Bonzo writes:
>
> Indeed, but the thing is, with nuclear we're still talking
> about risks, while with other non-renewables, we're
> always talking about certain damage (despite the
> enormity of Chernobyl or other leakage sites, overall
> the actual damage is minor).
>
But this just isn't true Bonzo. We simply have no way of knowing the "overall actual damage" of nuclear power until we have dealt with the long-term storage issue (which we haven't). Also, by definition the long-term storage of highly toxic waste may involve damage / costs that we simply can't measure (as they may or may not occur in the future).
Essentially when nuclear power advocates make the claim that "overall the actual damage is minor", it translates into "overall the actual damage will only be known by our great-grandchildren and we're not taking them into our considerations". I consider that an immoral and irresponsible attitude.
>
> And, if hypothetically speaking wind farms could
> ever become viable (which I think they won't and
> can't)
>
Tell that to the Swedes who produce almost a quarter of their electricity from wind power. Not viable? Where did you get that idea from?
>
> that point is so far in the future that ecological
> meltdown will be not only under way (which it is
> now), but over. Letting this happen while there
> is an alternative technology staring us in the face
> is an atrocity.
>
How ecologically damaging is the uranium mining and refinement industry? How much carbon is produced by these industries? Do you know? It seems odd to be painting nuclear power as an ecologically friendly alternative to fossil fuels when the intensive industry that must support it is a high consumer of fossil fuels.
(Incidentally, I don't know those exact figures either... they are suspiciously difficult to track down - and believe me, I've tried. But I would put my life savings on uranium production not being a carbon neutral endeavor).
>
> For the future is either in less dependency
> on energy or renewable sources. And since
> the first won't happen...
>
The first will happen. Whether we like it or not. Renewables can't possibly replace the vast amounts of energy we currently derive from fossil fuels. And neither can nuclear (quite aside from the unsustainability of uranium, nukes only address the electricity grid and do nothing to solve the liquid-fuels supply problem... or the problem of what raw materials we use to produce our fertilisers, pesticides, plastics, pharmaceuticals, etc etc etc).
The only question is whether or not we prepare for, and manage, our enforced reduction in energy availability. In which case, there's a chance that we can simply phase out the non-life-supporting energy expenditure.
Or whether we allow circumstances to overtake us... perhaps squander our remaining fossil fuels building lots of nuclear power stations with a 30-year lifespan. And in that case we may well find basic essential services (from health provision to food distribution) simply collapse beneath the weight of their oil and gas addiction.
|
