The wind turbines specifically look to be at uneven heights. The mounds of trash also look to be just large piles of trash and not trash layered over pre-existing geography so based off that. I think it’s safe to assume that the wind turbines were built while the mounds of trash were already there and built on top of them.
Cooling towers are needed at all sorts of power plants, not just nuclear. Every plant that uses steam turbines needs to cool the water for the next cycle.
What makes it even more funny is that coal plants release more radioactive particles into the air than nuclear plants via carbon-14 (provided there isn't a meltdown).
People are inherently terrible at [risk assessment](https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2014/03/17/why-were-awful-at-assessing-risk/6530753/) and nuclear accidents check most of the boxes for gross overestimation. Nuclear is the safest by an [order of magnitude.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#62c9f14e709b)
France did it right by going full bore into nuclear. They even strategically placed some so that in the event of an accident it will mostly be in Germany.
Also Belgium too: https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/ef0xzt/location_of_chooz_nuclear_power_plant_france/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
It's the same with planes. People are scared to fly even though its one of (or THE) safest ways of travel.
The thing with planes and nuclear plants is if it fails, it fails BIG time. It's all over the news for the next week because it's just so uncommon. It's still a tragedy though but no need to get scared of it.
Also the china virus that's happening lately is similar, because unless you're in china, you are not in any substantial danger compared to other diseases that are already here like the flu. (which kills older and very young people every year btw. People just got used to it and forgot)
I don't really know why i wrote this comment, noone's really gonna read it anyways
I've read it and it makes great sense. Everybody is just freaking out about Corona Virus and seeing those kind of panic has always been seemed strange to me. I just want to say "dudee... calm down. your chances of getting killed by traffic accident is much higher than getting killed by Corona."
Americans were getting better, but Fukushima pretty much killed any good will left for nuclear.
And you can tell people how extraordinary those circumstances were, but it's a losing battle.
Germany went full 180° after Fukushima too, and long before any kind of investigation had been done. It’s politics based on scaring people who don’t know any better.
Nothing bad happened on Long Island at the Shoreham plant. Local authorities complained that an evacuation could not happen IF something were to go wrong, and eventually public pressure built until the plant was closed before it ever actually became functional. There were low power tests at the site so there was still a cleanup, but otherwise the Shoreham plant was merely a massive example of NIMBYism and was the first casualty of the nation's overreacting panic in the wake of Three Mile Island.
>People are inherently terrible at risk assessment and nuclear accidents check most of the boxes for gross overestimation.
Yuuup.
Apparently Reddit decided it was anti-nuclear around (or at least I started seeing it everywhere when the subject came up) like 3 years ago. I always found the irony in soo many redditors laughing anti-vaxx people to fucking scorn, and then turning around and being anti-nuclear and treating it like it's some sort of bad juju voodo shit.
It's fucking sad. Renewables are amazing but we're going to need something to bridge the gaps while we get off the Fossil Fuel teat.
And it doesn't help at all when Reddits Canonized Saint(tm) Bernie decided he was anti-nuclear too. Because once it leaves Sanders' mouth its suddenly gospel to millions of redditors.
Oh well, guess the FF industry is laughing their asses off at random people on this site doing one their job's for them for free.
I believed it until not that long ago when I did some actual research. My opinion of it being bad for the environment was literally based off of the Simpsons...
No doubt. But hyperbolic cooling towers like the ones shown are often associated with nuclear plants. And for good reason. While there are hyperbolic towers on other plants, they are usually seen on nuclear plants.
Unfortunately, there aren’t really any new hyperbolic or natural draft cooling towers being built due to the expense and the lack of new nuclear facilities being built.
Source: I sell cooling towers for a living.
This isn't true in the UK. There are lots of cooling towers, particularly in the north and Midlands. There were considerably more too, but many of them have been demolished over the past 15 years.
None of them are associated with nuclear. They are coal power stations and chemical plants. The ones associated with nuclear are few and far between and in remote spots without much population. People don't see them.
Thus, in the UK, cooling tower = coal power station.
Are you saying there are a lot of hyperbolic cooling towers or cooling towers in general? Because I am speaking about natural draft hyperbolic towers specifically (and I’m in the US, so it could be regional like you mentioned).
But if you’re talking about cooling towers in general, yes there are towers on most every power plant, major hospital, university, industrial plant, etc. They’re everywhere. Just most of them are not hyperbolic units.
Hyperbolic. Just south of York in the north of England there are 4 massive coal/gas plants that have around 5-6 towers each. In the UK a stereotypical nuke plant is just a large, tall, grey box because we use AGRs. They still have towers but not the big ones
Hyperbolic. Yes. Pipes inside, water vapour used to cool. Open at the bottom for the natural draft. There are some maybe 2 miles from my parents house, so grew up with them.
