4 ms·

> Deserts are complex ecosystems full of life They are the least full of life of usual ecosystems, so if you want to minimize harm when building large infrastr

by ovi256 5y ago

> Deserts are complex ecosystems full of life They are the least full of life of usual ecosystems, so if you want to minimize harm when building large infrastructure, they're the logical place to put the infrastructure. OTOH, you may be interested by the fact that nuclear plants have the best energy density per occupied land surface, if you care about reducing ecosystem impact. That allows minimizing used land.

trhway 5y ago
>nuclear plants have the best energy density per occupied land surface, if you care about reducing ecosystem impact. That allows minimizing used land. and when it blows it naturally provides for a huge blossoming ecosystem refuge guaranteed to be free of development for the centuries to come like the Chernobyl zone. Edit in response to the comment below: the false dichotomy. Basically the same old Big Energy tries to blackmail our civilization into nuclear using the threat of coal. No pasaran.
- mcny 5y ago
  I used to think along the same lines until someone mentioned that we don't need nuclear energy to make large swaths of land uninhabitable. In fact, coal is the answer if you want to create large areas free of humans for a long time. Unlike nuclear, you don't even have to wait for a disaster to happen. It just does it normally.
- sunshineforever 5y ago
  Why is nuclear energy so bad though? 99 percent of the plants dont blow. The waste fuel is miniscule in size and easy to contain compared amd fossil fuel, which cant be contained. Nuclear seems like a perfect solution to immediately reduce climate impact while we transition to proper renewables. It seems like the semi localized environmental damage of an occasional nuclear accident is far less bad than the constant global damage of carbon.
  - markvdb 5y ago
    > Why is nuclear energy so bad though? 99 percent of the plants dont blow. It's a better than 99%, but only slightly. Over 440 active reactors[1], we're at ~0.68% at INES [1] level 6. That is in a period of exceptional social stability though. We've arguably escaped some rather nasty accidents in the disintegrating USSR. One could also speculate that accidents might be more likely to happen near the end of the reactor's economic life, which for many reactors we haven't seen yet. > The waste fuel is miniscule in size and easy to contain compared amd fossil fuel, which cant be contained. It isn't easy to contain for the entire containment period. Humanity doesn't even have a solution for that yet. You're also neglecting other risks, like nuclear proliferation. > Nuclear seems like a perfect solution to immediately reduce climate impact while we transition to proper renewables. The median construction time for a nuclear reactor was 119 months in 2019.[2] It's not a fast transitional technology to renewables. It also doesn't complement renewables very well. There's its limited scaling up and down. There's also the inherent big size of the projects and the management and lobbying hydrocephalus that entials. > It seems like the semi localized environmental damage of an occasional nuclear accident is far less bad than the constant global damage of carbon. Maybe. What's certain is deploying renewables is certainly cheaper, easier, faster and safer than nuclear for at least 80% of the world's electric energy production right now. Chances are that with the incredibly quick development of storage technology, that number will soon get much closer to 100%. Another option would be to convince Americans, Canadians and Scandinavians to limit their electricity consumption patterns to that of the average western European.[3] [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/267158/number-of-nuclear-reactors-in-operation-by-country/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/267158/number-of-nuclear... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Sc... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-construction-time-for-reactors-since-1981/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-constructi... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electrici...
    - ben_w 5y ago
      > lobbying hydrocephalus Autocorrupt or a novel biting put-down?
peter_retief 5y ago
That is simply not true. Large destruction of natural ecosystems is a disaster for the planet we need to use less resources not more.
- fogihujy 5y ago
  You're right. We should reduce consumption, the global population, and do quite a few radical changes to our culture _IF_ the end goal is to minimize ecological damage. Thing is, most people are less concerned with the environment and more concerned about things like accumulation of wealth, social status, and in many places even things like clean water, access to healthcare and food on the table. If you want to convince all those people to prioritize the environment over everything else, then you better have some kind of magical way of convincing people to listen and act here and now. "Bad stuff will happen in X years" simply isn't relevant enough for people to care. If you don't have one, then all we can hope for is to limit the damage in a way that is acceptable to as many as possible, and hope that's enough.
Symbiote 5y ago
> They are the least full of life of usual ecosystems, so if you want to minimize harm when building large infrastructure, they're the logical place to put the infrastructure. I don't think that necessarily follows — desert ecosystems are often relatively fragile. Small changes to conditions can have a disproportionate, negative effect on the plants and animals that live there. (Or a positive effect on some species, which often means a negative effect on others — i.e. things thrown out of balance.)

