Big difference between 'not coal free by 2038' and 'need a power plant to support electricity demands, while renewable infrastructure and technology improves'.
A good way to solve it would be to have built a nuclear plant, but everyone is up in arms about that now for no discernable reason, other than "i don't understand stand it, so it's scary and dangerous"
Well- there’s also the fact that plenty of folks want things. What did you want to be when you grew up? Where did you want to live? Who’s the first person you wanted to date? How many of those things happened in the time frame you wanted- if any? Ask any number of mistresses what “I swear I want to leave my wife” means. How many people want to “get in shape this year”? Ok. What percent do? Want is a weak word. Like try. I don’t want my surgeon to try and remember not to violate my pretty little mouth while I’m passed out. I want them to DO not violate it. If they say they’ll try- I’m not going to put faith in that.
It says: “Germany WANTS to be coal free...” put “want” in one hand and spit in the other. Which hand has something in it? That’s right. “Want” is usually a “weasel word.” It seems like you are saying something but there is no commitment to “want.” You can “want” lots of things you’ll likely never get or even seriously try to get.
Weasel words and phrases. “I’ll try my best..” ok. Well- firstly- does that mean all the times you didn’t say you’d try your best you weren’t trying your best? Secondly- what is “try?” “I’ll try to go to the gym tomorrow...” Well- I started driving towards the gym, then decided not to go. But... I “tried.” Secondly- “your best.” What does that matter? If you don’t try your best and still succeed you still did what you said. If you try your best and don’t do anything you stop did nothing. The only person who really needs to know if you “tried your best” is you. “Trying your best” not to run over my foot doesn’t do anything for me if you drive over my foot. Do not drive over my foot. If you wanted to do it you were already trying your best.
It’s non committal. I’ve already set up failure. If I fail- I can say “sorry. I told you I’d try and I did though.” If I say: “I am going to do this thing” and I don’t- then I have to be accountable. I have to say I failed. Explain why I failed. Be responsible for promising and not delivering. “Try” “want” these are like when parents say “let’s maybe talk about that later..” 9/10 times that is a no, there will not be a discussion later unless you bring it up- and the answer may be the same as last time.
But they don’t just say “no” because that would make them accountable. Then you can get upset. If I say “maybe later” then you can’t say “you won’t let me do this thing...” because I can say: “I didn’t say no. I said maybe later.” It’s something people do when they don’t believe what they are saying or aren’t willing to actually commit to a course of action. It’s meaningless filler to head off or end a conversation.
No problem. I’m glad that you enjoyed it. But here’s the thing clever guy: if it is meaningless elaboration- why did you bother to comment a meaningless inquisitive with your variant of “what?” After the initial reply? What would you expect in response to a meaningless statement? The only logical reply to meaningless drivel is meaningless drivel really. There wouldn’t really be another way to respond would there? Being that there was very little to work with to start? So perhaps consider that if you choose to undertake a quest of self awareness- because your present sentiments are self defeating.
Perhaps I may. You’re kind to encourage me and believe in me. So now it is I who owe your thanks. I can most certainly say I wasn’t intentionally condescending to you, but since you were kind to me I shall return the favor and just say that perhaps if you feel condescended to, you may have unresolved personal adequacy issues. I don’t know what others have told you in life, it seems they may have been unkind. But I think you’re super. You’re worthy, and you have tremendous potential. Don’t let the world make you fee otherwise, and best of luck on your journey to self esteem!
10 million? Please, the radiation will be down to safe levels in a fraction of the time. The waste can be buried in a mountain, taking up far less space and having for fewer enduring effects than wind farms, hydroelectric dams, fracking, and literally every other practical source of energy.
@f_kyeahhamburg
The Finnish are currently building a funky little storage facility. It's called the Onkalo spent nuclear fuel repository. The facility, which began construction in 2004 will house the world's current nuclear waste, and then be filled in with clay after a few years. The clay, prevents radiation from leaking into the environment because of the wastes' lack of penetrating capability, and markings for the site will be removed in an attempt to ensure the site is never discovered.
A final resting place for the waste, completely undisturbed and unknown to an entire civilization, long past the human timeline.
Well, I'm not so confident. In Germany, we had a solution called "Asse", an old salt mine which was said to be safe forever.