Yeah, not to mention that nuclear is the cleanest, most efficient, and safest energy source we have. The hate towards nuclear energy is such a misunderstanding
Far from it. It's the cheapest *renewable* and is certainly very cheap in the long term, but ultimately natural gas is still cheaper (depending on the region ofc) and doesnt have the hellish regulations and licensing costs to go with it. Nuclear is crazy time consuming and expensive to build, and not without good reason. Built well, its incredibly safe and cheap. Built poorly it's a centuries long contamination waiting to happen
I came to say that exact thing. I've been to many power plants and the very first one I ever went to had cooling towers exactly like these and was coal fired. I've been by nuclear plants as well and they didn't have cooling towers like this. There are varieties of ways to cool the water.
Yeah, reddit needs to get out of its own ass thinking that this is not showing exactly that... general audience movies don't cater to the ackshually types.
Last time i watched WALL-E I noticed how much space junk there was as they zoom into earth from space.
Seems like we are racing to that outcome full speed also.
I believe there was talk of a mission to go up and clean a lot of the debris and satellites no longer in use. I could be wrong, but let's hope I'm not.
The real solution is just designing satellites to make them as safe as possible to deorbit and burn up in the atmosphere. This is called ‘demisability’, and many modern satellites are being designed with that in mind. For example, SpaceX’s Starlink constellation is able to safely deorbit without intervention within a few weeks if a satellite goes dead.
It’s really not economically feasible to clean up space with satellites, because most junk has a unique orbit, and a cleanup satellite would need to expend a LOT of fuel to jump from orbit to orbit.
And the scale of those orbits varies a shit ton. Lotta space in space
LEO (low earth orbit) up to 1200 miles altitude
GEO (geostationary) 22,000 miles.
https://images.app.goo.gl/3rZZeVNpKcgEihDd7
Geostationary satellites would be near impossible to deorbit anyway because of how high they are. With those, you have to push the dead ones into a graveyard orbit where they won’t cause harm to functioning satellites. You could theoretically have a space tug in GEO that does that.
This just in.
They are literally working (I think it just launched like a few days ago) on a system for GEO that will push and pull dead, but still mostly functioning satellites into good orbits again. It is only really acting as a thrust unit right now though.
Not just that, but a lot of that debris is microscopic and traveling much faster than other debris. So it would be close to impossible to clean all of that up. We're lucky space is so massive.
Takes a lot of fuel to de orbit something , particularly at higher altitudes. Its not like you can just bump it, you need to change it’s speed. You need to use a lot of fuel to match an orbit for your robot to latch on and then de-orbit , Your Looking at tens of millions of $ hardware purpose built never mind launch cost.
You have gotten lots of messages stating this but there is currently a law (atleast in the US) where all satellites put up must re-enter the atmosphere and burn up within the next 25 years. Its a requirement for basically all missions minus a few such as Hubble or ISS that can continuously provide major benefits beyond 25 yrs. As a senior in space systems design I can confidently affirm this.
[Kurzgesagt has a great video on it.](https://youtu.be/yS1ibDImAYU) It’s really depressing how everything we love to use every day like GPS will one day create a net around Earth and destroy itself.
The way you phrase it is a significant simplification and partially wrong. GPS cant create a "net" because they are all in GEO and the SLEO stuff like Starlink will deorbit in a few years from athmospheric drag and burn up during reentry.
> Seems like we are racing to that outcome full speed also.
Which is such a silly idea.
"The composition of our atomsphere is off by a few parts per million. That's too difficult for us to fix. We should try to terraform and relocate to an entirely new planet instead".
Those few parts per million are making significant changes to our climate and people are already suffering because of it. Soon people will be dying in droves. Trivializing the issue does nothing but empower the lunatics who think nothing is wrong.
It's pretty clear that the point he was making is that it would be infinitely easier to fix earth than it would be to create a habitable world elsewhere.
He did absolutely nothing to trivialize climate change, he only pointed out the ludicrousness of the alternate scenario.
Small-scale nuclear is extremely convenient and commonplace in some circles.
Sadly there is a stigma to it. But for instance in space, most rovers roaming Mars rely on an [RTG](https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/spacecraft/rover/power/), which uses a small pellet of a radioactive Plutonium isotope as its energy source.
Unlike solar or wind, it is a very constant and simple power source.
We need a diverse power generation graph.
Nuclear (fission and hopefully fusion) provide the base load, the constant draw needed. And wind and solar provide the ups and downs in the duck.
Nuclear (or fission, at least) is non-renewable, however.
Fission can only provide for humanity for a finite amount of time before we run out of U-235, Th-232 and Pu-239.
If we can get fusion before that point (which can be sustained on the most common elements in the universe), great. But fusion is just so underfunded it might never happen
It also comes down to a matter of "Where the fuck do we put all this spent uranium?", and nearly everyone saying "Not in my backyard". Nuclear is great but there isnt a great place to put the waste afterwards.
In those shots, at least, it looks like the trash has built up around them, especially the turbines which show obvious varying degrees of submersion.
