No climate change if world embraced nuclear
A former UK Extinction Rebellion activist has rejected the idea that renewables are the only way towards emissions reduction and has hit out at “boomer” environmentalists for demonising nuclear energy.
Tyrone Clarke
Digital Reporter
Ms Lights has become a key voice in support of nuclear energy after leaving Extinction Rebellion in 2020, arguing that the group “lost their way”.
Extinction Rebellion has gained infamy across the world since its formation in 2018 with activists gluing themselves to city streets and destroying public property in the name of climate change.
“It's no good just telling people all the time that things are bad and this is a bad thing that's happening, and you should just feel bad,” Ms Lights told Sky News Australia’s Chris Kenny.
https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-ne ... rallPos=15
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,184
Location: Right over your left shoulder
There's a lot of pretty serious advantages of nuclear energy.
There's a lot of pretty serious disadvantages too.
It'd be nice to have more public discussions and see further developments in the field and with the risks that climate change represent it needs to be understood that the CBA when it comes to fossil fuels vs. nuclear is shifting. That said, the issues of disposing of wastes are still a serious and inadequately resolved issue.
_________________
"If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. The progress is healing the wound that the blow made... and they won't even admit the knife is there." Malcolm X
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う
There's a lot of pretty serious disadvantages too.
It'd be nice to have more public discussions and see further developments in the field and with the risks that climate change represent it needs to be understood that the CBA when it comes to fossil fuels vs. nuclear is shifting. That said, the issues of disposing of wastes are still a serious and inadequately resolved issue.
I find that hard to believe.
But assuming you are correct, is it a greater issue than the catastrophe of "Global Warming"?
I find that hard to believe.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,184
Location: Right over your left shoulder
There's a lot of pretty serious disadvantages too.
It'd be nice to have more public discussions and see further developments in the field and with the risks that climate change represent it needs to be understood that the CBA when it comes to fossil fuels vs. nuclear is shifting. That said, the issues of disposing of wastes are still a serious and inadequately resolved issue.
I find that hard to believe.
But assuming you are correct, is it a greater issue than the catastrophe of "Global Warming"?
I find that hard to believe.
I'm not sure if it's a greater issue, like I said, the CBA is shifting in favour of nuclear even with those inherent risks.
_________________
"If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. The progress is healing the wound that the blow made... and they won't even admit the knife is there." Malcolm X
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う
I find it strange they chose to blame 'boomer environmentalists' for the reluctance to embrace nuclear. It's not as if governments have been listening to environmentalists on any other matter for the last few decades.
Probably more to do with the relative cheapness of constructing coal and gas power stations and their comparative safety.
But yes, nuclear has to be part of the solution now, surely, as the only controllable source of clean power generation. We're out of time for much else.
A breakthrough in fusion would, of course, be the kind of last-minute miracle that you wouldn't believe in fiction.
_________________
Was that really necessary?
Nuclear proved hard to control. Waste disposal issues and the extensive damage (and death) from even relatively small accidents caused it to fall out of favor.
There really is only one best answer to our energy and climate change issues: need less, use less.
_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).
There really is only one best answer to our energy and climate change issues: need less, use less.
Very correct. And although energy generation by fission does not directly produce carbon dioxide, nearly everything else involved in making the reactor run does. Mining the uranium, it's enrichment, transportation, building the facility, waste disposal, etc.
There's a lot of pretty serious disadvantages too.
It'd be nice to have more public discussions and see further developments in the field and with the risks that climate change represent it needs to be understood that the CBA when it comes to fossil fuels vs. nuclear is shifting. That said, the issues of disposing of wastes are still a serious and inadequately resolved issue.
I find that hard to believe.
But assuming you are correct, is it a greater issue than the catastrophe of "Global Warming"?
I find that hard to believe.
I'm not sure if it's a greater issue, like I said, the CBA is shifting in favour of nuclear even with those inherent risks.
What has the Commonwealth Bank of Australia go to do with anything/k? <joke>
Please talk to the left-wing troglodytes, here in Australia.
There really is only one best answer to our energy and climate change issues: need less, use less.
Very correct. And although energy generation by fission does not directly produce carbon dioxide, nearly everything else involved in making the reactor run does. Mining the uranium, it's enrichment, transportation, building the facility, waste disposal, etc.
Thankfully, renewable energy-producing units don't. <irony>
Breeders need to stop breeding.
Simples.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
Environmental groups are ideologically opposed to nuclear energy because of the risk of environmental pollution and damage to the environment caused by incidents like 3 Mile island, Chernobyl and more recently the Fukashima accident in Japan.
In the past there's sufficient avenues for renewables to go down the path of nuclear. but now the urgency surrounding global warming and the lack of/pace of investment in renewables means if we want to get rid of coal powered stations more quickly then we may not have a choice.
It's a great pity that all the trillions invested in nuclear warheads could have been put into generating alternative power energy research.
I am a boomer environmentalist and have never been against nuclear. I had a chemistry prof. in college who reinforced my viewpoint by railing against coal vs. nuclear.
_________________
ND: 123/200, NT: 93/200, Aspie/NT results, AQ: 34
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fight Climate Change Now - Think Globally, Act locally.
My children’s generation is fully embracing the “need less, use less” mantra. Nothing else fully adds up, and they know it. Resale clothing instead of new, bikes instead of cars, etc. It’s my spoiled generation that doesn’t know how to do it, and the relentless need to grow economies. We simply can’t do it anymore; countries have to find a new formula for economic success.
_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).
For nuclear to work properly as it should, it would have to be combined with other power generation technology to get the maximum output. That is very expensive to do at this stage. We would have to basically rebuild every nuclear plant that is still functioning. The amount of red tape involved to do that is immeasurable. Not an easy fix.
Not just expensive, even if there is approval, the planning will take 5 years and then it takes between 7-10 years to build a properly functioning nuclear power plant.
Assuming there is a move to push for building replace coal with nuclear the time frame would be;
2021 - 2026 - advocacy
2026 - 2031 - planning/site approvals
2031 - 2041 - building
I'm afraid by the time there is any carbon sequestering after 2040 by the closure of coal fired power stations it will be too late.
https://www.ft.com/content/9a11b08c-4fb ... 853745bfce
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
50 year nuclear battery developed |
20 Mar 2024, 2:43 am |
Tedium, routine and change |
21 Jan 2024, 6:39 am |
Suggestion to the change of the name Wrong Planet |
11 Feb 2024, 4:56 pm |
Green Day song lyric change earns my respect |
15 Jan 2024, 10:49 pm |