Water leakage has finally made it necessary, when it was published that barrels were rotting in the salty water.
It's very ambitious and optimistic to say it's gonna last for so long
While I understand that, the proposition for this storage directly solves the German in issue you've mentioned. The radioactive rods, won't need to be kept in these containers, the sedementary rock that they're buried in, as well as the layers of clay (and, yes, the storage tanks they're in now), will prevent the radiation leakage. It's thousands of feet under ground, and in the eventuality a significant amount of erosion occurs over thousands of years the radioactive material will no longer be emitting harmful amount of radiation.
I fully believe in a solution such as this, as well as the use of radioactive isotopes up until a time we can support renewable energy.
The Co2 per KWh differences between fossil fuels and nuclear fuels as well as the infrastructure costs between current renewables and nuclear power is phenomenal.
There are legitimate causes for concern, don't get me wrong, but it seems to be largely baseless and forms around the idea that because nuclear weapons are bad...
Nuclear power is rife with causes for concern. But RADIATION scares the crap out of people- tell them about cobalt or heavy metals present due to everyday things like machines, cars whatever- the chemicals in batteries, etc. etc. and meh. Maybe mild concern. Mention RADIATION!! Even the smallest amounts- and people tend to get very scared. But- dead is dead wether it’s lead or uranium in your water- drinking large amounts will kill you now. Small amounts risk death or illness later. Chronic exposure to low levels are bad over time either way.
We can’t say nuclear waste is ever safe. Missing one single square meter worth of land, not accounting for one of 100 zillion variables that could or could not occur over time- any of it could cause nuclear run off to ground water or other issues. In America a site in Nevada used for nuclear storage has polluted many millions of gallons of drinking water and is creeping into the water table. It can happen. Acts of human ignorance or malice can happen.
But solar- solar is a mess of very dangerous elements. Cadmium and others, polluted water and dust and contamination of the environment and workers. The care required to be 99% (as safe as possible) in such processes is so great and would hinder production and increase costs so much to be impractical. Lots of places to outsource to though that wouldn’t put those burdens on people. That’s a long term economic disaster. We can argue wether contamination of the environment or being a destitute and impoverished country are worse- but people tend to care about their own quality of life above what happens after they’re dead.
So the most immediately deadly radioactive elements decay relatively quickly- but the rest, 10 million years or whatever number we want to say isn’t important. They’ll be here longer than recorded human history up to this point- and we have no way to tell that people in thousands of years will understand the danger or our writing. We use symbols for that reason- but several lost source nuclear incidents have occurred because locals didn’t understand the symbols for danger on radiation sources. So it’s not so far fetched that those far in the future wouldn’t of people today don’t.
There’s a danger. But fossil fuels are dangerous. Breathing those in for 40 years will run you cancer and health risks that aren’t identical to radiation but still can kill, make ill, shorten life, harm reproduction. Most produce and commercially processed food has a cancer and reproductive danger. Should we go 100% nuclear? No. Not with current technology. But it’s a good supplement to other alternative energy and we just need to take it more seriously.
Comments
A good way to solve it would be to have built a nuclear plant, but everyone is up in arms about that now for no discernable reason, other than "i don't understand stand it, so it's scary and dangerous"
The Finnish are currently building a funky little storage facility. It's called the Onkalo spent nuclear fuel repository. The facility, which began construction in 2004 will house the world's current nuclear waste, and then be filled in with clay after a few years. The clay, prevents radiation from leaking into the environment because of the wastes' lack of penetrating capability, and markings for the site will be removed in an attempt to ensure the site is never discovered.
A final resting place for the waste, completely undisturbed and unknown to an entire civilization, long past the human timeline.
Water leakage has finally made it necessary, when it was published that barrels were rotting in the salty water.
It's very ambitious and optimistic to say it's gonna last for so long
I fully believe in a solution such as this, as well as the use of radioactive isotopes up until a time we can support renewable energy.
The Co2 per KWh differences between fossil fuels and nuclear fuels as well as the infrastructure costs between current renewables and nuclear power is phenomenal.
There are legitimate causes for concern, don't get me wrong, but it seems to be largely baseless and forms around the idea that because nuclear weapons are bad...