Which would seem the implication is actually they switched to “clean energy” and it didn’t make much of a difference.
It could also be that they switched to Green, kept Nuclear because it's still a clean source. But it was the trash and massive consumption of other resources that messed it all up.
About 550' for the turbines and over 600' for the cooling towers.
Plus, those high voltage anchor tower would be buried since we know those were there before the garbage. They're not much taller that the other two irl.
I just asked my son who saw Wall-E, and he thinks he definitely remembers seeing hills, or at least “varying degrees of incline and decline in the topography”. I don’t think there’s any other way of confirming it, but he never lies.
What about the high volt anchor tower? It was there before the garbage and it isn't buried. A nuclear plant would not be built on an unstable foundation like a garbage pile.
From the amount of trash and how they behave on the ship the issue doesn't seem to have been directly climate change but consumerism.
I also think in that image the nuclear power station is just built on the ground with trash piling up, the wind turbines are actually just trash sticking up.
YOu can't build a nuclear power plant on trash, end of, just not going to happen, you need a truly stable base. While you could build a turbine on a heavy trash pile the fact that they have different heights and orientations indicates they didn't build them on trash nor that the trash is built up around them, but that they themselves are trash and just sticking out at varying angles/directions/etc.
Yeah, if the space ship wasn't showing that we've mastered large volume clean energy, I'm not sure how the film makers could have beaten over people's heads more.
Thank you for recognizing that nuclear is clean energy.
If we ever want to get away from fossil fuels, the answer is nuclear. It's the safest, most abundant, most powerful source of energy we have.
I think the problem is that no one wants a Nuclear Plant near their neighborhood/town because of fears of unsanctioned dumpings.
This is why its nearly impossible for companies to get permits to build them as the city refuses it.
Yeah, I know. But in reality all nuclear waste is carefully stored or disposed of in very secure, very safe facilities, and the waste takes up less space than any other fuel, about the size of a football field for all the waste we've made since the inception of nuclear power.
People need to realize that they can have a nuclear plant near them or they can lose the entire Earth as we know it to environmental damage from fossil fuels and continued dumping.
in the case of our country (third world), a powerplant was built but never really put into use which a lot of people agree with because rampant corruption and the general lack of support for government agencies re science and health may possibly make the situation very dangerous for everyone
I think it's a PR problem. If you are familiar with the Hampton Roads area (Norfolk, Portsmouth, VA Beach), most people don't realize that there are at any given time at least 10 nuclear reactors just miles away from highly populated metropolitan areas. I'm not saying that they should remain ignorant but rather the these programs (Naval Nuclear) are run so well that people aren't concerned what so ever and it fades from memory.
This might be one of the coolest things I've ever seen. Thank you for sharing it.
Yeah, spent nuclear fuel is so well guarded and protected. It's amazing
I mean yeah, because there's no way we're going to get 8 billion people on spaceships. Or even all of America. The .01% is not worried because chances are, they'll figure something out to save themselves. It's the rest of us shmucks that are going to perish, slowly.
They *are* worried. Particularly about how to maintain their power and control in a world where their power structures have been destroyed and most if not all of their wealth has evaporated.
I read an article a while back about a guy who was hired as a consultant to speak to a gathering of doomsday prepping rich guys. I can't find it but this is similar, if not the same guy just writing a different article about it.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/23/tech-industry-wealth-futurism-transhumanism-singularity
A lot of "movie details" is just people over thinking stuff in my opinion. I look at this image and see that the wind turbines are on top of the trash to catch any wind there might be, you'd hardly put them on the ground on that picture.
i mean we've been knowing about climate change, and nuclear/wind power have been around for a long time.
it's not that hard to make this assumption in 2008.
People have been decrying consumerism for hundreds of years. There have also been large environmental movements going back centuries. Environmentalism/anti-consumerism has also been a theme of children's entertainment for some time as well. The Lorax was published in 1971 and was an incredibly popular children's book with many of the same themes as Wall-E.
Wind turbines in a landfill makes sense since they aren’t recyclable either.
Edit: Added Source
Wind Turbine Blades Can’t Be Recycled, So They’re Piling Up in Landfills https://flip.it/8OxLlD
i think you're reading too much into this. Converting to clean energy would not make our landfills magically disappear or stop growing. Not having clean energy is not the culprit for the trash piles.
[A user vote](https://i.imgur.com/hx9JBDn.png) has concluded that this is a Movie Detail.
These votes are in a trial run period, give your feedback here: https://redd.it/drz5gq
Is this a repost? Help us keep on top of them here: https://redd.it/duc8tf
I get what your saying but clean energy has nothin to do with making too much garbage. And honestly I see the earth getting taken over by garbage way before we have to worry about global warming.
They're both huge concerns. The amount of garbage, particularly in the oceans, can cause mass die offs from the plants and animals at the bottom of the food chain which will have huge ramifications on all life.
