Impressed £67.5 billion... nope... 263 billion, and rising.

[SilverHood]

until the storage problem is solved there is none. still, because there is none now doesn't mean there is non forever. I'm sure the tree-huggers will be thumbing their noses when we ever crack the problem though

Tesla solved the storage problem in Australia it seems. Not sure Lithium batteries is going to work in cold weather though.
Tesla's big battery in Australia has defied all expectations

As for shooting radioactive waste into the sun... some scientist said that was the quickest and easiest way to alert any aliens that there's intelligent life in our solar system. The radiation given off would be artificial, and someone would come investigate as soon as they were able. Might not be desirable until we are proper space faring.

Part of the issue of energy should come down to efficiency, insulation and building codes. Properly insulate all new homes, build in solar panels in the design, and then take it from there. In 20-30 years, we'll be in a decent spot. Denmark's energy usage has remained relatively flat for the last 50 years, despite an increase in electricity consuming devices, most of that is attributed to insulation of homes and strict energy efficiency requirements for devices.

 

[Wij]

The Real Reason They Hate Nuclear Is Because It Means We Don't Need Renewables

 

[Job]

Or as many skeptics call it.

A religion.
He is of course carefully skirting nuclear waste, which can be reused, but then makes an awful lot of bomb material.

 

[Wij]

Or as many skeptics call it.

A religion.
He is of course carefully skirting nuclear waste, which can be reused, but then makes an awful lot of bomb material.

Only because we still use light water reactors that were designed to do this.

 

[Gwadien]

Nuclear is the only way forward.

Green energy is not realistic in large capitalist countries.

We need to move away from destroying the planet.

So they only option is Nuclear, atleast that way if it does fuck up we can actually see the damage caused by humans, and not deny it.

 

[Ormorof]

Or as many skeptics call it.

A religion.
He is of course carefully skirting nuclear waste, which can be reused, but then makes an awful lot of bomb material.

If you follow one of links in the article it explains why the whole bomb material theory is bogus

 

[Embattle]

Bomb material has to be enriched to a much higher level than standard reactor material.

 

[Job]

Yes but, when reusing old rods it lets you make a lot of it.
America stopped teprocessing old rods because of that...for some reason i cant be arsed looking up.

 

[Wij]

Molten salt reactors don't allow any of this:

Salt Is A Pillar Of Our Nuclear Future

 

[Wij]

Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet - Quillette

 

[Scouse]

Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet - Quillette

You really like schellenberger don't you.

With the number of articles he's pumping out, you'd think he'd have made his point by now

 

[Wij]

He has. Can’t hurt to say it again.

 

[fettoken]

I think in regards to his article above, It's what I've always have been saying. Nuclear is the way to go. Radiation has been vilified. I think what it impacts is the warm water the plant releases in the sea/ground water and the area needed to store spent fuel rods. Worst case scenario, fallout doesn't really disrupt the wilflife - animals thrive in Chernobyl for example, so really, a meltdown would lead to an area being closed off to the public but letting wildlife thrive undisturbed. Win win.

Renewable energy impact on environment, as he explains, takes such a huge mass of land and the impact there is far far greater long term. As power need increase, we can't just cover more and more land - that's not sustainable.

 

[Exioce]

I think in regards to his article above, It's what I've always have been saying. Nuclear is the way to go. Radiation has been vilified. I think what it impacts is the warm water the plant releases in the sea/ground water and the area needed to store spent fuel rods. Worst case scenario, fallout doesn't really disrupt the wilflife - animals thrive in Chernobyl for example, so really, a meltdown would lead to an area being closed off to the public but letting wildlife thrive undisturbed. Win win.

Renewable energy impact on environment, as he explains, takes such a huge mass of land and the impact there is far far greater long term. As power need increase, we can't just cover more and more land - that's not sustainable.

4000 deaths from Chernobyl according to the WHO, hardly a win win.
Chernobyl: the true scale of the accident

 

[Wij]

From Wikipedia based on the updated WHO report a few years later. 31 direct casualties and 15 estimated indirect.

