5 ms·

Anti-nuclear environmentalists are directly responsible for our continued over-reliance on fossil fuels. Add anti-damming and anti-windfarm environmentalists in

Anti-nuclear environmentalists are directly responsible for our continued over-reliance on fossil fuels. Add anti-damming and anti-windfarm environmentalists into the mix, and the environmental movement is anything but.

southerntofu 6y ago
Fossil fuel are terrible, but nuclear energy is arguably just as terrible. Also, nuclear energy (like most pretend-green energies) does not work without considerable amounts of fossil fuels, from extraction to actual energy production. If only that, building a nuclear facility is going to take a lot of fossil fuel to power the machines, and use a lot of concrete, which requires even more fossil fuel to produce and bring over. Water and wind turbines are a little different. Their ecological impact depends on their size. The problem here is most countries insist on urbanization which concentrates energy production and therefore tends to centralize energy production away from usage, in big power stations. Producing a little electricity with turbines has a quasi-null environmental impact, and is good for local usage for a small village. You'll find that people on the countryside are opposing industry's project not because they're new and ugly, but because they have actual concerns about the damage produced by such installations. How much resources does it take to build a wind turbine? How many tons of concrete does it take to anchor so many tons of steel? How does this considerable of concrete affect the local ecosystem? People are not entirely stupid. They protest the nuclear industry and windfarms because they've seen the damage, and they understand these proposals do not bring required change. We need momentum to reduce energy/resources usage, not to produce ever more energy. If you want to understand why many people from here (France) strongly oppose nuclear power, i recommend you do some reading on Areva's many failures (engineering-wise) and on Françafrique, the french neocolonial system which ensures uranium supplies.
- caymanjim 6y ago
  You've demonstrated my point. You're pointing out some valid concerns. They're insignificant in comparison to the fossil fuel alternative. Environmentalists make perfect the enemy of good every time.
  - southerntofu 6y ago
    > They're insignificant in comparison to the fossil fuel alternative. Weighing options is a good stance, but i'm pretty sure "insignificant" is not the word to describe problems caused by the nuclear industry. I don't want to sound judgy, but feel free to do some reading on the topic. Also, you seem to dismiss my central point that nuclear doesn't work without considerable amounts of fossil fuel. Even if that were the case, what is it powering? Almost all these electric devices use lithium which also takes a lot of fossil fuel to extract and refine. It would be interesting to read a full study on the requirements on fossil fuel to produce an electric car and feed it over its lifetime (accounting for the short life of electric batteries), depending on how energy is produced. I'm not entirely sure, but it may be just as bad as a combustion car. For hybrids, it's not even a debate as they get the environmental downsides of both worlds.
    - jjoonathan 6y ago
      The nuclear industry often complains that their critics are incapable of division, and you sure seem to be proving them correct. In the USA, nuclear has 10x the install base of wind. If it were equally problematic, you should expect 10x the problems. The ratio is probably higher in France. > nuclear doesn't work without considerable amounts of fossil fuel. Ditto wind, ditto solar. They are considerably worse once you divide by the power they actually produce, as you should. With wind, you build a gigantic edifice of concrete and steel, and it powers a neighborhood, some of the time. With nuclear, you build a gigantic edifice of concrete and steel, and it powers multiple cities, all of the time. https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/wind-energys-carbon-footprint/ https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/wind-energys-carbon-footpr... > It would be interesting to read a full study on the requirements on fossil fuel to produce an electric car Dude, this is electric car 101 stuff. If you haven't found these studies, it's because you weren't looking.
hoseja 6y ago
Dams are pretty awful for the landscape.

southerntofu 6y ago

Fossil fuel are terrible, but nuclear energy is arguably just as terrible. Also, nuclear energy (like most pretend-green energies) does not work without considerable amounts of fossil fuels, from extraction to actual energy production. If only that, building a nuclear facility is going to take a lot of fossil fuel to power the machines, and use a lot of concrete, which requires even more fossil fuel to produce and bring over. Water and wind turbines are a little different. Their ecological impact depends on their size. The problem here is most countries insist on urbanization which concentrates energy production and therefore tends to centralize energy production away from usage, in big power stations. Producing a little electricity with turbines has a quasi-null environmental impact, and is good for local usage for a small village. You'll find that people on the countryside are opposing industry's project not because they're new and ugly, but because they have actual concerns about the damage produced by such installations. How much resources does it take to build a wind turbine? How many tons of concrete does it take to anchor so many tons of steel? How does this considerable of concrete affect the local ecosystem? People are not entirely stupid. They protest the nuclear industry and windfarms because they've seen the damage, and they understand these proposals do not bring required change. We need momentum to reduce energy/resources usage, not to produce ever more energy. If you want to understand why many people from here (France) strongly oppose nuclear power, i recommend you do some reading on Areva's many failures (engineering-wise) and on Françafrique, the french neocolonial system which ensures uranium supplies.

caymanjim 6y ago
You've demonstrated my point. You're pointing out some valid concerns. They're insignificant in comparison to the fossil fuel alternative. Environmentalists make perfect the enemy of good every time.
- southerntofu 6y ago
  > They're insignificant in comparison to the fossil fuel alternative. Weighing options is a good stance, but i'm pretty sure "insignificant" is not the word to describe problems caused by the nuclear industry. I don't want to sound judgy, but feel free to do some reading on the topic. Also, you seem to dismiss my central point that nuclear doesn't work without considerable amounts of fossil fuel. Even if that were the case, what is it powering? Almost all these electric devices use lithium which also takes a lot of fossil fuel to extract and refine. It would be interesting to read a full study on the requirements on fossil fuel to produce an electric car and feed it over its lifetime (accounting for the short life of electric batteries), depending on how energy is produced. I'm not entirely sure, but it may be just as bad as a combustion car. For hybrids, it's not even a debate as they get the environmental downsides of both worlds.
  - jjoonathan 6y ago
    The nuclear industry often complains that their critics are incapable of division, and you sure seem to be proving them correct. In the USA, nuclear has 10x the install base of wind. If it were equally problematic, you should expect 10x the problems. The ratio is probably higher in France. > nuclear doesn't work without considerable amounts of fossil fuel. Ditto wind, ditto solar. They are considerably worse once you divide by the power they actually produce, as you should. With wind, you build a gigantic edifice of concrete and steel, and it powers a neighborhood, some of the time. With nuclear, you build a gigantic edifice of concrete and steel, and it powers multiple cities, all of the time. https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/wind-energys-carbon-footprint/ https://www.factcheck.org/2018/03/wind-energys-carbon-footpr... > It would be interesting to read a full study on the requirements on fossil fuel to produce an electric car Dude, this is electric car 101 stuff. If you haven't found these studies, it's because you weren't looking.

hoseja 6y ago

Dams are pretty awful for the landscape.