by ovi256 5y ago

trhway 5y ago

>nuclear plants have the best energy density per occupied land surface, if you care about reducing ecosystem impact. That allows minimizing used land. and when it blows it naturally provides for a huge blossoming ecosystem refuge guaranteed to be free of development for the centuries to come like the Chernobyl zone. Edit in response to the comment below: the false dichotomy. Basically the same old Big Energy tries to blackmail our civilization into nuclear using the threat of coal. No pasaran.

mcny 5y ago
I used to think along the same lines until someone mentioned that we don't need nuclear energy to make large swaths of land uninhabitable. In fact, coal is the answer if you want to create large areas free of humans for a long time. Unlike nuclear, you don't even have to wait for a disaster to happen. It just does it normally.
sunshineforever 5y ago
Why is nuclear energy so bad though? 99 percent of the plants dont blow. The waste fuel is miniscule in size and easy to contain compared amd fossil fuel, which cant be contained. Nuclear seems like a perfect solution to immediately reduce climate impact while we transition to proper renewables. It seems like the semi localized environmental damage of an occasional nuclear accident is far less bad than the constant global damage of carbon.
- markvdb 5y ago
  > Why is nuclear energy so bad though? 99 percent of the plants dont blow. It's a better than 99%, but only slightly. Over 440 active reactors[1], we're at ~0.68% at INES [1] level 6. That is in a period of exceptional social stability though. We've arguably escaped some rather nasty accidents in the disintegrating USSR. One could also speculate that accidents might be more likely to happen near the end of the reactor's economic life, which for many reactors we haven't seen yet. > The waste fuel is miniscule in size and easy to contain compared amd fossil fuel, which cant be contained. It isn't easy to contain for the entire containment period. Humanity doesn't even have a solution for that yet. You're also neglecting other risks, like nuclear proliferation. > Nuclear seems like a perfect solution to immediately reduce climate impact while we transition to proper renewables. The median construction time for a nuclear reactor was 119 months in 2019.[2] It's not a fast transitional technology to renewables. It also doesn't complement renewables very well. There's its limited scaling up and down. There's also the inherent big size of the projects and the management and lobbying hydrocephalus that entials. > It seems like the semi localized environmental damage of an occasional nuclear accident is far less bad than the constant global damage of carbon. Maybe. What's certain is deploying renewables is certainly cheaper, easier, faster and safer than nuclear for at least 80% of the world's electric energy production right now. Chances are that with the incredibly quick development of storage technology, that number will soon get much closer to 100%. Another option would be to convince Americans, Canadians and Scandinavians to limit their electricity consumption patterns to that of the average western European.[3] [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/267158/number-of-nuclear-reactors-in-operation-by-country/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/267158/number-of-nuclear... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Sc... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-construction-time-for-reactors-since-1981/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-constructi... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electrici...
  - ben_w 5y ago
    > lobbying hydrocephalus Autocorrupt or a novel biting put-down?

peter_retief 5y ago

That is simply not true. Large destruction of natural ecosystems is a disaster for the planet we need to use less resources not more.

fogihujy 5y ago
You're right. We should reduce consumption, the global population, and do quite a few radical changes to our culture _IF_ the end goal is to minimize ecological damage. Thing is, most people are less concerned with the environment and more concerned about things like accumulation of wealth, social status, and in many places even things like clean water, access to healthcare and food on the table. If you want to convince all those people to prioritize the environment over everything else, then you better have some kind of magical way of convincing people to listen and act here and now. "Bad stuff will happen in X years" simply isn't relevant enough for people to care. If you don't have one, then all we can hope for is to limit the damage in a way that is acceptable to as many as possible, and hope that's enough.

Symbiote 5y ago

> They are the least full of life of usual ecosystems, so if you want to minimize harm when building large infrastructure, they're the logical place to put the infrastructure. I don't think that necessarily follows — desert ecosystems are often relatively fragile. Small changes to conditions can have a disproportionate, negative effect on the plants and animals that live there. (Or a positive effect on some species, which often means a negative effect on others — i.e. things thrown out of balance.)