6 ms·

You're forgetting the "It's different when it happens in Africa / India / China / South America" caveat to most arguments.

by ethbro 10y ago

labster 10y ago
I'd normally agree with you, but the top Uranium producers are Canada, Kazakhstan, and Australia. Uranium mining is a first (and second) world problem.
- popey456963 10y ago
  To be fair, you need _significantly_ less[0] uranium compared with the amount of coal you mine. For every million mountains destroyed by coal mining, you'd only have to destroy a couple of mountains. Not to mention I don't think uranium is usually mined from mountains but rather pit-mined, makes it far better than the alternatives. Personally however, still support solar. Especially solar house tiles, they look good, pay for themselves after a few years and can be placed on every house. [0] https://xkcd.com/1162/ https://xkcd.com/1162/
  - kd0amg 10y ago
    Reminds me of this chart: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI99A08Y83E&t=13m45s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI99A08Y83E&t=13m45s (if you want to skip to the punch line, it's just after 15:00), but this one is still in log scale.
  - hueving 10y ago
    You do know that a significant amount of coal is mined without the destruction of mountains, right?
  - hsjhgktfdy 10y ago
    Not every house has solar resource. If your house is in the middle of the woods it's not going to work unless you clear-cut the surrounding woods and then you're not in the middle of the woods anymore. Same if you are in the shadow of a couple of mid-rises. etc. etc. Even if there is solar resource it may not replace more than a fraction of usage. Roof-top solar is great where the resource exists, but it's a partial solution at best. There's still a need for the utility grid and something needs to fuel that. It could be utility-scale solar, but it's not onsite rooftop solar.
    - adrianN 10y ago
      You realize that most houses are not in the middle of the woods? If I look around here in Berlin, almost all houses would qualify for rooftop solar. There is of course still the storage problem.
- Pxtl 10y ago
  It's such a shame the Aussies don't build nuke plants. They have the uranium and they have a good place to store the waste. But they're so stuck on being Commonwealth Texas that they'll stick to fossil fuels forever.
  - Jedd 10y ago
    As an actual Australian I'm really happy that we don't build 'nuke plants' here. (I am assuming you mean nuclear fission power plants.) We have uranium, yes, but if happenstance is our only criteria we should also be building nuclear weapons and burning lots of coal. Sadly we're doing the latter with great alacrity. We also don't have a good place to store the waste. I don't think there's (m)any places on the planet that could be good places to store waste of this nature. It's probably telling that people often refer to nuclear waste needing to be stored or managed, rather than recycled, rendered safe, disposed of, etc.
    - vacri 10y ago
      > We also don't have a good place to store the waste. We've got tons of space to store the waste. The country is right in the middle of a tectonic plate, so little worry about earthquakes, and large swathes of the country are uninhabited by anyone, even mythical 'lost tribes'. Even if nowhere else, we could store waste in the giant area cordoned off for nuclear testing in the '50s. In my opinion, it's hard to find somewhere better suited for storing nuclear waste than 'somewhere in Australia'. Stable, first-world government, a fair few places where we can put it where even leaks wouldn't be a problem, skilled populace, etc etc. In any case, it looks like they're discussing it: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-08/should-south-australia-be-storing-nuclear-waste-above-ground/8003156 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-08/should-south-australia...
      - Jedd 10y ago
        > In my opinion, it's hard to find somewhere better suited for storing nuclear waste than 'somewhere in Australia'. This makes sense only if your starting position is that creating nuclear waste makes sense. > Stable, first-world government, a fair few places where we can put it where even leaks wouldn't be a problem, skilled populace, etc etc. How long does nuclear (fission) waste need to be managed? How long do you believe that AU has had a stable, first-world government?

You're forgetting the "It's different when it happens in Africa / India / China / South America" caveat to most arguments.

by ethbro 10y ago

You're forgetting the "It's different when it happens in Africa / India / China / South America" caveat to most arguments.

labster 10y ago

I'd normally agree with you, but the top Uranium producers are Canada, Kazakhstan, and Australia. Uranium mining is a first (and second) world problem.

popey456963 10y ago
To be fair, you need _significantly_ less[0] uranium compared with the amount of coal you mine. For every million mountains destroyed by coal mining, you'd only have to destroy a couple of mountains. Not to mention I don't think uranium is usually mined from mountains but rather pit-mined, makes it far better than the alternatives. Personally however, still support solar. Especially solar house tiles, they look good, pay for themselves after a few years and can be placed on every house. [0] https://xkcd.com/1162/ https://xkcd.com/1162/
- kd0amg 10y ago
  Reminds me of this chart: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI99A08Y83E&t=13m45s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI99A08Y83E&t=13m45s (if you want to skip to the punch line, it's just after 15:00), but this one is still in log scale.
- hueving 10y ago
  You do know that a significant amount of coal is mined without the destruction of mountains, right?
- hsjhgktfdy 10y ago
  Not every house has solar resource. If your house is in the middle of the woods it's not going to work unless you clear-cut the surrounding woods and then you're not in the middle of the woods anymore. Same if you are in the shadow of a couple of mid-rises. etc. etc. Even if there is solar resource it may not replace more than a fraction of usage. Roof-top solar is great where the resource exists, but it's a partial solution at best. There's still a need for the utility grid and something needs to fuel that. It could be utility-scale solar, but it's not onsite rooftop solar.
  - adrianN 10y ago
    You realize that most houses are not in the middle of the woods? If I look around here in Berlin, almost all houses would qualify for rooftop solar. There is of course still the storage problem.
Pxtl 10y ago
It's such a shame the Aussies don't build nuke plants. They have the uranium and they have a good place to store the waste. But they're so stuck on being Commonwealth Texas that they'll stick to fossil fuels forever.
- Jedd 10y ago
  As an actual Australian I'm really happy that we don't build 'nuke plants' here. (I am assuming you mean nuclear fission power plants.) We have uranium, yes, but if happenstance is our only criteria we should also be building nuclear weapons and burning lots of coal. Sadly we're doing the latter with great alacrity. We also don't have a good place to store the waste. I don't think there's (m)any places on the planet that could be good places to store waste of this nature. It's probably telling that people often refer to nuclear waste needing to be stored or managed, rather than recycled, rendered safe, disposed of, etc.
  - vacri 10y ago
    > We also don't have a good place to store the waste. We've got tons of space to store the waste. The country is right in the middle of a tectonic plate, so little worry about earthquakes, and large swathes of the country are uninhabited by anyone, even mythical 'lost tribes'. Even if nowhere else, we could store waste in the giant area cordoned off for nuclear testing in the '50s. In my opinion, it's hard to find somewhere better suited for storing nuclear waste than 'somewhere in Australia'. Stable, first-world government, a fair few places where we can put it where even leaks wouldn't be a problem, skilled populace, etc etc. In any case, it looks like they're discussing it: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-08/should-south-australia-be-storing-nuclear-waste-above-ground/8003156 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-08/should-south-australia...
    - Jedd 10y ago
      > In my opinion, it's hard to find somewhere better suited for storing nuclear waste than 'somewhere in Australia'. This makes sense only if your starting position is that creating nuclear waste makes sense. > Stable, first-world government, a fair few places where we can put it where even leaks wouldn't be a problem, skilled populace, etc etc. How long does nuclear (fission) waste need to be managed? How long do you believe that AU has had a stable, first-world government?