Last edited Mon May 20, 2024, 02:19 PM - Edit history (1)
The biggest issue we face is there are too many people on this planet to sustain the resources and deal with the aftermath of our consumption/waste. I work in the waste industry And of all the sustainability issues, Waste is always cast aside as a “meh”. Yet, it is about inputs and outputs. Waste is an output of an input. Waste is also a sign of inefficiency because nature does not waste.
And I appreciate your measured and thoughtful response and can respect your opinion on your journey, coming to your conclusion, However, You did not address the waste issue either. And the fact that the nuclear industry needs a massive protection subsidy on a liability in case there’s an incident is a huge flag. And no one discusses that either.
I am never going to advocate for fossil fuels, and there are all kinds of new alternative energy innovations being developed as we speak. And yes, we have to be realistic about transitions. We are dealing with the new problems of spent battery, wind turbines, and retired solar panels. But there’s ALSO Product Stewardship legislation in California and elsewhere to make the industries have to be responsible for “their end of life” products— the goal and intention is for them to figure out how to design waste out of the equation.
But the nuclear industry has a serious decades long waste, problem, and an environmental and humanity risk problem as well. Just like with fossil fuel extraction and transportation, it’s not a question of IF a spill or other incident happens, it’s WHEN. Well, what does a Fukushima style risk look like when you have every country using nuclear reactors?
There’s still a lot of countries that have not adopted nuclear so what does the world deal with if they all do? The sheer amount of carbon intensity to build these new plants, including the amount of silica sand in the cement is a problem. No one is discussing this either. (The world is running out of silica sand. It’s such a serious problem. It’s now a black market commodity.) The aggregate for 8 billion needs can result in “overshoot” and that is a real risk. I have read uranium is going to be in limited supply in the NEAR future and that is not factored in true scale. Has that been really addressed?
And to site a nuclear plant is difficult. I dont think the timeline will have enough come online to reduce the damage of carbon as promised.
Why do these power-plants have to be near water resources or use so much water?(I know why). Is that a safe thing especially as drought and development lowers water levels. RISK!!! In Ukraine, the nuclear plants are at real risk from an attack. In France, half of their plants went offline due to corrosion and cracks not that long ago.
As environmentalists, we have to adhere to the Precautionary Principle—making sure the “cure” isn’t worse than the diagnosis. CFL bulbs were touted as “energy efficient” and it turns out laced with freaking mercury. These well, intention advocates didn’t think it through what happens when the bulbs break in someone’s home or how do you deal with the spent bulbs responsibly? Again, In the drive to solve ecological problems if we don’t look at the end of life steps and outcomes, we are just—trading problems, and delaying inevitable harm.
The solution is a much more serious focus on conserving resources and designing waste out of all of our products and technology we use. It would also be smart to pair this with massively reducing birthrates globally to stem this tide, but try having that conversation with most! Less people, less strain on our ecological systems.
= new reply since forum marked as read