The only real option right now is nuclear (fusion) power. While it's not safe by any means, it's safer than coal and it is one of the few energy sources that could provide most of the energy required. However, it shouldn't be looked at as the final answer, but instead as something that will carry humanity over the current phase where we don't have any better alternatives.
Nuclear power isn't renewable, emission free, cheap or safe.
1. Uranium is a finite resource.
2. The emissions involved in extraction, processing, transportation, processing again, then storage are astronomical.
3. Nuclear power plants are really expensive.
4. Both waste disposal and the actual process of extracting power from fissile, radioactive material are really dangerous.
they deserve the chance to try to reach similar standards of living as we have already.
There's no way that everyone living in developing countries could possibly achieve a similar standard of living to people in Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom.
There's not enough space to accommodate living space, agricultural land, waste dumps etc. etc. for 7 billion people if they each use as much as people in the "developed" world. There also aren't enough minerals/raw materials to continue building microwaves, cars, mobile phones at the rate that we consume them.
Either the world's population has to decline, or consumption has to decline.
People are wrong to equate declining consumption with a declining standard of living, by the way. It would be possible to enjoy many of the same comforts that we do currently if we were more efficient in the way we used resources.
Conspicuous consumption and planned obsolescence plus general laziness (ride your bike god damn it) are the real issues. Without these, less efficient but more environmentally friendly energy sources would be a more realistic prospect.
I don't think China is going to take "no," for an answer on that one. Look at how many cars they already have. It's going to be America 2.0, now with even more ruthless capitalism!
i think what tqi had meant, or after some thinking, what i also drew from his comment, is that if we hypothetically and magically replaced all the FF plants with nuclear plants, similar (read: not equivalent) problems would arise.
but i believe that we wouldnt need as much nuclear plants since they do produce more energy than burning. whether or not that is true or not is kinda besides the point to me since both options have flaws.
would replacing all/most FF plants with nuclear be the most logical "next step?"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Don is certainly right. Fearmongering about nuclear power is largely a mis-understanding of the risks and a product of one too many nuclear fallout premised films and videogames. Putting nuclear energy off the table at this point is ludacris given the cost of natural gas (aka. "the next big thing") can only go up and our price per kw of truly renewable energy sources are far higher.
Well, to be precise, all coal plants can't be replaced with nuclear plants since nuclear power can't vary the power output to meet the fluctuating levels of need. And the only power sources that can vary accordingly are coal power and hydro power (solar and wind are too whimsical for this purpose).
Like I said, the biggest problem we have right now is the use of coal. It needs to stop, and right away. And the only sensible way to replace coal in short-term (less than 10 years) is nuclear power.
If we continue burning coal for the next 50-100 years, we'll be doing a disservice to humanity.
Our priorities should be:
Continue developing alternative forms of energy.
Get rid of coal power before 2020.
Once alternative energy forms are good enough, cease building new nuclear plants and decommission the existing ones in a controlled fashion.
i wasnt talking about actually replacing coal with nuclear, im just pointing out that even though it seems nuclear is cleaner, thats in comparison to the larger amount of FF plants. so if we were to hypothetically replace coal's stats with nuclear, how would that graph look? the point being, is that its moot to argue about which is deadlier since our comparison is between a lot of coal and a few nuclear (and in know nuclear isnt perfect). this goes along with the lesser evil argument; is it truly a lesser evil, or does it only seem that way because the comparison is biased/skewed.
but im no environmentalist so i dont actually know if that would be true.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Nuclear power isn't renewable, emission free, cheap or safe.
1. Uranium is a finite resource.
2. The emissions involved in extraction, processing, transportation, processing again, then storage are astronomical.
3. Nuclear power plants are really expensive.
4. Both waste disposal and the actual process of extracting power from fissile, radioactive material are really dangerous.
There's no way that everyone living in developing countries could possibly achieve a similar standard of living to people in Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom.
There's not enough space to accommodate living space, agricultural land, waste dumps etc. etc. for 7 billion people if they each use as much as people in the "developed" world. There also aren't enough minerals/raw materials to continue building microwaves, cars, mobile phones at the rate that we consume them.
Either the world's population has to decline, or consumption has to decline.
People are wrong to equate declining consumption with a declining standard of living, by the way. It would be possible to enjoy many of the same comforts that we do currently if we were more efficient in the way we used resources.
Conspicuous consumption and planned obsolescence plus general laziness (ride your bike god damn it) are the real issues. Without these, less efficient but more environmentally friendly energy sources would be a more realistic prospect.
but i believe that we wouldnt need as much nuclear plants since they do produce more energy than burning. whether or not that is true or not is kinda besides the point to me since both options have flaws.
would replacing all/most FF plants with nuclear be the most logical "next step?"
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
but im no environmentalist so i dont actually know if that would be true.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."