I view the ethical consequences of fossil fuels to outweigh the practical applications of them, especially when the fossil fuel industry set us back decades with their cover up of the effects of fossil fuels on Earth's atmosphere and their lobbying against regulations on pollution and emissions.

引用自 Beltneck：

引用自 EndangeredPootisBird：

I view the ethical consequences of fossil fuels to outweigh the practical applications of them, especially when the fossil fuel industry set us back decades with their cover up of the effects of fossil fuels on Earth's atmosphere and their lobbying against regulations on pollution and emissions.

and you think nuclear is any different? They're both part of the mining industry, they both want you completley dependent on their product.

The century of pushback on renewables is because that would decentralize the grid, decentralize manufacturing and servicing, and generally make every community power independent.

You have to mine things regardless of what you are building, and in this case nuclear energy provides the same benefits as fossil fuels with a fraction of the land use and minimal emissions from energy generation.

引用自 Beltneck：

引用自 EndangeredPootisBird：

You have to mine things regardless of what you are building, and in this case nuclear energy provides the same benefits as fossil fuels with minimal emissions and a fraction of the land use.

iron and copper are availalbe everywhere, earth's core is mostly molten iron. They're not selling you anything that is rare and difficult to source. Virtually single country in the world could mine and produce what it needs.

Uranium and oil are limited, and they want to make some absolute bank off of it.

Rare earth metals are limited as well, and there are currently several nuclear power plants under construction that don't need to use uranium in order to generate electricity.

引用自 Beltneck：

引用自 EndangeredPootisBird：

Rare earth metals are limited as well, and there are plans under way to build nuclear reactors without having to use Uranium.

You don't need rare earth to make a wind turbine, tidal generator, or solar panel. You barely even need to mine anything in order to make those, since we already recycle 80% of the metals we use.

Rare earth is for computers.

Its a less energy intensive process to recycle metals than it is to refine new ones, since the impurities have already been processed out.

Regardless of whether renewables are viable without rare earth metals still doesn't make them any less unreliable for 24/7 energy production.

Should technology get greener, or should it get smokier?

Well I'm sick of people saying New Zealand needs to be greener but China that spews out the most pollution in the world can do what it likes.

引用自 Beltneck：

引用自 EndangeredPootisBird：

Regardless of whether renewables are viable without rare earth metals still doesn't make them any more reliable for 24/7 energy production.

Does the moon have a variable orbit in your world? Because thats what makes the tides.

Does the sun not shine on half the globe at any given moment?

Does the jet stream just stop flowing?

Solar panels can only maximise energy production when the sun is high up in the sky and without clouds or pollution blocking it, and the wind obviously doesn't constantly blow at adequate levels to generate 24/7 energy production.

Car manufacturers cheap out and make things too light weight to meet the fuel efficiency standards demanded by the government. Which is better environmentally, using one more tank full of gas a year, or having to replace your car 3 years early to do measures to save weight in a car.

引用自 Beltneck：

引用自 EndangeredPootisBird：

Solar panels can only maximise energy production when the sun is high in the sky and without clouds or pollution blocking it, and the wind obviously doesn't constantly blow at adequate levels to generate 24/7 energy production.

Ok bot. Failed the turing test.

Then I guess that there is nothing more to discuss.

引用自 EndangeredPootisBird：

Solar panels can only maximise energy production when the sun is high up in the sky and without clouds or pollution blocking it, and the wind obviously doesn't constantly blow at adequate levels to generate 24/7 energy production.

They had a new invention to solve this issue lately. Batteries.

引用自 EndangeredPootisBird：

Rare earth metals are limited as well, and there are currently several nuclear power plants under construction that don't need to use uranium in order to generate electricity.

Of course rare earths are limited, but they´re not rare at all.

And for the nuclear power plants, which don´t use uranium: I lived near one. "The THTR is considered one of the biggest mistakes in German projects over the past 55 years." But then again it was built in the 80´s...

Also where´s the difference in using uranium, or any other radioactive substance?


Topic:
It shouldn´t be in private hands to make profits. But in public hands to supply with energy. I´m unsure if "greener" is really "greener", but it´s more sustainable - so i´m all for it.