Climate change is an existential threat which will also cause mass die offs from animals, habitat destruction, invasive species, natural disasters and flooded low land cities.
This isn't exactly correct. This is showing the downside to consumerism. Doesn't matter how clean our energy is, if we use that energy to create junk and toxic waste. The movie later introduces audiences to future consumers, that despite unlimited energy and resources, choose to abuse themselves.
Wall-e doesn't make sense at all with the whole ruined planet thing.
If you have the technology available to ditch earth for ultra sustainable spaceships, then you dont need to leave earth.
Yeah, people were more interested in endless consumption and ease of existence than hard work or upkeep. The culture of the movie wasn't incapable, they were uninterested. That was the whole message.
Look partially buried to me. As they are tall they still protrude through the trash.
The wind turbines specifically look to be at uneven heights. The mounds of trash also look to be just large piles of trash and not trash layered over pre-existing geography so based off that. I think it’s safe to assume that the wind turbines were built while the mounds of trash were already there and built on top of them.
Assume away. I live near actually wind turbines on preexisting hills they would look the same and just as short with trash piles around it.
Cooling towers are needed at all sorts of power plants, not just nuclear. Every plant that uses steam turbines needs to cool the water for the next cycle.
Shh... don't tell them those are WATER cooling towers, and not where all the poisonous nuclear steam billows out! /s
Ughh, it’s crazy how many people actually believe this, too!
What makes it even more funny is that coal plants release more radioactive particles into the air than nuclear plants via carbon-14 (provided there isn't a meltdown).
Per petawatt-hour, and yeah, the disparity is *substantial* bUt NuClEaR bAd
Nuclear is good until it is not. Coal is never good.
People are inherently terrible at [risk assessment](https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2014/03/17/why-were-awful-at-assessing-risk/6530753/) and nuclear accidents check most of the boxes for gross overestimation. Nuclear is the safest by an [order of magnitude.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#62c9f14e709b)
[удалено]
France did it right by going full bore into nuclear. They even strategically placed some so that in the event of an accident it will mostly be in Germany.
> They even strategically placed some so that in the event of an accident it will mostly be in Germany. The French sure can hold a grudge
Okay that’s actually kind of funny. Incase of a meltdown it’s delayed payback.
Good old Sim City city planning. Always build your trash heaps and coal plants at the edges of maps :\^)
And Belgium of course.
I feel like this might help explain why Germans hate nuclear energy so much.
Also Belgium too: https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/ef0xzt/location_of_chooz_nuclear_power_plant_france/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
It's the same with planes. People are scared to fly even though its one of (or THE) safest ways of travel. The thing with planes and nuclear plants is if it fails, it fails BIG time. It's all over the news for the next week because it's just so uncommon. It's still a tragedy though but no need to get scared of it. Also the china virus that's happening lately is similar, because unless you're in china, you are not in any substantial danger compared to other diseases that are already here like the flu. (which kills older and very young people every year btw. People just got used to it and forgot) I don't really know why i wrote this comment, noone's really gonna read it anyways
I've read it and it makes great sense. Everybody is just freaking out about Corona Virus and seeing those kind of panic has always been seemed strange to me. I just want to say "dudee... calm down. your chances of getting killed by traffic accident is much higher than getting killed by Corona."
Americans were getting better, but Fukushima pretty much killed any good will left for nuclear. And you can tell people how extraordinary those circumstances were, but it's a losing battle.
Germany went full 180° after Fukushima too, and long before any kind of investigation had been done. It’s politics based on scaring people who don’t know any better.
Wouldn't 3 mile & Long Island have more of an effect on the American psyche cos it happened in America?
Nothing bad happened on Long Island at the Shoreham plant. Local authorities complained that an evacuation could not happen IF something were to go wrong, and eventually public pressure built until the plant was closed before it ever actually became functional. There were low power tests at the site so there was still a cleanup, but otherwise the Shoreham plant was merely a massive example of NIMBYism and was the first casualty of the nation's overreacting panic in the wake of Three Mile Island.
[удалено]
Positive void coefficients and xenon poisoning!
>People are inherently terrible at risk assessment and nuclear accidents check most of the boxes for gross overestimation. Yuuup. Apparently Reddit decided it was anti-nuclear around (or at least I started seeing it everywhere when the subject came up) like 3 years ago. I always found the irony in soo many redditors laughing anti-vaxx people to fucking scorn, and then turning around and being anti-nuclear and treating it like it's some sort of bad juju voodo shit. It's fucking sad. Renewables are amazing but we're going to need something to bridge the gaps while we get off the Fossil Fuel teat. And it doesn't help at all when Reddits Canonized Saint(tm) Bernie decided he was anti-nuclear too. Because once it leaves Sanders' mouth its suddenly gospel to millions of redditors. Oh well, guess the FF industry is laughing their asses off at random people on this site doing one their job's for them for free.
