Just Stop Oil protests

[Metal Biker]

ok so 1% of 50,000 tonnes is only 500 tonnes of high risk waste to get rid of. percentage terms is a stupid argument

That we already know how to dispose of safely and have been doing for years now.

 

[Metal Biker]

because they are idiots

Useful idiots, some would claim.

I just see them as a pointless shouty bunch, pointing out the obvious whilst offering no solutions or alternatives and making the discussion more about themselves, than having the public side with the issue they are raising.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

That we already know how to dispose of safely and have been doing for years now.

but can't continue long term, it has to stop at some point. the quicker we get to fusion the better and the only way to do that is by generating more scientists which the just stop oil lot should be concentrating on. Anything else is futile

 

[BerkshireBlue]

Useful idiots, some would claim.

I just see them as a pointless shouty bunch, pointing out the obvious whilst offering no solutions or alternatives and making the discussion more about themselves, than having the public side with the issue they are raising.

I think we're on the same book here

 

[Metal Biker]

I think we're on the same book here

Except for the whole "nuclear isn't clean" angle. In terms of contributing to greenhouse gases and climate change, nuclear fission energy has done zero. And lets be honest, that's the issue being adressed here; greenhouse gases contributing to climate change.

I've already stated that the "issue" of the waste isn't one anymore, not nowadays. Reduce, reuse, recycle has been the Nuclear Industry's mantra and the waste that has been produced isn't anything like what people assume. HLW like Plutonium is the big bad... but we don't make much of it anymore (cough, the bombs), if at all, or ergo, disposing of it. The majority of waste these days has an average half life of about 90 years.

 

[Metal Biker]

but can't continue long term, it has to stop at some point. the quicker we get to fusion the better and the only way to do that is by generating more scientists which the just stop oil lot should be concentrating on. Anything else is futile

Yeah, but to get there we still need to invest in fission for say, 50-70 years, and then fusion technology should be readily available and or efficient enough to switch over to, seemlessly.

There will be some waste, but it is nothing like what sci-fi media or Hollywood has portrayed. Sealed and encased in lead/concrete barrels, underground in a thick concrete chamber designed to withstand nuclear blasts and or earthquakes, situated in the middle of nowhere far from water channels or habitation.

 

[RabidCity]

Yeah, but to get there we still need to invest in fission for say, 50-70 years, and then fusion technology should be readily available and or efficient enough to switch over to, seemlessly.

There will be some waste, but it is nothing like what sci-fi media or Hollywood has portrayed. Sealed and encased in lead/concrete barrels, underground in a thick concrete chamber designed to withstand nuclear blasts and or earthquakes, situated in the middle of nowhere far from water channels or habitation.

Would that not make the land unusable though.. 'far from habitation' is a difficult thing to do, pushing a 9bn global population and 70billion land animals to feed us.

 

[Metal Biker]

Would that not make the land unusable though.. 'far from habitation' is a difficult thing to do, pushing a 9bn global population and 70billion land animals to feed us.

Think "Death Valley". There are plenty of locations on Earth uninhabitable for animals or plant life. It's normally stored on land unfit for development.

It's like this; the LLW stuff, stored underground in concrete, low yield, half life of around 30 years or so. Majority of waste. The HLW, made into glass, where it can decay safely because it's effectively become "rock" form again. This is the thousand year stuff, but in it's "glass" form, you can't do anything with it expect lick it, I guess.

 

[inbetween]

My view on Co2 is that trying to stop it is pointless. We'd be far better off developing technology to mitigate climate change as opposed to gas lit, self-harm attempts to go carbon zero when we know it isn't going to happen. The growing needs of the developing world will offset anything that we do over the coming years either way and that's already happening.

China is the best example, China emitted nothing until the 1980's and now it emits more than anyone else by a huge distance. What happens if a second powerhouse grows and comes forwards? It would be a complete disaster but what is there to stop that happening and actually a moral question is why should anyone stop it happening?

That is where Just Stop Oil and organisations like XR should protest but they can't because they're left-wing and are pro-growth when it comes to the developing world. They'd love us to chuck a load of foreign aid into developing countries but just like China those countries would immediately use it to build coal powerplants to cheaply grow their economies.

The only way to stop or reduce climate change immediately is to abolish world growth but that isn't going to happen. Until then we can try to develop things like fusion but it'll likely come far too late and the technology of everything else is too varied and vast. For example, no matter what we do on fusion, you still can't feed a population with electricity.

Unfortunately the population of the world has grown to fast and too much. To be compatible with the environment the population needed to grow with technology that mitigated the impact of that growth but we still haven't done that and probably never will.

 

[BobKowalski]

My view on Co2 is that trying to stop it is pointless. We'd be far better off developing technology to mitigate climate change as opposed to gas lit, self-harm attempts to go carbon zero when we know it isn't going to happen. The growing needs of the developing world will offset anything that we do over the coming years either way and that's already happening.

China is the best example, China emitted nothing until the 1980's and now it emits more than anyone else by a huge distance. What happens if a second powerhouse grows and comes forwards? It would be a complete disaster but what is there to stop that happening and actually a moral question is why should anyone stop it happening?

That is where Just Stop Oil and organisations like XR should protest but they can't because they're left-wing and are pro-growth when it comes to the developing world. They'd love us to chuck a load of foreign aid into developing countries but just like China those countries would immediately use it to build coal powerplants to cheaply grow their economies.

The only way to stop or reduce climate change immediately is to abolish world growth but that isn't going to happen. Until then we can try to develop things like fusion but it'll likely come far too late and the technology of everything else is too varied and vast. For example, no matter what we do on fusion, you still can't feed a population with electricity.

Unfortunately the population of the world has grown too fast and too much. To be compatible with the environment the population needed to grow with technology that mitigated the impact of that growth but we still haven't done that and probably never will.

China is investing a fortune in green technology. It plans to reduce its emissions by 65% by the end of the decade. More electric vehicles are sold in China than in the rest of the world.

While it is true to say China has been the biggest culprit in recent years due to its fast growth, it is also true to say that China recognises the need to change its energy profile and is investing heavily to do so. Primarily, it sees an economic advantage in doing this before the rest of the world.

I think Just Stop Oil and XR can continue to focus on the UK. It being their country of residence and all that.