Global warming is definitely a problem, but a lot of politicians at least here in America, I don't know about other countries, make it seem like the world is going to end in the next ten or so years if we don't reduce pollution to a net zero amount now.
Relatively easy way to lower emissions is to use nuclear power until we can figure out something better.
With the reflective ice on the Arctic Ocean melting, the sun is now cooking our oceans, and we have already gone past the tipping point. Burning sulphur in the stratosphere (equally in both hemispheres, of course) is just a band-aid response. What we need to do is shut down the gulf steam ocean currents. The disruption to European agriculture would be enormous. It isn't clear that with our higher atmospheric CO₂, that even this would cause the Arctic Ocean winter ice to return to its original extent.
A 14°C warm up is where we're headed in the 22nd century. We should put as many species of tropical coral, fish, and associated microbes in cool water sanctuaries before they are lost forever.
If u get caught up into something and join any kind of group, u kinda exaggerate everything
But yeah we should stop all those emissions like....
I mean just look at New Delhi and Peking. That’s an extreme case, but eh
Thorium as a nuclear fuel source isn't nearly as bad as uranium and would be better since thorium is a lot more stable, more abundant, and the byproducts are less harmful. People hear nuclear and all they think about is bombs are bad. The only reason we still use Uranium is because during the cold war era the only nuclear power that received major funding from the government were ones that created plutonium as a byproduct.
Wind and solar farms aren't good for the environment since they take up a lot of land and are subject to weather conditions as well as being expensive. Creating a dam to get power from a river can be just as bad by flooding the local habitat. Tidal we don't really know about how much it can effect the environment, but it can raise EMF in the surrounding area which may effect certain types of fish and tidal energy can be very costly.
I'm not saying we should give up on other forms of energy, but we should wait to try to implement them at large scale till we can at least figure out ways to minimize their effect on the local environments after all it doesn't make sense to save the environment by destroy environments. Nuclear is a good step to at least curbing emissions in the short term if not a viable alternative considering there are only 60 nuclear power plants in the US that make up about 20% of the US's power.
Thorium is good stuff. The problem is that all Thorium reactors are breeder reactors. You can also put Uranium in breeder reactors. They can then be tuned to create weapons grade materials making nuclear proliferation almost impossible to stop.
India has the world's largest Thorium reserves and is actively working on development of commercial Thorium power. Look to India for future developments.
When I took the SAT last year, I had to respond to an entire prompt about how solar farms were devastating nocturnal flying creatures, specifically bats. Anything implemented will always have a negative side-effect.
Over 70% of France's electricity comes from nuclear reactors. Little over 50% of Hungary's, Slovakia's, and Ukraine's electricity is from nuclear. There are more than a few European countries that have at least comparable percentages of nuclear power use to the US if not more.
Do you think global warming is a fraud?
← View full post
Global warming is definitely a problem, but a lot of politicians at least here in America, I don't know about other countries, make it seem like the world is going to end in the next ten or so years if we don't reduce pollution to a net zero amount now.
Relatively easy way to lower emissions is to use nuclear power until we can figure out something better.
--
Vantablack
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Ellenna
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Do you know why they act like that?
--
McBean
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
-
Wellyoudliketoknoweh
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
With the reflective ice on the Arctic Ocean melting, the sun is now cooking our oceans, and we have already gone past the tipping point. Burning sulphur in the stratosphere (equally in both hemispheres, of course) is just a band-aid response. What we need to do is shut down the gulf steam ocean currents. The disruption to European agriculture would be enormous. It isn't clear that with our higher atmospheric CO₂, that even this would cause the Arctic Ocean winter ice to return to its original extent.
A 14°C warm up is where we're headed in the 22nd century. We should put as many species of tropical coral, fish, and associated microbes in cool water sanctuaries before they are lost forever.
If u get caught up into something and join any kind of group, u kinda exaggerate everything
But yeah we should stop all those emissions like....
I mean just look at New Delhi and Peking. That’s an extreme case, but eh
How do you suggest the waste from nuclear power plants should be transported and stored safely?
"Something better"? Wind? Solar? Tides? Rivers?
--
palehorse
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
xxLucifer
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Molten salt reactors!!
Thorium as a nuclear fuel source isn't nearly as bad as uranium and would be better since thorium is a lot more stable, more abundant, and the byproducts are less harmful. People hear nuclear and all they think about is bombs are bad. The only reason we still use Uranium is because during the cold war era the only nuclear power that received major funding from the government were ones that created plutonium as a byproduct.
Wind and solar farms aren't good for the environment since they take up a lot of land and are subject to weather conditions as well as being expensive. Creating a dam to get power from a river can be just as bad by flooding the local habitat. Tidal we don't really know about how much it can effect the environment, but it can raise EMF in the surrounding area which may effect certain types of fish and tidal energy can be very costly.
I'm not saying we should give up on other forms of energy, but we should wait to try to implement them at large scale till we can at least figure out ways to minimize their effect on the local environments after all it doesn't make sense to save the environment by destroy environments. Nuclear is a good step to at least curbing emissions in the short term if not a viable alternative considering there are only 60 nuclear power plants in the US that make up about 20% of the US's power.
--
McBean
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
blinkeredharlot
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Thorium is good stuff. The problem is that all Thorium reactors are breeder reactors. You can also put Uranium in breeder reactors. They can then be tuned to create weapons grade materials making nuclear proliferation almost impossible to stop.
India has the world's largest Thorium reserves and is actively working on development of commercial Thorium power. Look to India for future developments.
http://www.thoriumenergyworld.com/india.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%27s_three-stage_nuclear_power_programme
Wind and solar is bad for the environment? Lmao that's a new one.
--
LordPoisideon
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
xxLucifer
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
When I took the SAT last year, I had to respond to an entire prompt about how solar farms were devastating nocturnal flying creatures, specifically bats. Anything implemented will always have a negative side-effect.
--
blinkeredharlot
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Ok so Ive been googling that and I cannot find a thing about it. Please link your sources or Im calling US ignorance.
Of course things have negative side effects. Its bout weighing up the cost v the benefits gained. Same as anything in life.
They aren't great for the environment since they require so much land. Still better than burning fossil fuels, but so is nuclear.
--
blinkeredharlot
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Have you heard of Europe?
--
xxLucifer
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Over 70% of France's electricity comes from nuclear reactors. Little over 50% of Hungary's, Slovakia's, and Ukraine's electricity is from nuclear. There are more than a few European countries that have at least comparable percentages of nuclear power use to the US if not more.