If they really want to end fossile fuels then I hope they're ready to embrace nuclear fission.
Nuclear energy is far from required to get rid of fossil fuels, but it sure does help.
Nuclear is definitely the way to go - Thorium needs more research - not only is it less polluting than uranium (its waste having a much, much lower period where it is harmful) but it can't be used to make weapons-grade Plutonium, it's far more plentiful than its more commonly-used counterpart, and it has greater energy potential.
Nuclear is very good at handling huge loads for a prolonged period of time, while most renewables not not quite strong enough to sustain the power grid by themselves, and the cost to do so would be even higher than nuclear which is already higher than fossil fuels.
if you want a non-nuclear future then we're going to have to dramatically reduce the amount of electricity we use and accept low to no power nights
The one of the many reasons GND was such a piece of shit is because it completely snubbed nuclear looking to even possibly shut down all current US nuclear plants and stopping any future projects. People who push for this often don't understand that solar and wind rely on the weather which is never cooperative and has it's low and high output times of the year, often times having remaining demand met by near by nuclear plants.
In reality heavily investing in the development and construction of Gen IV and Gen V reactors is the only way we will be able truly leave fossil fuels behind. It's the only viable route we have to eventually completely switch over to 'clean' (including wind, tidal and solar) energy. But there's so much unwarranted stigma about it that the uninformed populace and politicians are to scared to touch it most of the time.
The thing with the GND and nuclear is more due to the misunderstanding of how Nuclear power works. Though, at this rate. It'd probably be much easier to convince the people who wrote the GND and other similar stuff to be convinced that Thorium-nuclear reactors or other safer forms of Nuclear power are sustainable and viable for more cleaner energy. Compared to the anti-truth Trump administration and the aggressively anti-intellectual movement that's consuming the GOP.
I'm by no means anti-nuclear but they way people gloss over the waste management problems related to it is discouraging to the overall conversation about our energy future.
I mean there are literally warning markers at waste disposal sites in 6 U.N. languages that postulate a future so distant they will no longer be clearly understood as they would be currently written. Think about that. It may be the best thing we have right now, but it is not without very important considerations:
This place is a message... and part of a system of messages ...pay attention to it!
Sending this message was important to us. We considered ourselves to be a powerful culture.
This place is not a place of honor... no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here... nothing valued is here.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us. This message is a warning about danger.
The danger is in a particular location... it increases towards a center... the center of danger is here... of a particular size and shape, and below us.
The danger is still present, in your time, as it was in ours.
The danger is to the body, and it can kill.
The form of the danger is an emanation of energy.
The danger is unleashed only if you substantially disturb this place physically. This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
Let me refer to the British energy policy of having a mixed bag of non renewables and clean technology to balance out energy loads during high usage. Evanually phasing in complete renewables but also having in energy backups that deal with the energy peaks and troughs throughout the week.
Thing is, most of the world is managing their nuclear waste just fine, america is kind of in a deadlock and doesn't have a waste storage in place so all of the spent material is just sitting on site.
As for the future in energy production, you have two choices, coal/oil/gas or Nuclear. Some countries with lucky geography can use hydro dams, but those can be equally as destructive on a local level, or in some cases geothermal. Renewables on their own can not provide the baseload energy needs required, unless you plan on building massive batteries with diminishing returns that will require immense resources to replace every 5 to 10 years.
Water pump storage only works when you have excess energy, and will lose a lot of power due to poor efficiency.
Pretty much. There is such a stigma with handling and storing nuclear waste nobody wants to do anything about it. Nobody in Washington wants open new waste storage sites or expand existing ones because It's so unpopular regardless of how safe it actually is. Manufacturing batteries also has a huge environmental impact that most people don't think about, additionally battery waste and disposal is a huge issue for us that's only going to get worse as our need for batteries grows.
I'd take our descendance having to stay away from a select few areas over civilisational collapse. When faced between a small chance of things fucking up (nuclear waste mismanagement) and the certainty of even worse consequences (a global extinction event as a result of climate change), I'll pick the former.
Yeah, fossil fuel is the worst possible choice no matter how you look at it. Germany getting rid of their nuclear power in a kneejerk reaction to fukushima is one of the dumbest things I have ever witnessed.
