Few things before I get down talked
- I am not an extremists and I believe in Tech, I mention it because getting rid of everything like cars, airplanes is for my understandings not an option for modern society. I know some people here see it different but please keep that in mind.
- I know some things I mention are highly controversial because everyone has its own opinion but I think proposed ideas are necessary trade-off.
You do not need to like it but this is what I suggest.
- Invest more money into Fusion Power.
- Remove all nuclear power plants and replace them with wind, earth thermal energy, water, and the other usual renewable suspects.
- Create more decentralized networks for energy create more batteries on bigger scale, the money we use for nuclear and power plants can be used to create batteries facilities near wind off-shore parks because wind and sun is not always blowing and shining.
- Declare coal and nuclear illegal, positive effect for climate directly because no nuclear threat + better air quality + less people die because coal has bad history regarding your health when you work there or live near around it.
- 2 humans only policy. I think 2 children are enough. Of course this is against freedom but I see this as necessary evil. However, I am against shooting someone, the punishment should more to cut funding from government in case you violate it. I am not someone who says you should get rid of the child or something, because there is still rape etc. I think life should be valued but there should be some restrictions on how you punish someone because otherwise people find excuses to bypass this rule. I am aware that this is alone is controversial and delicate topic.
- Renew the energy networks, the ones we have a not really designed to be used the way we use it and we need fundamental upgrades to handle decentralization. So we need money here to improve the situation.
- Money for research should be a much higher priority. We should fund good ideas and instead of wasting 2 trillion each year on war, weapons etc, we should use the money for good. This also can be used for medical things.
- Create at least in the cities better infrastructure for bicycles and open supermarkets 24 7. In my country supermarket often closes and running them maybe 24 7 helps to hire more people, easily ride with your bicycle into it whenever you have time, after work etc.
- Getting rid of plastics or drastically reduce it, the effect would be noticeable I think, see oceans, micro-plastics, cancer rates etc.
- Support more vegans and find better ways to make it more attractive. I tried it several times and it tastes awful, maybe I had bad recipes or wrong guidance, aka none. I think we should make people more aware of their options and directly provide guidance in the supermarket or via apps funded directly by the government so you know it is open source, no scam and everyone could help submitting new things.
- War should be declared - useless - and we should work together. Getting rid of all weapons in the world should be a long time goal. I mention it but that is just not realistic until 2050, but I personally would like to see that we evolve to such a point. Positive effects are so many, I do not think I need to mention them all.
This is no end solution and only my first abstract what I think is necessary and needs to be done. I clearly want to outline that all of this is a team effort and we need to come to an common ground and understand + act pretty fast on this if we really want to turn something bad around to gain more time.
🥺
I understand that, but why not doing a similar overestimate for uranium? I recall that "uranium runs out in 130 years" was your reply to why prioritizing stopping nuclear over fossils.
That is actually an argument for stopping fossils first.
Lifecycle greenhouse gas emission is much lower for nuclear than fossil-based energy, that accounts also facility construction and waste management.
Qualitatively, it involves some fossils, quantitatively it still pollutes way less.
In both cases, it is about earning time, why do you make it a positive thing about fossil fuels?
We agree that we should eventually get rid of both, using nuclear to earn time for the transition out of fossils is a more eco-friendly strategy than the other way around.
Mathematics are the following : are we able to provide enough renewable energy so as to give up on both nuclear and fossil energies right away? If not, the renewable surplus should be used to shut down fossil power plants. When there are none left, we can start shutting down (or stop renewing) the nuclear ones.
The talk about the years is pretty much irrelevant, I did the math with 200 years in another thread already. It does not change the underlying issue. Uranium is also harder to research than fossil fuels, since Uranium has more limits. This is just pure chemistry. Recycling for example is much much harder due to the nature of uranium.
Wind is not fossil based energy source, not sure why I need to mention it. You apparently do not see that nuclear also uses one way or another fossils too, nuclear does not replace fossil all together, also not wind, sun etc. It solves one problem but not all. No one also ever talked here about fossil based reactors or energy sources. If you want to talk about emissions, someone did the math and it does not check out.
Again wind, sun is not fossil. It gives you time to create systems and networks, which is the underlying point. We had already 50+ years for transition time, we need the change now and not in 100 yeas.
Yes math checks out, use the money to build win, off-shore etc and it will work. There are only people like you that apparently support nuclear for no reason when its easily replaceable with alternatives. Point tho is that clean energy is not wanted by the industry as they make less profits once the system is constantly running because maintenance is much cheaper over the long. The studies people here linking are sponsoired often by exactly those big energy monopolies that can effort such studies to support their crazy idea to continue to use something that runs out much much faster than 200 years because for every new nuclear power plant you build you waste more resources much faster.
No this will be too late by then. You apparently do not understand that time here is the factor. If you continue to create new power plants you waste money for something that has limited future, alias none.
