they would stand in their backyard.
They similarily don't really care about the optics of wind turbines, but they are afraid of javing them in their backyard, which is much more likely than a power plant if you don't live near a river
Let's leave nuclear out of this, they look magnificent! In our area, the nuclear power plant is a photo point / trip destination. The surrounding nature is very healthy thanks to the strict regulations.
When I bought my house one of the things that I was warned about was that they were going to make the nearby wind farm larger. Some of the locals got up in arms about them building a new wind farm until they pointed out that they are just enlarging the current wind farm.
None of the residents could tell me where the current wind farm was, because you literally cannot see it, it's behind a hill. If they hadn't told anyone they were enlarging it I don't think anyone would have noticed. Even if you go around the hill so you can actually see it, it just blends into the background. I do wonder why they don't just paint them blue though.
Im guessing they want them to stand out for safety for pilots
Yesterday I had to go on a long drive. During that drive, I passed a yard in which someone had placed an obviously homemade billboard with the words "wind turbines destroy family, environment and quality of life."
I was flatly stunned to see it. I've heard that stuff about them killing birds but I've never heard they were otherwise contentious. In fact, everyone I know personally loves to go look at them given the opportunity.
They probably "destroy family" because the children of the idiot boomers that put the sign up no longer speak to them over politics
"Wind turbines are the minions of Baelzebuub, they rot your teeth and steal your children at night. BOooOoOooO!"
Isn't even the bird thing wildly overstated?
Speaking in German numbers:
Wind Energy kills arround 100.000 Birds a year. Lovely furrballs arround 20.000.000 (likely more) Glass plates like windshields, Windows etc. Arround 100.000.000 So yeah pretty minor.
That wind turbines kill birds is entirely sensationalized and overstated, absolutely.
Birds die from way more sources, like feral cats and flying into glass windows. Looks like someone else posted the source.
Things have gotten better since we noticed that birds recognize the turbine blades more easily if 1 of 3 of the blade are painted a non-white color.
Don't think we've really done anything with cats and windows to mitigate those issues
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›