Nobody builds reactors anything like Chernobyl now and we don’t even need to build light water reactors.

Safest form of energy.

 

[Scouse]

Safest form of energy.

If you base your assumption on society lasting the 100,000 years required to manage the waste, then I'd be with you.

It's not likely we'll do that tho IMO.

 

[fettoken]

4000 deaths from Chernobyl according to the WHO, hardly a win win.
Chernobyl: the true scale of the accident

The case with Chernobyl April 26, 1986 when the accident occurred, Soviet Union didn't go public or admit to anything until the 28th of April when a radioactive isotopes were discovered in Sweden, resulting in Swedish diplomats pressuring Soviets to actually drop the news. So, no evacuation going on initially until the day after, in a 6 mile radius.

"The design of the reactor is unique and in that respect the accident is thus of little relevance to the rest of the nuclear industry outside the then Eastern Bloc. However, it led to major changes in safety culture and in industry cooperation, particularly between East and West before the end of the Soviet Union"

Chernobyl | Chernobyl Accident | Chernobyl Disaster - World Nuclear Association

Also, there wasn't sufficient shielding - i think they got a new 'coffin' in place a few years ago.

 

[Job]

Latest environmentalist turned nuker.

Im all for it but he is overstating the environmental impact of renewables and conveniently skimming over chernobyl and 100K years waste.


View: https://youtu.be/N-yALPEpV4w

 

[Scouse]

Latest environmentalist turned nuker.

Nothing latest about him. It's michael schellenberger - the guy Wij has been posting all his articles from for the past aeons...

 

[Job]

Ahh ok.
Well I dont really agree with his cherry picked simplistic opinions.
Though hes right about the problems with wind and solar, hes overstating it with silly references to crying tortoise movers.

 

[Wij]

Thread:


View: https://twitter.com/BillGates/status/1111364561033027585

 

[Job]

I cant believe Scouse started this thread 6 years ago..it seems like frickin yesterday.

So many lost posters in it

 

[dysfunction]

well I'm glad you resurrected this thread with that bit of enlightenment.

 

[Embattle]

How to move a mountain of radioactive soil

 

[ECA]

Latest environmentalist turned nuker.

Im all for it but he is overstating the environmental impact of renewables and conveniently skimming over chernobyl and 100K years waste.

More people have died because of renewables than nuclear.

Checkmate libtard.

 

[Scouse]

More people have died because of renewables than nuclear..

It might be true, but it's incredibly difficult to measure? For nuclear - a small increase in background radiation will have a measurable effect, but with all the noise from other sources it'd be impossible to prove causality.

Don't know how renewables kill people (be interested to know) - but I daresay you can measure the number of people renewables save through the shutting down of coal fired power stations very easily.

Lets face it - the big fight to win is the stopping of fossil fuels - because it's not just global heating we should be worried about...

 

[ECA]

Banqiao Dam - Wikipedia , official figures from the chinese government ( lol ) are 170k dead, and others estimate around 250k dead.

 

[Wij]

Banqiao Dam - Wikipedia , official figures from the chinese government ( lol ) are 170k dead, and others estimate around 250k dead.

Puts Chernobyl into perspective.

 

[Scouse]

Banqiao Dam - Wikipedia , official figures from the chinese government ( lol ) are 170k dead, and others estimate around 250k dead.

That wasn't a "renewable energy project" it was a poorly designed flood control project and of course they were going to wang turbines in.

Laying that shit at the door of "renewable energy" is disingenuous. But even if you do - and since you're talking globally - what's the saving of life if you start shutting down dirty coal and other fossil fuel energy sources?

Hint: it's a fuckton.

Renewables are part of the dirty air solution, not the problem...

 

[Gwadien]

Puts Chernobyl into perspective.

I think it also puts the population of Eastern China into perspective; imagine if the Chinese went for Nuclear instead of dams, and if they had a Chernobyl in that area, they'd have to evacuate millions.

By the way, did a bit of a google about that disaster, there's 62 dams in that region. 62!