And they replaced it with Brown Coal, a the dirtiest and least efficient type. The geniuses in charge decided that the Brown Coal was favorable to Nuclear Power, and they still pretend to give a shit about the environment.
Went to the local meetup in my area.
Expect a lot of news on Monday
Blocked bridge in Lausanne
Thousands join Extinction Rebellion protests across London | Env..
Renewables in winter is a major, major issue for our generation industry. There is almost no solar, due to permanent overcast, and it's not necessarily always windy. The tides are the most guaranteed source of energy and our Government has the opportunity to power the entire country with tidal and storage, given a very very large investment. Proposals for a barrage of the Severn and of Swansea bay have come and gone as the Government decided they weren't a worthy investment, along with almost every nuclear power station we've tried to build recently. The problem with Britain is that the ability to clean up our act exists, but the will to take a big leap and cause some discomfort financially and environmentally in the short term (talking in terms of the century or so where climate change is going to take its effect) is not there. It blows my mind that residents of my nearby town of Penarth were up in arms, totally dead set against part of the town becoming a building site for one root of a megastructure whose energy generation would have taken Wales off the carbon map. Our own version of the Hoover Dam. People are so frustratingly short sighted.
More power to XR. If the only way to break the older generations out of their status quo lifestyles is to disrupt and fuck those lifestyles up, then do it. I wish I had the guts. And if I was sat in a traffic jam behind their roadblock, I wouldn't even be mad at them. I'd be mad at those who made them feel it was necessary.
People on here tends to forget that modern solar panels are able to produce energy on cloudy days ( ofc, less than in a sunny day but is not zero ) and that new prototypes for wind turbines have been tested for a while both for small, low winds and normal, strong wind speed.
The real issues that renewable energy faces are energy storage ( which Thermal energy storage through molten salt is the most researched and invested one ) for season peaking and updating energy grids ( due most of them in countries not allowing a redistribution of power from local buildings ) which has to be done anyway ( either for improving their performance and / or protect them from EMP, remember that a solar storm would wreck us very bad ).
I'm all for investing on generation IV nuclear reactors but people should stop bashing on solar and wind like if it were the 70s ( solar panel costs keeps going down ).
I believe they will be in the way tomorrow in Edinburgh so I will have to plan around them, they'd be in the way of at least one of my buses.
Nice of you to tell me where before you do it, although I'm still going to call you arseholes for getting in the way however.
Renewables are nowhere near efficient enough to take on the burden of totally replacing fossil fuels, particularly not in a country as densely populated as the UK. They're okay as a supplement but that's about it.
This is why governments won't want to invest in it, however.
It's not less polluting than Uranium, in fact Thorium is utilised by turning it into Uranium 233. Thorium will still produce radioactive products so that part doesn't change at all.
The problem with renewables isn't the electricity generation itself, wind releases less than nuclear energy, solar is worse but it's not bad. The problem with renewables is storage, producing lithium ion batteries is very expensive and releases carbon dioxide, but storage technology is improving rapidly.
It would be stupid to try getting rid of nuclear energy now. Nuclear isn't perfect, but it's far better in every way than coal, and currently more viable than renewables. Renenwables and storage have already reached the point where you could completely rely on them, but it would be a bad idea.
Seems like ER is really rattling them. It's certainly been very visible in London. As someone who lives there but hasn't actually been into the centre this week or near any of the protest sites, almost every day I've at least seen someone with an ER flag or a sticker somewhere.
the catch is CHERNOBYL FUKUSHIMA GRRR
which kind of pisses me off
Nuclear energy is scary I guess, because it can do a truckload of damage if it fucks up, but that's IF it fucks up.
We got what, 3 major incidents, maybe not even 10 counting with much smaller scares, among how many successful uses of nuclear energy?
You know how you minimize damage? Boric acid and water injection into the core, and a design that allows you to flood the entire thing. Boric acid absorbs neutrons and water is an excellent radiation shield.
To be fair they did get into the house of commons, but this still seems too heavy handed.
nuclear technology is promising for the future but
The Tories have been really bad at tackling climate change, especially since the end of the coalition. I'm not sure I agree with the methods being used here but it certainly has got a lot of people talking about it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.