I read everything and this is about emissions which is irrelevant since wind energy causes zero emissions. I already explained in depth in multiple threads now that you need combine several things across different countries, it makes no sense to use water energy in africa. That is just common sense.
It can never be a part of the solution, explained now multiple times, uranium is limited the more plants you build the faster you deplete the resource, forever I want to add here.
The context of you linked document are emissions not nuclear power plants. The word nuclear in fact only occurs twice or three times, which shows you did not read it. My context is resources not emissions. You just bring a random document forward b the energy industry that want continue to deplete resources to maximize their profits. Clean energy like fusion is much cheaper and the resources for that will not run out in next 100k years even with society growing and demanding more energy.
This figure not mentioned waste, and the depleting process that speedup when you build more power plants. You switch problems that is all. You lose.
You cannot take this chart serious because left the important parts out, creating more plants creates more waste, depletes more uranium much faster besides you still need fossil fuels for synthetic stuff anyway.
I don't know where you got the idea that you need to mention it. I never said that nuclear is preferable over renewables. I said we should keep using it as long as we do not produce enough renewable to get rid of fossil fuels.
I never said that nuclear pollutes less than renewables, I said it pollutes less than fossil fuels, hence be used in the transition from fossils to renewables.
Those two things you said are mutually exclusive :
Which one is true? Either, renewables are enough right now, so we can shut down all the fossil plants quickly enough so that we don't even need to wonder whether to build new nuclear plants. Or they are not, in which case the nuclear+renewable combination is a more eco-friendly temporary situation.
The context of their linked document is emission during a power plant lifecycle, from construction to waste disposal. So the "nuclear" line correspond to total emission related to a nuclear plant.
That it does is literally what the footnote that you cited says.
Again, that you need fossil fuel for other purposes is not an argument in favor of fossil-based energy.
No, I clearly outlined the problem, you waste money, researchers and resources. You invest now in the future, not when you deplete one source and then switch to the next.
The outcome depends on which way we go, sure as hell we lose if we continue to support nuclear. You waste more money beating the dead horse. As there is no end solution for waste, much more expensive than repairing and maintaining renewables. Simple math do not make me post an example.
No not really because you have no data to backup such claim up as renewables have a different percentage. If percentage are same we could take it serious but this is not the case. If you create more nuclear power plants you also have bigger carbon footprint, same like with renewables. Claiming x has more or y has less emissions based on data that no one can verify, check, measure or predict is unprofessional. No one here can say what will happen in 1000 years or predict possible co2 outcome, you can only guess based on past data or predict on current situation. So this is about emissions based on past experiences, experiences mainly based on nuclear and coal. The emission game is irrelevant anyway, the more nuclear you build the more you need energy and stuff to mine uranium ... the more you create and maintain renewable the higher the co2 will be... this is pointless to compare. My scenario is about once you established the entire system and only need to upgrade or maintain it. The chart does not mention this.
No it does not since no one can predict the waste, not if you build more plants in the future. It directly only says, put into consideration. What consideration, those estimates are based on coal, nuclear mainly and not in relationship to alternatives energies that also one way or another producing waste. That is no conclusion this is pure guessing. You cannot predict several parts, such as climate outcome. You can only guess based on what you think you know but there are unpredictable events which this model does not show, such as fukushima and the consequences and the emission you produce in case there is an emergency or event like this. Such events are just not possible with renewables, you just rebuild and that is it, no waste for cooling etc. This chart compares apples with oranges.
Again nuclear also depends on fossil, you need to mine the uranium etc. Things you put under the carpet. It is just pure madness to invest further into nuclear when resources already running low, wasting trillions of dollars for unpredictable storage and uncertain future how to secure it and then bring as argument ... oh yeah co2 is cool when you only show half of data because the other half is based on pure guessing.
Fusion can be used in next 100k+ years, hands down and this is the only way other ways only gain little time and only benefit the energy corpos.
That would be true if it was possible to work with only renewable, which it is not yet. Again, Germany raised its gas importations because its renewables were not enough...
Building a new nuclear plant whose life will end before we run out of fuel is not a waste of money. It's like saying milking a cow is a waste of money when everyone will be vegan in 50 years (I'm not stating a fact about veganism, just highlighting the logic)
Right, you make predictions on the future based on what you know about the past and present, that's how science works.
Of course, as soon as fusion is available, we should use that instead of fission. Who ever said the contrary?
Again, did any of us say fission was the long term solution to global warming? No. It is about gaining time because renewables don't grow quickly enough to supplement both fossils and nuclear.
Germany does not represent entire world, we would not have the problem if we invested fast enough into renewables, instead we continue to support nuclear, Uk also build new ones, announced today. You can go green without any problem, it depends on infrastructure, and this is germanys major problem. My energy provider btw is 100 percent green. So it is possible.
It is because you still need to continue to invest money into it to maintain the waste. Something no new chart mention except - put into consideration. Who can put this into account, absolute no one, it is pure guessing, we talking here about thousands of years.
Sure but this can not be used as proof to support nuclear, especially not in the big picture when resources running 10 times faster out once you build 10 times more plants, unbeatable logic, simple but true.