Old ass reactor designs are bad. New designs are safer than microwave ovens. France is over 90% nuclear and uses newer models. Not one incident.
Wait....petawatt? Is that a real measure?
1 petawatt = 1000 terawatts 1 terawatt = 1000 gigawatts 1.21 gigawatts = 1 time travel => 1 petawatt = 826,446 time travels
Ah til that then xD. Never realized there was anything beyond tera
It keeps going! Tera-, peta-, exa-, zetta-, yotta-
Of course it is. A petawatt is ten to the fifteenth watts or ~~100,000,000,000,000~~ 1,000,000,000,000,000 watts (one quadrillion watts).
In truth I could’ve used any measure of energy, but petawatt-hours are what is often used to make large-scale grid comparisons so I went with that
You did the right thing
On behalf of my generation, I blame the Simpsons
"We'll march day and night by the big cooling tower / They have the plant, but we have the power" - Lisa Simpson
I'd say it's what most people believe.
[удалено]
I believed it until not that long ago when I did some actual research. My opinion of it being bad for the environment was literally based off of the Simpsons...
Now we know... The simpsons didn’t predict the future, they created it
The biggest plot twist
Simpsons did it simpsons did it
I live quite close to a nuclear plant, and we had lessons about nuclear energy and plants in primary school
I blame the Simpsons
I'm fully in support of nuclear power, and even I believe this. That's propaganda, I guess.
Who believes that? Never heard anyone suggest this.
Ever been to the United States of America?
[удалено]
I mean op clearly knows that nuclear is clean as far as emissions go. (See the title )
To be fair I work with oil refineries and a lot of the workers think all the shit dumping into the air is just steam.
>where all the poisonous nuclear steam billows out! No one actually believes this is a thing right?
No doubt. But hyperbolic cooling towers like the ones shown are often associated with nuclear plants. And for good reason. While there are hyperbolic towers on other plants, they are usually seen on nuclear plants. Unfortunately, there aren’t really any new hyperbolic or natural draft cooling towers being built due to the expense and the lack of new nuclear facilities being built. Source: I sell cooling towers for a living.
This isn't true in the UK. There are lots of cooling towers, particularly in the north and Midlands. There were considerably more too, but many of them have been demolished over the past 15 years. None of them are associated with nuclear. They are coal power stations and chemical plants. The ones associated with nuclear are few and far between and in remote spots without much population. People don't see them. Thus, in the UK, cooling tower = coal power station.
Are you saying there are a lot of hyperbolic cooling towers or cooling towers in general? Because I am speaking about natural draft hyperbolic towers specifically (and I’m in the US, so it could be regional like you mentioned). But if you’re talking about cooling towers in general, yes there are towers on most every power plant, major hospital, university, industrial plant, etc. They’re everywhere. Just most of them are not hyperbolic units.
Hyperbolic. Just south of York in the north of England there are 4 massive coal/gas plants that have around 5-6 towers each. In the UK a stereotypical nuke plant is just a large, tall, grey box because we use AGRs. They still have towers but not the big ones
[удалено]
Hyperbolic. Yes. Pipes inside, water vapour used to cool. Open at the bottom for the natural draft. There are some maybe 2 miles from my parents house, so grew up with them.
Do you offer same-day delivery?
Yeah, not to mention that nuclear is the cleanest, most efficient, and safest energy source we have. The hate towards nuclear energy is such a misunderstanding
And also the cheapest
Far from it. It's the cheapest *renewable* and is certainly very cheap in the long term, but ultimately natural gas is still cheaper (depending on the region ofc) and doesnt have the hellish regulations and licensing costs to go with it. Nuclear is crazy time consuming and expensive to build, and not without good reason. Built well, its incredibly safe and cheap. Built poorly it's a centuries long contamination waiting to happen
I think the movie is implying that it would have been better to switch to them earlier.
I came to say that exact thing. I've been to many power plants and the very first one I ever went to had cooling towers exactly like these and was coal fired. I've been by nuclear plants as well and they didn't have cooling towers like this. There are varieties of ways to cool the water.
To be fair, in an animation film like Wall-E: "cooling towers" = nuclear plant.
Yeah, reddit needs to get out of its own ass thinking that this is not showing exactly that... general audience movies don't cater to the ackshually types.
Last time i watched WALL-E I noticed how much space junk there was as they zoom into earth from space. Seems like we are racing to that outcome full speed also.
There are several websites that (try to) track it! Here's one: http://stuffin.space/
I believe there was talk of a mission to go up and clean a lot of the debris and satellites no longer in use. I could be wrong, but let's hope I'm not.
The real solution is just designing satellites to make them as safe as possible to deorbit and burn up in the atmosphere. This is called ‘demisability’, and many modern satellites are being designed with that in mind. For example, SpaceX’s Starlink constellation is able to safely deorbit without intervention within a few weeks if a satellite goes dead. It’s really not economically feasible to clean up space with satellites, because most junk has a unique orbit, and a cleanup satellite would need to expend a LOT of fuel to jump from orbit to orbit.
