They are waiting for the US to get into the market, then they'll accept it
You'll see
Just like the weed, now that the US is leading the market, they are pushing for a global legalization
Rigged society, civilization for the bad people!
All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected
381–390 of 437 posts
Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected
#382Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you've somehow missed the vital part: our lifestyle is not sustainable. We shouldn't aim to sustain something that simply cannot continue.
Okay, you first. I'd much rather find a way to maintain people's lifestyles, reduce emissions (and make it even better in the process).
It's not "you first". There are perfectly good replacements available, we just need governments to invest heavily on replacing them instead of using that money to maintain the status quo.
Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected
#383Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it is Prometheus' fire, we are not ready to handle that fire yet. When one of the core concerns of using a technology is to prevent it being used to create weapons capable of obliterating entire cities, we are not as a species mature enough to use it on a wider scale. This is only one example of why we are not ready yet. Nuclear (fission) technology is not the problem, we are the problem. Looking at the recent his…
The issue that concerns me about nuclear power isn't so much weapons (they tend to be well-guarded, and it's hard to make weapons from reactor fuel), but decomissioning. The UK was one of the first countries to build nuclear reactors; no UK reactor has ever been fully decomissioned, and from what I can see we haven't even got a strategy - WP says they're still working out whether decomissioning should occur over a 20…
Am I missing something? Why is decommissioning nuclear power plants the problem here? There are plenty of nuclear power plants that has been decommissioned. So this is nothing new.
Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected
#384The most pragmatic solution is making high pollutant energy costly. Some small set of polluters are responsible for the majority of the emissions. (1) This is only possible because of being able to chalk the damage up to externalities. We need to set up systems to adding cost to emissions. A substantial PR rebrand modern Nuclear energy (maybe called something else) would be needed if you wanted to get traction on tha…
> Long gone are days where people / governments make decisions based on any objective facts and pragmatic cost/ benefit/ risk analysis.
There are governments choosing to build nuclear right now, despite its general unpopularity in many circles so I don't know that such days are "long gone".
And how could anyone sell another nuclear plant to France when the Flamanville 3rd reactor is 5X++ over budget and 8 years behind schedule? It is hard to win any rational cost/benefit/risk analysis when you have to fight a well-deserved reputation of being absurdly expensive and very high risk!
Rebranding might help, but there are some places where these bridges are simply burnt and the industry won't be getting back in, which is unfortunate but also kind of deserved in a way.
Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected
#385Earlier quoted context omitted.
Earth gets hit by 170 000 TW of sunshine every hour. That's more than the yearly global consumption of energy. If we could capture only 1% of that, we'd have 80 times more than we need, from just the sunshine reaching earth. This makes the photovoltaic cell and related technologies more interesting than nuclear to me. A way more abundant energy source with none of the downsides of nuclear is clearly within our reach.…
"If we could capture only 1% of that, we'd have 80 times more than we need" Should people abandon Norway, Greenland and Iceland? Hypotheticals which ignore all trade-offs and drawbacks are not very usefull.
I agree about hypotheticals, and sadly I find that is usually the problem with this topic.
Some people "know" why some thing will definitely work because they ignore problems, and others "know" why something will not work because they don't realize the problems are solvable or even non-existent.
Such as in your example - the three countries you mention are already (at least combined) self-sufficient in renewable energy. (Norway is a net exporter and covers the diesel generators some of the 50 000 people living in Greenland use).
Not only that, but solar is totally feasible in all those countries. The notion that solar can't be used far north or far south is just not true. They even use solar power in Antarctica:
Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected
#386Earlier quoted context omitted.
While it is bla bla it is necessary. How else would you establish political pressure in a democracy? Many green transition tech would be feasible if co2 taxes were established, even within the eu.
> How else would you establish political pressure in a democracy? Non-violent civil disobedience?
Thats.. what not going to school & protest are..?
Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected
#387Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue that concerns me about nuclear power isn't so much weapons (they tend to be well-guarded, and it's hard to make weapons from reactor fuel), but decomissioning. The UK was one of the first countries to build nuclear reactors; no UK reactor has ever been fully decomissioned, and from what I can see we haven't even got a strategy - WP says they're still working out whether decomissioning should occur over a 20…
Am I missing something? Why is decommissioning nuclear power plants the problem here? There are plenty of nuclear power plants that has been decommissioned. So this is nothing new.
In the UK, several nukes have been taken out of service; none has been "decommissioned", in the sense that the site can be re-used, people can live and work there. The first nuclear power plant in the UK was built in 1956, and the current plan is that decommissioning will be completed by 2104; I will be long gone. Until then, the site will be closed to the public.
Perhaps you know of nuclear power plants elsewhere that have been fully decommissioned. I don't, but there is an infinite number of things I don't know, and I would love to be surprised.
Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected
#388Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nuke plants make great targets to bomb.
They're not "nuke plants". "nuke" is a word that means "nuclear weapons". Secondly, they're heavily surrounded by highly reinforced concrete with extremely high levels of security. The furthest any activist with a bomb belt could get is jumping a fence and getting immediately caught. Even if they could drive a truck through the front gate and set off a car bomb, they're not getting through the extremely thick concret…
Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected
#389This is crazy. We can not afford to not be pragmatical and practical anymore.
Re: All Applications for Nuclear Energy at COP26 Rejected
#390Earlier quoted context omitted.
Earth gets hit by 170 000 TW of sunshine every hour. That's more than the yearly global consumption of energy. If we could capture only 1% of that, we'd have 80 times more than we need, from just the sunshine reaching earth. This makes the photovoltaic cell and related technologies more interesting than nuclear to me. A way more abundant energy source with none of the downsides of nuclear is clearly within our reach.…
Solar isn't without its flaws. The solar deployed today will be EOL 25-30 years from now. That's 6M metric tons of waste yearly estimated by 2050 and almost 80m metric tons total [1]. Coupled with the increased demand for materials in PVs and supporting battery infrastructure, more mining and mines have real environmental and social consequences. That's a lot of lead and other toxic elements that if not properly disp…
A valid point for sure, this is indeed a problem. Luckily it seems like it can be solved and that people are trying to do it. The first european solar panel recycling plant opened just 2 years ago:
https://www.livingcircular.veolia.com/en/industry/first-recy...
I think the reason why it hasn't been done earlier is that the volume was not there to make it a good business. 20 years from now it surely will be. Just like the business of recycling batteries.