Author Topic: Addressing climate change  (Read 7615 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline segnosaur

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1315
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #60 on: May 27, 2019, 01:15:18 pm »
Now tell us how dangerous it is
- mining for uranium
- constructing nuclear reactors
Yes, both of those have dangers, as does any large scale construction project. You will also have danger in: mining the rare-earth metals needed for solar panels, mining the metal needed for constructing wind turbines, etc.

The difference is, as I pointed out before, one nuclear plant produces a LOT of energy, compared to the amount of resources needed to construct the plant, run it, and then decommission it. You need a lot more concrete, a lot more metal, a lot more of almost everything to build enough wind turbines/solar panels to replace one nuclear plant.
- living near them
Very little risk...

You actually get more radiation from eating one banana than you do living 50 miles away from a nuclear power plant for a whole year.
- 'disposing' of uranium ... ok, that isn't possible so ... 'containing' used uranium UNDERGROUND IN KINCARDINE ON, RIGHT NEXT TO A GREAT LAKE!!!
As I have pointed out, if we did things properly (reprocessed nuclear fuel) then the entire amount of nuclear waste that would be needed to supply you and your family for a lifetime would fit in your hand.

Compare that to the environmental impact of: mining huge amounts of rare-earth metals, aluminium, steel, and concrete to build replacement windmills or solar panels (and that would leave a relatively large volume of debris behind.)

...Solar panels often contain lead, cadmium, and other toxic chemicals...

And just to let you know... unlike nuclear-contaminated material (which eventually loses radioactivity as isotopes decay) the chemicals in your solar panel will remain toxic forever.

Yes, nuclear waste needs to be dealt with. But so does the waste from solar and wind (and those problems are even further from being solved than for nuclear).