引用自 Triple G：

引用自 EndangeredPootisBird：

Solar panels can only maximise energy production when the sun is high up in the sky and without clouds or pollution blocking it, and the wind obviously doesn't constantly blow at adequate levels to generate 24/7 energy production.

They had a new invention to solve this issue lately. Batteries.

引用自 EndangeredPootisBird：

Rare earth metals are limited as well, and there are currently several nuclear power plants under construction that don't need to use uranium in order to generate electricity.

Of course rare earths are limited, but they´re not rare at all.

And for the nuclear power plants, which don´t use uranium: I lived near one. "The THTR is considered one of the biggest mistakes in German projects over the past 55 years." But then again it was built in the 80´s...

Also where´s the difference in using uranium, or any other radioactive substance?


Topic:
It shouldn´t be in private hands to make profits. But in public hands to supply with energy. I´m unsure if "greener" is really "greener", but it´s more sustainable - so i´m all for it.

1. Batteries do not produce energy.
2. Rare earth metals require significantly more time and resources to turn them into usable materials and technology compared to non-rare earth metals and uranium.
3. THTR-300 was shut down to to it facing similar problems to other early nuclear reactors at the time, as well as due to inadequate supply chains.

Seems those "green deals" out here in the EU are more about pocketing money than saving a planet.

I don't think things should be more smokey, but they should definitely try to smoke out a few more of those lobbyists that are only there to pilfer.

引用自 TGC> The Games Collector：

Seems those "green deals" out here in the EU are more about pocketing money than saving a planet.

I don't think things should be more smokey, but they should definitely try to smoke out a few more of those lobbyists that are only there to pilfer.

Stagnating wages, rising prices, and tax cuts for corporations and billionaires have been funnelling money to the top way more than the green deal ever could.

We should reduce the population of humans before anything can be fixed.

引用自 EndangeredPootisBird：

1. Batteries do not produce energy.

This is a good observation, but it would store overproduced energy, so one can make use of it if a cloud covers the sky, or the moon, or the wind doesn´t blow as strong...

引用自 EndangeredPootisBird：

2. Rare earth metals require significantly more time and resources to turn them into usable materials and technology compared to non-rare earth metals and uranium.

TL;DR: They´re more expensive, and the energy companies want to make profits, to satisfy their investors - so we rather choose the cheapest option, which makes us dependent on other nations. While the options are: Russia for uranium, or China for rare earths. What could possibly go wrong? Nothing, as long as short term profits make us rich enough to not care about anything in the future. While "us" are the CEOs of the energy companies, and the bigger investors.

引用自 EndangeredPootisBird：

3. THTR-300 was shut down to to it facing similar problems to other early nuclear reactors at the time, as well as due to inadequate supply chains.

Besides that people would call it THTR-2000 to show how futuristic it is - i don´t know how it answers the question were the difference is to use uranium or any other radioactive material. Like there it was thorium.

You said that other nuclear power plants are in the making as if it was a huge change.

引用自 Triple G：

引用自 EndangeredPootisBird：

1. Batteries do not produce energy.

This is a good observation, but it would store overproduced energy, so one can make use of it if a cloud covers the sky, or the moon, or the wind doesn´t blow as strong...

引用自 EndangeredPootisBird：

2. Rare earth metals require significantly more time and resources to turn them into usable materials and technology compared to non-rare earth metals and uranium.

TL;DR: They´re more expensive, and the energy companies want to make profits, to satisfy their investors - so we rather choose the cheapest option, which makes us dependent on other nations. While the options are: Russia for uranium, or China for rare earths. What could possibly go wrong? Nothing, as long as short term profits make us rich enough to not care about anything in the future. While "us" are the CEOs of the energy companies, and the bigger investors.

引用自 EndangeredPootisBird：

3. THTR-300 was shut down to to it facing similar problems to other early nuclear reactors at the time, as well as due to inadequate supply chains.

Besides that people would call it THTR-2000 to show how futuristic it is - i don´t know how it answers the question were the difference is to use uranium or any other radioactive material. Like there it was thorium.

You said that other nuclear power plants are in the making as if it was a huge change.

Most of those problems have their roots in the current representative market economies that do not allow average people to influence decisions made at the top.