Well, nuclear power plants produce a lot of nuclear waste that you have to safely store somewhere for the next few thousand years and we actually don't have such a place.
Another reason is, that when one of our old rusty power plants malfunctions we're all doomed.
3
deleted
· 5 years ago
Well with Elon getting his rocket on, we could just fling it into deep space.
To be more precise- some of the waste byproducts of nuclear power last hundreds of thousands of years. They’ll be around possibly after the fall of humans. It’s a serious issue that experts have researched because we don’t know what kind of signs we can place that people that far in the future will unmistakedly read them as dangerous- not to mention we assume they won’t read any present language and they may not even understand the concept of radiation or an “invisible” long term danger at all. As for rocket launches- sci fi dreams sadly. NASA and other groups and governments already take a few grams of relatively less dangerous nuclear material on space probes VERY seriously. If a rocket were to explode or crash at any point in its journey it would cause a nuclear disaster. At heights up in the atmosphere any release of nuclear material would spread extremely far...
..... and coupled with an explosion to vaporize it and high altitude jet streams- it would spread material and fallout possibly world wide. So any amount large enough to make a difference and be feasible to justify a space launch would have the potential to contaminate massive areas. Also- cost. Even if the price could be brought down significantly for a flight leaving the atmosphere- it would still be very expensive by weight to do, and much nuclear waste is a combination of very heavy elements and shielding materials that are contaminated from contact like lead and concrete from reactor casings. So it would be dangerous and very expensive and resource draining to do. The issue at hand isn’t that we don’t know how to create reliable nuclear power- but to be cost competitive with traditional fossil fuels many companies cut corners which causes problems. Nuclear waste is a serious issue but nuclear power was killed almost as soon as it came out so the level of R&D just hasn’t been there
The actual environmental and humanitarian cost of batteries is staggering. The mining of materials is almost never done in an ecologically friendly way- look up battery strip mines if you want to see- and many of the materials contaminate the surrounding environment of mines. Not to mention that many of these materials are most cheaply and readily sourced from conflict zones using questionable to near slave labor while financing regimes known for human rights violations. The processing and waste from the batteries life cycle compound this. Electronic devices consume most of their resources in construction and little over their lives. This only equals a “greener” alternative to analog machinery of the life cycle is kept long- but fickle consumers and short battery life spans make these items that aren’t likely to last long enough to reap long term benefits to offset the environmental costs of manufacture. These batteries are also only as “green” as the power plants that drive them.
First of all Germany is _still_ exporting way more electricity than we're importing. Then, a main motivation to switch to E-cars are the fumes that poison our cities, and the main motivation to stop using nuclear energy is that this is endangering our descendants for hundreds of thousands of years. So thanks for proving a complete lack of factual knowledge while trying to be funny. Ha. Ha.
You donspeak truth in many regards. A perfect example of course is industry. Many developed nations have largely moved industrial consumer manufacturing to other nations. Asides cheaper labor this has helped clean up the air of these countries while causing pollution to skyrocket elsewhere. So you are correct that a motivation to go electric isn’t necessarily because it is best for the planet as a whole- but best for those in the vicinity of the vehicles, with the major wastes from creation and retirement being exported. Like “cleaning” ones room by just shoving all the garbage into a house mates closet so that you don’t have to deal with it. However to your point about facts- nothing you’ve said contradicts the point of this meme. The point is that if one claims as you do that Germany isn’t doing it for the planet but for Germany- there is no contradiction. But if one is in denial of the truth as a whole and claims it is for a global or total environmental benefit then they are wrong
True. That is often the case. However it is also true that those in power or who have wealth and are more interested in personal gain than altruism often over sell the benefits of new technology to encourage adoption and create a market where t isn’t even a matter of branding or ultimate choice; but to NOT adopt carries either a social stigma or legal penalty. So there are many sides to the coin. Any new technology will not be perfect- but if you sell me a rock saying it repels Tigers but it actually attracts them instead- that is not a case of it not being perfect- but being not as advertised. The thin about attempting things with good intentions is that history is full of large and small horrors and missteps done by those with good intentions and a deaf ear to nay sayers. Trying to do better is great. If it’s actually better. A superior technology and its benefits are fine things- but when we transform that into a magic bullet that we say is inherently “good” we do a disservice.
In short- fossil fuels didn’t get us into this mess. If we restricted our use of them to low levels we could use them forever with negligible impact. But they became “modern miracles” that we turned to to solve all problems. Newer technologies are no different. They all have costs and that is unavoidable by our current understanding of physics. If we position electric cars or “green” energy as these magical “good” things we create a perception that everyone and anyone can and should use these things for any and every reason. We encourage the same behaviors that got us to this point and even if we fix the green house climate change issues we are just creating the next environmental disaster for future generations for when the check comes due for OUR irresponsible use of our new “miracle.” Things is just things. Not good or bad. From water to Uranium- too much will harm you and not enough will harm you. There aren’t “super foods” or anything else. Nature is a balance.
Im surprised at the number of uneducated people in the comments talking about nuclear power. It's very clear you have no idea what you're talking about. Its like you watched a John Oliver vid or some shit.
Lol. True. Through the past several decades nuclear waste has been touted as a massive concern. SCIENCE! has made RADIATION! a scary devil. Science tells us otherwise about radiation of course- but the same “cartoon physics” most people ascribe to that makes them say things like “a big xyz is obviously better or safer than a small xyz....” lends to this. Nuclear waste COULD become a major problem- and its longevity, stigma, and the fact it is still dangerous contribute to the challenge that is dealing with it. Challenge- not problem- because by and large we have workable solutions. It’s just implementing them that causes issues. It’s in the popular consciousness so people just run with: Nuclear=Bad. Actual corporate corruption or ineptitude contribute to the near synonymous image nuclear power has with irresponsible corporatocracy- and avoidable incidents caused by human factors get pinned on nuclear power. Commercial nuclear waste isn’t even largely “waste” in that most can be recycld
Another reason is, that when one of our old rusty power plants malfunctions we're all doomed.