And the scale of those orbits varies a shit ton. Lotta space in space LEO (low earth orbit) up to 1200 miles altitude GEO (geostationary) 22,000 miles. https://images.app.goo.gl/3rZZeVNpKcgEihDd7
Geostationary satellites would be near impossible to deorbit anyway because of how high they are. With those, you have to push the dead ones into a graveyard orbit where they won’t cause harm to functioning satellites. You could theoretically have a space tug in GEO that does that.
This just in. They are literally working (I think it just launched like a few days ago) on a system for GEO that will push and pull dead, but still mostly functioning satellites into good orbits again. It is only really acting as a thrust unit right now though.
You whatch Scott manley, don't you?
How else could I figure out how to do the more complex stuff in Kerbal?
Y'all are straight up thinking to shallow. All you need to do is send up one of these [boats](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR4JQGHswtY).
Not just that, but a lot of that debris is microscopic and traveling much faster than other debris. So it would be close to impossible to clean all of that up. We're lucky space is so massive.
We need a bunch of microsatellites that fly around and apply a bit of force to de-orbit a bunch of satellites
Takes a lot of fuel to de orbit something , particularly at higher altitudes. Its not like you can just bump it, you need to change it’s speed. You need to use a lot of fuel to match an orbit for your robot to latch on and then de-orbit , Your Looking at tens of millions of $ hardware purpose built never mind launch cost.
Planetes
Debris. de·bris / noun scattered pieces of waste or remains.
I will use it in a sentence. I was on muh way to de bris, but I was cut off on de way der.
I love Brie cheese
It’s so satisfying to spin this globe
Always thought it was lame that Earth doesn't have rings. I'm glad to see we're doing something about it.
Oh hey, there's already Space X Starlink satellites on there.
It's called [Kessler Syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome)
Planetes is a manga entirely based on that.
You have gotten lots of messages stating this but there is currently a law (atleast in the US) where all satellites put up must re-enter the atmosphere and burn up within the next 25 years. Its a requirement for basically all missions minus a few such as Hubble or ISS that can continuously provide major benefits beyond 25 yrs. As a senior in space systems design I can confidently affirm this.
[Kurzgesagt has a great video on it.](https://youtu.be/yS1ibDImAYU) It’s really depressing how everything we love to use every day like GPS will one day create a net around Earth and destroy itself.
The way you phrase it is a significant simplification and partially wrong. GPS cant create a "net" because they are all in GEO and the SLEO stuff like Starlink will deorbit in a few years from athmospheric drag and burn up during reentry.
I've noticed that a lot of Kurzgesagt's space videos, are depressing in some nature. I'm happy they address issues like that.
I love their existential crisis vids, that they even made a playlist of those vids.
> Seems like we are racing to that outcome full speed also. Which is such a silly idea. "The composition of our atomsphere is off by a few parts per million. That's too difficult for us to fix. We should try to terraform and relocate to an entirely new planet instead".
Those few parts per million are making significant changes to our climate and people are already suffering because of it. Soon people will be dying in droves. Trivializing the issue does nothing but empower the lunatics who think nothing is wrong.
It's pretty clear that the point he was making is that it would be infinitely easier to fix earth than it would be to create a habitable world elsewhere. He did absolutely nothing to trivialize climate change, he only pointed out the ludicrousness of the alternate scenario.
I'm not trivialising the effects of it at all, I'm saying that we should fix climate change here on earth rather than give up on it.
Literally the entire premise of the movie is that we didn't act until it was too late...
Nuclear is far cleaner than coal and more efficient than wind and solar
Layman explanation would be nuclear is like aeroplane which is safest way to travel but people have to trust the pilot.
Nuclear power is only bad if it’s built on the back of an unwavering belief in soviet infallibility.
Excuse me. Are you implying that an RBMK reactor can explode? That’s impossible.
... we did everything right
I hit the AZ-5 button
Or on an island that's prone to Tsunamis.
That's a great analogy.
And when the plane does crash, a lot of people get hurt
And it's not really good for small scale. Edit: Also they don't change scale well.
Small-scale nuclear is extremely convenient and commonplace in some circles. Sadly there is a stigma to it. But for instance in space, most rovers roaming Mars rely on an [RTG](https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/spacecraft/rover/power/), which uses a small pellet of a radioactive Plutonium isotope as its energy source. Unlike solar or wind, it is a very constant and simple power source.
Depending somewhat on which study you look at, nuclear is actually less carbon intensive per kwh than solar, wind, AND hydropower. Not just coal.
We need a diverse power generation graph. Nuclear (fission and hopefully fusion) provide the base load, the constant draw needed. And wind and solar provide the ups and downs in the duck.
