Remove this Banner Ad

Opinion Climate change

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

nuclear means we're still at the behest of huge mining companies who will instead run the world through their control of uranium and shit.

capitalism hasn't yet found a way to monetize and destroy energy from the sun, wind or oceans.
 
sobrave said:
because nuclear still has significant externalities, no matter how much pro-nuclear bros promote it. you still have the waste to deal with, plus the risks involved with natural disasters/terrorist attack etc.

climate change is an existential threat so it's definitely something that should have been considered as part of the mix, but it's higher risk than renewable sources.

do you post anything in this thread other than "we shoulda done nucular"?

30 years ago, if the world divested from fossil fuels and went nuclear we'd be in a shitload better position. same if we went hard renewables then. but the fossil fuel lobby is powerful.

don't you have anything positive to say about wind, solar, wave, geo-thermal, anything else?
Click to expand...
I have lots positive about solar and wind but that doesn't mean that other bad decisions regarding other options were made and are still made. At home and abroad. And those should be learnt from, and double standards addressed.

There will never be another nuclear plant meltdown close to Chernobyl or Fukushima in our life. Bookmark this. There's no risk.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk
 
edgie said:
I have lots positive about solar and wind but that doesn't mean that other bad decisions regarding other options were made and are still made. At home and abroad. And those should be learnt from, and double standards addressed.

There will never be another nuclear plant meltdown close to Chernobyl or Fukushima in our life. Bookmark this.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

i'll keep that in mind but you forgot three mile island. and i'm sure people were saying the same thing before fukushima happened.

whatever way we go, we're still reliant on mining to an extent for the raw materials needed for turbines/solar panels/lithium batteries etc.

i guess the pipedream is some extremely efficient tech where we can capture our own solar/wind energy, store it in batteries for when we need it without being reliant on the grid. if money was actually invested in innovation instead of generating shareholder wealth it'd probably already exist.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

sobrave said:
nuclear means we're still at the behest of huge mining companies who will instead run the world through their control of uranium and s**t.

capitalism hasn't yet found a way to monetize and destroy energy from the sun, wind or oceans.
Click to expand...
Renewables require plenty of materials to build. The 'It will stop capitalism!' of trying to use it to remodel the world only slows it's adoption. IMO, Australia would be further along the path to renewables if during the 80's, 90's, 2000's there'd been more emphasis on the benefits to Australia from mining the materials for it, rather than it often lumped together as part of a Renewables / Destroy Capitalism / Vegan or you're evil Greens push.

I'm all for Australia looking to maximise revenue from Renewables by Lithium mining, rare metals, etc. Also putting money into Thorium reactor research (clean nuclear) since we have the biggest reserves. Also for processing Uranium here to ship overseas, rather than only getting part of the cash from that.

Nuclear waste is largely a crock of shit, IMO. We live in a continent that has minimal tectonic activity and huge areas away from population centres that are perfect for long term storage of waste. Not just for Australia. If our politicians (of all persuasions) weren't so gutless, we could have a multi-billion dollar a year industry storing nuclear waste from other countries. Charged on a 5 year basis, of renew or we'll then ship back. The money from it could be pushed into accelerating Australia towards net zero. A win-win for Australia and the world. If only the will existed.
 
It's not the politicians that are gutless, the population is just as bad.

Ten years ago people were probably saying the same thing. It's outdated, it's not feasible anymore, etc etc. We've have one by now though if we started then and if we start tomorrow we'll start the path for a cleaner future.
 
dav3 said:
In all likelihood this ends up like BLM, abortion rights, Hong Kong, and most other protests in this country where it's the flavour of the month before something else shiny attracts the peasants attention. Clowns like "Just Stop Oil" and "Extinction Rebellion" are getting oxygen in the media at the moment, but something sexier will eventually come up, and everyone will go back to not thinking about it.

Unfortunately any f**khead with a social media account can be an "activist" now, and the vast majority are as dumb as this
www.dailymail.co.uk

Radio star is accused of bullying 16-year-old climate activist

The mother of a 16-year-old climate activist has lashed out at a radio interviewer who mercilessly mocked her daughter after the teen admitted flying to Fiji for a holiday.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
Click to expand...

No it won't, because this issue isn't going to go away. The slow train crash of climate change is happening, even if we dropped our emissions to zero instantly.

Instead, all the "f**kheads" will be the ones who were in their own little bubble pretending we could go on business as usual and nothing was wrong.

The globe has had a chance over the last 30 years or so to fix it, or at least make it a lot less shit than it will be, and we chose greed instead.

Imagine getting upset that people care about the mass extinction of other species on the planet. Seems an odd thing to care about, because some protestor might mildly inconvenience you for a few minutes of one day of your life. **** sake.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Sleezy said:
If it was a genuine question then I don't understand it. Can you please rephrase?
Click to expand...

Poster said climate change protests were a flavour of the month thing and they will move on to something else.

Bravey reckons they won't, because we continue to get hotter and people will keep protesting even if emissions get to zero.

I asked him what you'd be protesting if emissions were zero.
 
backtozero said:
Poster said climate change protests were a flavour of the month thing and they will move on to something else.

Bravey reckons they won't, because we continue to get hotter and people will keep protesting even if emissions get to zero.

I asked him what you'd be protesting if emissions were zero.
Click to expand...

No, I said that the issue of climate change isn't going away.

You're arguing wanky semantics and taking it as literal scenario, as if there's a possibility that we can snap our fingers and have zero emissions instantly.

Common sense says that isn't possible.

The point is that the issue isn't going away, so people will protest.

You're being deliberately obtuse and tried to make a joke of it, it clearly wasn't a serious question. Then you're doubling down and trying to interpret literally.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Some Australian developments in wave energy to electricity looks really promising. There have been numerous fails in this area, but it has been humming along with CSIRO.
Good to see it is patented technology.

www.zmescience.com

Artificial 'blowhole' wave energy could become the world's cheapest energy source

Tidal and wave energy are considered even more reliable than solar and wind -- but getting them to work is tricky.
www.zmescience.com www.zmescience.com
 
edgie said:

Nuclear power in Scotland - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

These people have to be mad.

75% of power needs being met, nah, let's never do that again, get rid of em for reasons?
Click to expand...

Again, edgie?

Who are these people you are yelling at saying that we need to get rid of nuclear energy?

Did you watch too much Simpsons as a kid and dreamt of being Homer?

Nuclear has been unfairly maligned in some ways yes. But you have some weird hard on stiffy for it because you also have wet dreams about a post apocalyptic mad Max wasteland.

If we actually invested the collective wealth and expertise and intelligence of humanity in renewables, we don't actually need it at all.

If every wealthy country divested from fossils 30 years ago and went nuclear, yeah we might be better off with climate change. Maybe. But it didn't happen.

We also could have spent that time on renewables. Whatever.

Change the channel Marge.
 
Current pledges for action by 2030, even if delivered in full, would mean a rise in global heating of about 2.5C, a level that would condemn the world to catastrophic climate breakdown, according to the UN’s climate agency


World close to ‘irreversible’ climate breakdown, warn major studies


Depressing stuff. 2.5 degrees warming is absolutely catastrophic in the context of global climate systems. I've probably only got another 40 or 50 years tops left on this dungheap but the kids being born now are in for a really rough ride.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom