The GND is essentially complete horseshit on all levels. A terrible cacophony of bad ideas all mixed together.
But yes I agree - change would be good and also nuclear power is without doubt the cleanest energy we have that doesn’t also depend on weather. The hippies hate it though. I think failures like solyndra should be minimized but I view investment like grant money (also federal) - I’d rather have an incentive system than a negative control system.
I personally believe that good stewardship of what we have is a non-partisan issue. I really like clean air and not breathing the grey dirt China calls “air”. And, you know, having Yosemite and wilderness wonders to show future kids. Unfortunately this topic is so laden with baggage it’s almost impossible to even approach rationally at the policy level. The progressives have basically taken leave of their senses.
Problem with nuclear is what to do with the waste. Crazy toxic, and will outlive our species. There is no remotely good answer to that question at this point. If we can figure out a way to neutralize the waste, it would be world changing.
I have never seen a good rebuttal to the idea of burying the waste in lead (or better) canisters below death valley. Nothing lives there. It’s mostly a giant dry salt bed. Is there still risk? yes, but there is risk fossil fuels as well.
Fair, verified by quick google search, but what’s more damaging? The possibility of radiation leak in a largely unpopulated area or a complete lack of reliable energy (if you go to 100% renewable energy, it’s not reliable).
The problem is the lifespan of the toxicity. We can store it safely for 100 years. But no way of doing so over 100,000. Land shifts substantially over time, even in non seismic zones. And the amount of nuclear waste produced is shockingly large. Death valley now sucks. But what will it look like in 2000, 10000, 50000 years with natural and human caused climate change? Good chance that becomes anbinlsnd sea or lake… Which is now highly toxic. Do we want to just make that a toxic wastedump and hope for the best in the future?
I see where your coming from and to an extent agree with your logic. Do we bank on someone figuring something out in the future to deal with it and deal with the more immediate problem of too many greenhouse gasses? If greenhouse gasses (as predicted) will dramatically change the landscape and inhabitability of Earth in fewer than a couple hundred years, wouldn’t it make sense to deal with the more immediate problem?
Every decision has a trade-off (which as an engineer, i am sure you understand).
This about sums up my thoughts. And also dovetails nicely into why I like federal investment into clean energy… Complete energy independence could be nothing but a major national security bonus.
Well, you’re not wrong about the problem. But the physicalamount of waste is tiny compared to what we currently produce IMO, and I do think that nuclear technology has come a VERY long ways since the 60s in terms of waste. I cannot speak on the technical details but I believe we are capable of producing much less waste per unit energy right now.
Its not an either/or problem. Its not nuclear energy… or… greenhouse gasses. Nuclear energy is just one option for reducing greenhouse emissions… and it has a known terrible byproduct that stays toxic for millenia with zero known or proposed ways of mitigating the waste. Meanwhile advances in solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, etc are advancing rapidly with FAR less known dangers.
All true, but geothermal and hydroelectric for sure cause permanent impacts to local environments that we don’t fully understand the ramifications for yet either (like the three rivers gorge damn in China).
I have done a little research into some of the solar stuff and think advances in solar can be used greatly to power many low power items currently connected to the grid (such as stoplights, light poles for streets if using LEDs etc…), however I don’t think solar and wind have enough energy density to keep up with the ever increasing demand.
Hydro and geothermal are more promising, but nuclear can turn the tide away from fossil fuels almost immediately.
No doubt production of nuclear energy is becoming less “messy” and thus producing less radioactive waste than in decades past. But again, much of that waste stays acutely toxic for 100,000 years. We have no way of storing it securely- we thought we did but it turns out everything corrodes or breaks down. So wherever we store it will be a full on No-Go zone for millenia… and we have no idea what these areas will look like in 2,000 or 10,000 or 50,000 years with climate change, unknown faultlines, building/climate engineering technology etc. We are essentially making (best case scenario) small pockets of our planet unlivable for 100,000 years… and unforseen earthquakes, climate change, etc could allow the toxicity to leach into water systems or soil and spread making large swaths unliveable.
There are HUGE consequences for being wrong, and the timeline is so long that we have no idea how likely it is they could happen. Versus, aggresively pursuing “green” energy which has much lower consequences, and the consequences we know of are very short term.
Difference in my mind is that if we tear down the damn, the whole ecosystem recovers fully in 100 years. If we realize that the nuclear waste if damaging the ecosystem, we are still fucked for another 99,900 years.
its a risk-reward calculation. The reward for nuclear energy is marginally higher than other green energy production (mostly because we already have the tech for nuclear), but the known risk is exponentially higher and longer lasting.
If you want to reduce greenhouse emissions quickly, heavily taxing things that produce greenhouse gasses works really well. With that tax money, give larger tax rebates at the end of the year. People then on average have a zero hit to their wallet, but will buy less energy (as it will feel painful to do so). They will start buying cars that aren’t retarded.
The market will adjust itself to the people’s demands in a few years. I just think people might drive a fuel efficient car, ride a bike, or ride the bus if gas was $10/gal. I think people would use less AC in the summer if instead of $100/month it cost $500/month.
I love the idea. Heck, you don’t even have to tax it, just stop giving subsidies to fossil fuel companies and emission industries. Too many people will consider that authoritarian overreach though.
I think people are slaves to materialism and comfort. They won’t do anything if it’s uncomfortable, even if it’s good for them. Delayed gratification is dead in our society, and folks will not voluntarily do the right thing… They will instead latch on to any reasoning supporting the easy thing to do.
Do you ever listen to the podcast Freakonomics? They had one episode where they looked at two neighborhoods in California, that were built just a few years apart with similar size houses. The difference between the two neighborhoods is the one built just a few years later was built to different code, and was significantly more energy efficient. They found that both neighborhoods spent the same amount on energy (used the same amount), which is puzzling. Did the energy efficient upgrades not work? No, it turned out that people have a certain amount they expect to spend, and adjust their usage to that amount. So the more efficient neighborhood had their houses colder in warm weather than the non efficient neighborhood.
To me this says if we want people to be green, the prices on fossil fuels need to go up.