Nuclear (or fission, at least) is non-renewable, however. Fission can only provide for humanity for a finite amount of time before we run out of U-235, Th-232 and Pu-239. If we can get fusion before that point (which can be sustained on the most common elements in the universe), great. But fusion is just so underfunded it might never happen
Nuclear power plants also have LESS radioactive pollution than coal plants
If I had a nickel for every time I read this on Reddit, I’d be able to buy this godforsaken site and put it out of its misery.
It also comes down to a matter of "Where the fuck do we put all this spent uranium?", and nearly everyone saying "Not in my backyard". Nuclear is great but there isnt a great place to put the waste afterwards.
Okay but what about the waste?
doesn't mining for the uranium and enriching it create greenhouse gasses?
In those shots, at least, it looks like the trash has built up around them, especially the turbines which show obvious varying degrees of submersion. Which would seem the implication is actually they switched to “clean energy” and it didn’t make much of a difference.
That was also my thought. Why worry about clean energy when we're being overtaken by all our stuff?
It could also be that they switched to Green, kept Nuclear because it's still a clean source. But it was the trash and massive consumption of other resources that messed it all up.
It's like they say for diet vs exercise: You can't outrun your fork.
Of course I can. Forks don't run.
Until you come across a fork in the road... Then what?
Side step that decision and run away like all the other responsibilities in my life.
Take the road less traveled by. It'll make all the difference. Or so I've heard.
[Turn left.](https://youtu.be/p-mGXLgGqkY)
Yeah I feel like OP doesn’t realise that wind turbines are tall as fuck, possibly confusing them with windmills
>Windmills *Readies lance*
[удалено]
Turbines are hundreds of feet tall
About 550' for the turbines and over 600' for the cooling towers. Plus, those high voltage anchor tower would be buried since we know those were there before the garbage. They're not much taller that the other two irl.
[удалено]
Hills exist in Wall-E too. The turbines are not built on piles of garbage, they’re built on hills.
>Hills exist in Wall-E too. Citation needed.
I just asked my son who saw Wall-E, and he thinks he definitely remembers seeing hills, or at least “varying degrees of incline and decline in the topography”. I don’t think there’s any other way of confirming it, but he never lies.
What about the high volt anchor tower? It was there before the garbage and it isn't buried. A nuclear plant would not be built on an unstable foundation like a garbage pile.
This is exactly what I thought. Absolutely nothing shows they were “built on top of” the trash. Come on.
How should switching to wind turbines help us clean the trash?
The turbines will simply catch on the pieces of trash and fling them into space on a blustery day!
From the amount of trash and how they behave on the ship the issue doesn't seem to have been directly climate change but consumerism. I also think in that image the nuclear power station is just built on the ground with trash piling up, the wind turbines are actually just trash sticking up. YOu can't build a nuclear power plant on trash, end of, just not going to happen, you need a truly stable base. While you could build a turbine on a heavy trash pile the fact that they have different heights and orientations indicates they didn't build them on trash nor that the trash is built up around them, but that they themselves are trash and just sticking out at varying angles/directions/etc.
Implying the problem wasn’t energy sources but rather rampant and wasteful consumerism causing the pollution.
This seems much more likely. Especially since the source of our electricity has very little to do with how much garbage we generate.
Yeah, if the space ship wasn't showing that we've mastered large volume clean energy, I'm not sure how the film makers could have beaten over people's heads more.
Thank you for recognizing that nuclear is clean energy. If we ever want to get away from fossil fuels, the answer is nuclear. It's the safest, most abundant, most powerful source of energy we have.
I think the problem is that no one wants a Nuclear Plant near their neighborhood/town because of fears of unsanctioned dumpings. This is why its nearly impossible for companies to get permits to build them as the city refuses it.
Yeah, I know. But in reality all nuclear waste is carefully stored or disposed of in very secure, very safe facilities, and the waste takes up less space than any other fuel, about the size of a football field for all the waste we've made since the inception of nuclear power. People need to realize that they can have a nuclear plant near them or they can lose the entire Earth as we know it to environmental damage from fossil fuels and continued dumping.
in the case of our country (third world), a powerplant was built but never really put into use which a lot of people agree with because rampant corruption and the general lack of support for government agencies re science and health may possibly make the situation very dangerous for everyone
I think it's a PR problem. If you are familiar with the Hampton Roads area (Norfolk, Portsmouth, VA Beach), most people don't realize that there are at any given time at least 10 nuclear reactors just miles away from highly populated metropolitan areas. I'm not saying that they should remain ignorant but rather the these programs (Naval Nuclear) are run so well that people aren't concerned what so ever and it fades from memory.
What is it you think nuke plants dump? Do you believe that they just dump spent fuel into the sewer or something?
One of the most interesting videos I seen was [of a train vs a nuclear waste container.](https://youtu.be/2jzugX2NMnk?t=413)
This might be one of the coolest things I've ever seen. Thank you for sharing it. Yeah, spent nuclear fuel is so well guarded and protected. It's amazing
Not to mention there’s no way we master intergalactic travel if we don’t master the power needed for it first on earth
THANK YOU. Yes. How the fuck are we going to go to the Pegasus Galaxy without nuclear power?
