Renewable energy still isn't quite there yet in terms of technology
Our best bet is to replace most green-gas-polluting energy generation with nuclear energy
While it's not a long-term solution on its own, it's something that's completely doable and it'll provide us with the time we need to improve on renewable energy
Of course, global warming isn't the only cause for these extinctions, there are many forms of pollution that we can improve on, but I just specifically don't understand why we're not moving to nuclear energy on a global level. France has already done it, hasn't it?
because people are stupid and don't understand what it is and they only point at chernobyl when they need a dumb 'argument' for why they don't want nuclear energy
And some of those people have sadly been leading the environmentalist movement from the very beginning. Their influence is the reason every major contender in the 2020 Democratic primary other that Buttigieg is anti-nuclear. They've successfully shout their own damn agenda in the foot thanks to their willful ignorance regarding nuclear.
renewable energy is close enough that we could shut down all of our coal plants if we wanted to, its luddites that instinctively oppose wind and solar and don't believe there's anything wrong with climate or nature that are the real problem.
Hogwash. Roughly 53% of my country's (Sweden) power generation comes from renewable sources like water, wind & solar. A rough 40% of the remaining power comes from nuclear, and very, very little comes from fossil fuels.
There are still many ways renewable energy impact the environment, just not in global warming. These issues still need to be mitigated and improved upon.
https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/renewable-energy/environmental-impacts
Even then, production may be high, but energy sources like water, solar and wind have peaks and lows. If we want high reliability, we still need to improve in battery technology to make proper use of power produced beyond consumption during peaks.
This is what Elon Musk helped Australia with and why it was so important.
And you basically proved my point - Sweden makes up for what it lacks in renewable sources with nuclear energy. You wouldn't want that 40% to be fossil fuels.
The website is a hit or miss. For the Wind power it considers as cons the "sound and visual impact" ( debunked again and again, only idiots/anti-wind power lobbies supports this ) and the "potential wildfire disturbance" ( yet it says the impact is minimal both on ground and sea versions ), and for the solar "degradation of the soil" ( yet the desired locations for these plants are almost always on places with low impact like deserts, or next to highways ), among other things that compared with other energy sources is just equal or ridiculous ( build & manufacture impact ). The real difficulties, which is storing and distributing the energy, aren't touched.
About Nuclear power it talks about the current problems of what to do with Nuclear waste as actual storage places are having less space each tine ( mysteriously enough it doesn't talk about the possibility of breeder reactors, which would "recycle" practically all the nuclear fuel used ), or the impacts that it has ( high cost and long building time, Uranium extraction, returning heated water to the source rather than keep and evaporate it, etc ).
I understand that the website exists to promote nuclear power, but this way of mishandling information does harm to them on the long run.
Replace everything with renewables and nuclear (till renewable can 100% effectively replace nuclear too)
Its the only fucking way we are going to save the planet.
And for those of who don't give a fuck about the planet, which you 99.99999999% sure you live on, save Humanity, which I'm 99.99999998% sure you are.
Who gives a shit what the mix is between renewables and nuclear? Just do both as best we can, in whatever mix is possible to quickly achieve. There's quite a large variety of technologies to achieve the goal, and a mix of those is important but I don't think any one specific technology is required to do it. It seems silly to get tied to a specific technology.
Personally I'd support whoever has a viable plan to get the transition underway as quickly as possible. Be it 100% nuclear, 0% nuclear, 50/50 or whatever.
Another important factor is taking down the companies responsible for most of the emissions:
Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, stud..
Uhhh actually humans are a part of nature and humans are in the BEST shape they have ever been in so check mate global warmalists.
The problem with NPPs is that they cost a lot up front. The advantage is that they last a long time (ours are built with a 40 years lifetime in mind, they're being vetted for extension to up to 60 years) and have practically no running costs, which is why we have rather cheap electricity.
The high initial cost means that the government in power needs to be playing the long game, rather than seek short-term reelection. I assume that's why most politicians have cold feet on the matter. There's also the whole anti-nuclear movement, of course.
renewables don't stop throw-away society, the growth of cities and humanity, or the rape and pillage of the natural world.
nuclear disaster is only really a disaster for humans. forcing people out of large tracts of land they once conquered allows nature to retake its hold. flora and fauna bloom in population once people are gone. the chernobyl exclusion zone is essentially the largest wildlife sanctuary in europe.
The fuck? The luddites have zero to do with this; its the fossil fuel industry and NIMBYs.
saveourskylineohio – GET THE FACTS about Industrial Wind Energy ..
these people have virtually no industry and the utility company (the one that didn't go bankrupt on 100% coal generation) built some massive turbines one county below them and they are flipping out because of it, even though they aren't even near anyone's houses. you have to drive like a few miles from the state route on a service road to get to them and these are the base trump plays to
I don't see the luddite part; FYI the idea that luddites were anti-technology was a propaganda myth put forward by the English Empire.
Luddites were for the democratization of technology; essentially the opposite of these baffoons.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
