The Wow I Can't Believe That News Story Thread

[Lisnaholic]

Wood, coal, oil have all, in their day, "revolutionised human civilization" haven't they?
I think it's time to move on to a cleaner energy source, and I don't think nuclear is a good option on account of nuclear waste and the possibility of disastrous accidents.

They are not without drawbacks, but surely wind, hydraulic, solar, geothermal and wave energy sources would be less damaging options? We already have the technology to exploit all of those energy sources, and might one day have new mix-and-match systems of supplying energy, depending on local geography.

[Frownland]

Modern nuclear power systems reuse what would formerly be considered nuclear waste. The waste doesn't even reach the point of unusability for decades unless you shut down the systems and when it's unused, the ionizing radioactivity that makes it dangerous is almost entirely depleted. That waste still requires stowing away, which is usually done by encasing it in concrete and steel reinforced chambers to prevent the waste escaping in the event of a flood, earthquake, etc. The biggest issue with nuclear power is potential contamination from mining uranium, but this is mitigated by responsible mining practices and has not really had any real world examples of happening. Nobody seems to ever believe this next point, but modern nuclear engineering also abides by insanely rigorous safety protocols to prevent the failures of older systems that were used at places like Chernobyl and Fukushima. Don't believe everything that the hippies tell you, basically.

The renewables that you mention revolve around the usage of environmentally damaging fuel, just not drilled fossil fuel. Well-maintained nuclear power doesn't even get a blip on the radar as far as carbon emissions go. It took me a bit to come around myself but it looks like our best option until the next best thing is discovered.

[Frownland]

Hmm, good point. Reminds me of that liberal climate change junk science.

[Frownland]

Idk his position.

What makes you opposed to nuclear power?

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by elphenor

it's the have your cake and eat it too approach

Just like "actual clean energy".

there is no option worth considering that doesn't radically change our current path of consumption really

I agree but we both know that's a pipe dream. I'd rather avoid further ****ing up the planet just to dig my heels in on capitalism, but you do you.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by elphenor

nobody proposing that doesn't first start with a radical restructure of the consumption side

Radical restructure=eliminating our need to harness energy

Nobody proposing actual clean energy is trying to move away from using energy.

how many disasters have been caused by wind farms

Apart from every hurricane, wildfire, and extreme weather pattern induced by atmospheric pollution? Probably a few turbine related deaths that would be pretty cheeky if they were on AFV.

[The Batlord]

Just a boring version of OH.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by elphenor

I'd rather us just all die to climate change than keep the society we have with slight modifications

I already addressed that

Originally Posted by Frownland

we both know that [getting people to change their behaviour is] a pipe dream. I'd rather avoid further ****ing up the planet just to dig my heels in on capitalism, but you do you.

[Frownland]

Ok boomer

[The Batlord]

You always know when you're looking at a kid who never had a pet or a dinosaur phase.