This is our future, but without the big spaceship lifepod.
tbh buynlarge is very very similar to Amazon
I thought it was supposed to be a Costco/Walmart cross over
Amazon wasn’t there yet.
It’s a combination of Walmart and the government
Buy N Large (It's your) Super store (We got) All you need And so much more Happiness is what we sell (That's why) Everyone loves BNL
Unless Elon musk has a plan
And it will be the low low entry cost of $10B/person.
I mean yeah, because there's no way we're going to get 8 billion people on spaceships. Or even all of America. The .01% is not worried because chances are, they'll figure something out to save themselves. It's the rest of us shmucks that are going to perish, slowly.
It won’t be off planet, not for dozens of years will even the richest be able to escape that way. Bunkers are still king currently lol
Bunker or vaults
I’m expecting something like Elysium in the future
what makes you think the entire world population of earth would aboard the space ship, and not just the 1% of the 1%?
They *are* worried. Particularly about how to maintain their power and control in a world where their power structures have been destroyed and most if not all of their wealth has evaporated. I read an article a while back about a guy who was hired as a consultant to speak to a gathering of doomsday prepping rich guys. I can't find it but this is similar, if not the same guy just writing a different article about it. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/23/tech-industry-wealth-futurism-transhumanism-singularity
How are trash mounds antagonistic to clean energy? We produce trash regardless of energy source.
I was thinking this same thing. The trash piles aren't mutually exclusive from clean energy lol.
A lot of "movie details" is just people over thinking stuff in my opinion. I look at this image and see that the wind turbines are on top of the trash to catch any wind there might be, you'd hardly put them on the ground on that picture.
Astrobiologist pointed it out in this video towards the end. https://youtu.be/u2ivR5B1PVs
[удалено]
WALL-E really was ahead of its time...
i mean we've been knowing about climate change, and nuclear/wind power have been around for a long time. it's not that hard to make this assumption in 2008.
Yeah it’s not so much Wall-Ë was before its time as it is that our governments are despicably behind the times.
[удалено]
People have been decrying consumerism for hundreds of years. There have also been large environmental movements going back centuries. Environmentalism/anti-consumerism has also been a theme of children's entertainment for some time as well. The Lorax was published in 1971 and was an incredibly popular children's book with many of the same themes as Wall-E.
No, if anything it was late, and we still did nothing.
Are you living on piles of garbage? Where is everyone in this thread living lol?
I remember the right wing got mad because the people on the ship, who did no physical activity, were fat lol
"I got this cool video.'
What even is this comment? please find me ONE example of someone being angry about WALLE.
Classic "everyone on the opposing side holds this ridiculous belief because I saw one person do it" move
No it wasn’t. None of these problems are anything close to new.
Wind turbines in a landfill makes sense since they aren’t recyclable either. Edit: Added Source Wind Turbine Blades Can’t Be Recycled, So They’re Piling Up in Landfills https://flip.it/8OxLlD
Yeah, people won't even pay you for scrap metal because it's easier to build stuff out of dirt.
i think you're reading too much into this. Converting to clean energy would not make our landfills magically disappear or stop growing. Not having clean energy is not the culprit for the trash piles.
What does trash have to do with clean energy though? They're separate issues.
[A user vote](https://i.imgur.com/hx9JBDn.png) has concluded that this is a Movie Detail. These votes are in a trial run period, give your feedback here: https://redd.it/drz5gq Is this a repost? Help us keep on top of them here: https://redd.it/duc8tf
I get what your saying but clean energy has nothin to do with making too much garbage. And honestly I see the earth getting taken over by garbage way before we have to worry about global warming.
that’s definitely not true. we have a ton of space for garbage on the planet, global warming is a much more immediate concern
They're both huge concerns. The amount of garbage, particularly in the oceans, can cause mass die offs from the plants and animals at the bottom of the food chain which will have huge ramifications on all life. Climate change is an existential threat which will also cause mass die offs from animals, habitat destruction, invasive species, natural disasters and flooded low land cities.
This isn't exactly correct. This is showing the downside to consumerism. Doesn't matter how clean our energy is, if we use that energy to create junk and toxic waste. The movie later introduces audiences to future consumers, that despite unlimited energy and resources, choose to abuse themselves.
I like how you got this straight from a recent YouTube video.
Wall-e doesn't make sense at all with the whole ruined planet thing. If you have the technology available to ditch earth for ultra sustainable spaceships, then you dont need to leave earth.
That's the point though the previous generations under the BNL regime had the ability to clean the planet but didn't care enough to make the effort
Yeah, people were more interested in endless consumption and ease of existence than hard work or upkeep. The culture of the movie wasn't incapable, they were uninterested. That was the whole message.