![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
filigranka:The waste is the problem, but we also
via https://ift.tt/2WPUBhW
filigranka:
The waste is the problem, but we also don’t know what to do with definitely not environment neutral waste from batteries, electric cars, solar plants and other new green options, so they don’t have any advantage here (and a huge disadvantage called “the resources needed to make them are so scare, there’s hardly enough fot UK needs, let alone for the whole world’s” - I think somebody counted it, recently, and to fulfil the current UK’s needs via “green” plants, we would need 20-40 years of the whole world’s yearly mining sum of some metals; 40 years of the whole world’s yearly mined resources for UK only; terribly sorry to say, but our current technology behind the green methods of obtaining energy is just even less sustainable and no less damaging than coal and oil (it just damages the places the West don’t see) - and to get this resources, we’re reling on too low-wage workers and children labour, draining peripheral countries - taking the resources from them and not leaving them much - AND destroy the environment, mining them, more drastically than nuclear plants do) and at this point the research re: what to do with them are way less advanced than the research re: what to do with the nuclear waste. And all the waste from “eco/green” models of obtaining the energy (and batteries…) is rising in a pretty horrible tempo (and where the West put them, along with other chemical waste? ah. In Eastern Europe, in Africa, in Asia, in any place which is poorer. just not to look at them; for the planet,it doesn’t really matter where they are left. did you know we had a series of about 100 fires of the illegal, usually toxic, ‘imported’ waste dumpsters in just one previous summer. people who had to breathe the polluted, smoked air it in the nearby cities and villages weren’t happy about it, even if some Scandinavian countries could, thanks to it, claim they’re on “zero waste” model now…), I’m relatively sure that nuclear waste, thanks to its efficiency, would be lower.
And nuclear plants will fulfil our needs for the few next centuries aka buy us time to think what to with the waste and where to search for another energy source -perhaps even actual, not-so-destructive-for-environment-as-the-current-version solar or wind plants - while oil and coal will end much sooner and “green” methods are just - impossible, because there’s no (enough) resources for it at all, even now; in this way, they have already “ended”.
This, or we can let go of electricity and oil aka Internet, medicine, hospitals, big cities, buying things instead of hand-making them, all industries and all advanced technologies and start to live like pre-18th/19th century; so, obviously, not living alone, not eating so much - and only local food! - no travelling further than to the nearest market for most of the people etc.. Individual freedom would go, then, too, because without all this technology is just impossible for any community to survive with such a level of individual freedom we’re accustomed to, it’d get destroyed; traditional communities are very focused on the group survival.
redpotions:
preach king 🙌🙌🙌
a-cold-boy:
Remember friends, nuclear power:
produces carbon emissions per GWh comparable to hydro and wind (and significantly less than most solar options!)
has the absolute fewest deaths per GWh of power generated (yes, including Chernobyl)
only requires a small amount of physical space - a 4 square kilometre nuclear power plant can produce as much power as 34 square kilometres of solar panels or 190 square kilometres of wind turbines
redpotions:
guys…..ur not gonna like this…….but we need nuclear energy to save the planet………hbo why did you have such a good show that makes them seem terrifying…….why……..
filigranka:
The waste is the problem, but we also don’t know what to do with definitely not environment neutral waste from batteries, electric cars, solar plants and other new green options, so they don’t have any advantage here (and a huge disadvantage called “the resources needed to make them are so scare, there’s hardly enough fot UK needs, let alone for the whole world’s” - I think somebody counted it, recently, and to fulfil the current UK’s needs via “green” plants, we would need 20-40 years of the whole world’s yearly mining sum of some metals; 40 years of the whole world’s yearly mined resources for UK only; terribly sorry to say, but our current technology behind the green methods of obtaining energy is just even less sustainable and no less damaging than coal and oil (it just damages the places the West don’t see) - and to get this resources, we’re reling on too low-wage workers and children labour, draining peripheral countries - taking the resources from them and not leaving them much - AND destroy the environment, mining them, more drastically than nuclear plants do) and at this point the research re: what to do with them are way less advanced than the research re: what to do with the nuclear waste. And all the waste from “eco/green” models of obtaining the energy (and batteries…) is rising in a pretty horrible tempo (and where the West put them, along with other chemical waste? ah. In Eastern Europe, in Africa, in Asia, in any place which is poorer. just not to look at them; for the planet,it doesn’t really matter where they are left. did you know we had a series of about 100 fires of the illegal, usually toxic, ‘imported’ waste dumpsters in just one previous summer. people who had to breathe the polluted, smoked air it in the nearby cities and villages weren’t happy about it, even if some Scandinavian countries could, thanks to it, claim they’re on “zero waste” model now…), I’m relatively sure that nuclear waste, thanks to its efficiency, would be lower.
And nuclear plants will fulfil our needs for the few next centuries aka buy us time to think what to with the waste and where to search for another energy source -perhaps even actual, not-so-destructive-for-environment-as-the-current-version solar or wind plants - while oil and coal will end much sooner and “green” methods are just - impossible, because there’s no (enough) resources for it at all, even now; in this way, they have already “ended”.
This, or we can let go of electricity and oil aka Internet, medicine, hospitals, big cities, buying things instead of hand-making them, all industries and all advanced technologies and start to live like pre-18th/19th century; so, obviously, not living alone, not eating so much - and only local food! - no travelling further than to the nearest market for most of the people etc.. Individual freedom would go, then, too, because without all this technology is just impossible for any community to survive with such a level of individual freedom we’re accustomed to, it’d get destroyed; traditional communities are very focused on the group survival.
redpotions:
preach king 🙌🙌🙌
a-cold-boy:
Remember friends, nuclear power:
produces carbon emissions per GWh comparable to hydro and wind (and significantly less than most solar options!)
has the absolute fewest deaths per GWh of power generated (yes, including Chernobyl)
only requires a small amount of physical space - a 4 square kilometre nuclear power plant can produce as much power as 34 square kilometres of solar panels or 190 square kilometres of wind turbines
redpotions:
guys…..ur not gonna like this…….but we need nuclear energy to save the planet………hbo why did you have such a good show that makes them seem terrifying…….why……..