No, but you speedup the research and development if you pump in more money. The money that is wasted for nuclear as some countries continue to build new plants.
It is about resource management + time + long term solutions not solutions for next 100 years. We wasted 50+ years on nuclear and see what miserable it bough us. Dead people, uranium water, cancer etc. I am not even creative here.
Wind is blowing today, I make money today sit here and laugh about the f#ed up logic from nuclear supporters.
Thanks, captain Hindsight. But once you see you have not yet invested enough in renewable, you should not ditch nuclear that quickly in favor of more coal.
When did I say anything in favor of raising the number of nuclear plants? Once again again, I talk about keeping it steady until we get rid of fuel-based energy production.
Production and research are two different things. We need to research for cleaner energy, but we still need to produce energy in the meantime.
We need both long term solutions and transition planning. I don't know why you keep mentioning that nuclear is not the long term solution, as I never said it was
No one mentioned coal here, did I nope. I mentioned multiple times, wind , water etc. Glad you ignored everything.
The demand is not stead it goes up and you need to compensate. We already produce lots of renewable energy. Only US is pro Nuclear because Billy G and their marketing videos that you can drink uranium. Downplaying every disaster on youtube. Grotesque.
I already covered research in the opener. Your logic is nonsense as you can use the money you waste for nuclear graveyard that you could put into research and fusion as well as upgrading the old energy network. I already said that, thanks for ignoring to make no point.
We had 50+ years as transition already and we did not enough, no we need to act now, latest study proves me right. NOW is what counts, not in 100 years. People here claim nuclear is an answer, read the comments. Just above, such as ... oh you support climate disasters because you do not like nuclear.
I'm talking about Germany. Germany did not invest enough in the past in renewables, is ditching nuclear too quickly and now imports more fossils. Thank you for not reading.
Also, yes, from the start it's been about fossils. It's been about me saying that fossils should be ditched in priority over nuclear, that nuclear be used in transition.
At some point earlier you were arguing the fossils may not run out as fast as we think. So yes, you were defending going on with fossil based energy being at least equally as good as nuclear. At some point you tried to make it seem like I was in favor of nuclear as the long term solution, but I never said anything like.
In the time that you wait for the research results, you still need to produce energy. Nuclear is better than fossils in that regards, especially consider the climatic emergency.
So what we just stop using electricity until we can have enough renewable production? But no, you said yourself we should go on with tech and even planes, so not that either.
No one here talked about germany and coal. No one. Germany invested more than france or US for renewables. Coal is not renewable. Nice try tho.
What you smoke man, nuclear already runs for 50+ years now as transition and it did not helped, you think creating more nuclear energies is the solution while ignoring nasty downsides, how many people you think dies for mining the uranium. No mentioning in any statistics ....
In the time you create more nuclear plants you can create easy peasy wind and off-shore systems. Planning nuclear power plant and when it goes online is typically according to Wikipoopia a process that takes 10-17 years. In that time you can create thousands of wind parks. Your logic is fundamentally broken, as I clearly outlined that the waste problem cannot be solved, you trade one problem for another, entirely bed on time, which is dangerous, possible also risk human life because the next tsunami will come in the meantime.
We just need to stop building more power plants and create wind, water etc systems. Its that simple. Tech allows you to combine multiple solutions.
Germany invested a lot into renewables, and is completely ditching nuclear. Except that it ditches nuclear too fast with respect to the renewable sources it managed to build, hence importing more fossil than before.
That was in my first comment, you agreed with that, we mentioned it again later, and now suddently nobody ever talked about that?
Even if they didn't need more fossils, what I'm complaining about is that they still need as many fossils. They focus on ditching nuclear when the climate emergency is to first ditch fossils. Yes, I know they are some fossils involved in nuclear also, but it still pollutes way less than fossil based energy. And pollution is by far the most urgent problem.
Yes, there remains the problem of dealing with the waste. Yes going on with nuclear is only buying time. Time is the thing that we lack of in the global warming problem. So, for the thousandth time, yes it is more urgent to get rid of fossil-based energy.
We can get rid of both? Great, let's do it. But visibly we cannot ditch both of them that fast, as our fossil-based energy use is still growing, despite all the investment in renewables.
Discussion is over since I now repeat myself again and again. I have no interest in talking about semantics, it is irrelevant if its 20, 30 or 100 years the outcome will be the same, faster .. slower ... irrelevant in the big context.
cc @j_ming as there's replies to your post also
Discussion is pretty much over, there is nothing to add here.
You say nuclear is the solution it is not and math proves me right. You trade one problem for another, which is why nuclear is never an option. If you create 10 times more plants you deplete resources 10 times faster, nothing to argue here.
The chart is also nonsense as the entire report is written by energy industry who like to support their wrong arguments to avoid using their money to upgrade networks for actual solutions.
I think I said all there is to say rest is now talk about semantics which is waste of my pressures lifetime.