5 ms·
Don't you think that 30k years of burning coal would kill more people? I'm not sure I follow you.
by BenjiWiebe 2y ago
Don't you think that 30k years of burning coal would kill more people?
I'm not sure I follow you.
- Joel_Mckay 2y agoMy point was there are more sustainable options, than repeating a detrimental pattern of leaving problems for our grandchildren to solve. There is also the folly of assuming centralized distribution grids are economically sustainable in times of scarcity. I remain unconvinced that Goat-carts are not the future for our civilization. =3
- jojobas 2y agoCentralized grids are cheaper, which is even more important in the times of scarcity. There's no "20 meters of horse poo on the streets" for nuclear. It was always the way to go. If Chernobyl didn't happen, KGB would have it to secure the eternal demand for gas, oil and coal.
- Joel_Mckay 2y ago"Centralized grids are cheaper" I used to believe this too, but comparing Sydney/AU to Texas/US over the past decade has changed my perspective on distributed grid viability. The end users may simply have no better options available. =/
- metabagel 2y ago30k years of storage, not 30k years of electricity generation. Presumably, sometime in that 30k years, a method of reprocessing the stored nuclear waste will have been developed.
- Joel_Mckay 2y agowe can hope for Fusion solutions, but renewables are proving viable with slightly higher upfront investment required. The panemone windmills have survived several empire ages, and continue to operate. =)