Marianne Cooper wrote:I recently read that some guys at MIT are working on H20 storage alternative to batteries and some guys in AL are currently using hydrogen. I understand that the bulk of the nuke waste is made up of every piece of clothing, every tool (screw driver, wrench etc) virtually anything that enters the building is nuclear waste as it cannot be repurposed, reused etc.
Immediate death for 3000 people from radiation.
Early death for another 30,000 from cancer caused by radiation.
Property Damage of $7 Billion.
Genetic Consequences affecting future generations lasting thousands of years.
Sure, we can point up at the Sun, and say something about it powering us efficiently by basing all of this on the assumption that since the Sun has been powering itself, the Earth and it's living beings, et cetera for billions of years that this somehow makes our solar panels amazing safe and efficient at doing so for our electrical needs. I wish it were that simple. Certainly the solar panel industry wants us the think so.
the system has operated flawlessly for billions of years.
Clean, abundant nuclear energy radiates from the sun!
It may come down to lowering our power needs/expectations rather than believing that our solar panel industries will be able to manufacture us enough to meet our existing need while keeping our environment clean.
There must be a desire to live within the energy budget we are blessed with
An interesting idea, Brad, and one that has some merit, I would say. It should be noted, though, that depleted uranium, and waste from spent uranium are not naturally occurring isotopic weights and have very differing half life situations as a result. The transportation of the waste to Northern Saskatchewan is unlikely to gain public favor, and will likely be the Achilles heel of the idea.
as for waste, in Northern Sask, there is a mine that is so hot, all mining is done remotely.
I suggest it is the perfect place for a repository for the most radioactive waste.
The Athabasca Basin is DESIGNED by Nature to hold uranium! May as well use it for what nature intended, Right?
I'm not sure where this common belief came from. But I can give another example of what I think of such belief structures. It is commonly held that flushing sanitized water down the toilet contaminated by feces is a proper and normal and acceptable procedure, but I contest that as well.
it is commonly held that NOTHING in our history has brought as many people out of poverty world wide, as cheap energy.
now, that encompasses all forms.
It is not often considered what got people into poverty in the first place. Displacement through warfare, ecological devastation, or other exploitive acts remain the primary drives for a person to be placed at low economic/lifestyle poverty levels. By contrast, a tribal man living in an intact setting might consider the lower middle class urban man who struggles at work day after day to pay off his debts and put food on his table with a near complete disconnect from his environment to be a impoverished or deprived soul worthy of pity.
We can force people off the wild landscape into slums where they have to pick through garbage to make a living and then give them a medical clinic, a light bulb, a hot plate, and a TV set for their rickety barely adequate shanty and pat ourselves on the back that we have improved their standard of living. But this is not what I would be considering a big picture analysis of the situation. I doubt that I will be convinced of the absolute 'need' for cheap energy, though I can see how it makes for a culture of convenience with upwardly mobile 'pie in the sky' dreaming and 'chasing the carrot on the stick' economics in a hurry.
without attempting to judge them by their own standards
is certainly true. I have never seen an intact tribal culture, and I have traveled extensively, but they are pretty deep in the wilds (I know there are some!). I know many members of (nonintact?) tribes with cell phones and generators (who would love more technology), there has been a huge disruption the last century and I doubt if that genie can be put back in the bottle. Going back to the initial quote that got me all worked up, the idea that electricity (and technology in general) has not decreased poverty immensely- I don't even know how what to say. Res ipsa loquitur, the life expectancy and decreased infant mortality and on and on- people value that. Like, universally. If we can give broader access to those things at a reasonable environmental cost, I strongly feel that is a win. Women who lose an infant have three more on average to compensate. Countries where the infectious disease pressure is intense spend much of their resources just replacing the dead, with minimal left over for advancement. Natural misery is just as miserable as other forms.
Generally when an intact tribal culture is viewed from the outside by someone who is sensitive to not destroying the culture, we find that, though strange in mores and custom, their social structure and means of making a living, often have qualities worth mimicking
A couple data points- prior to the European powers being the power players in Africa, there was internal "imperialism", the Bantu invasions from a small area (with improved tactics/tech) that swamped southern Africa, the European slave trade, the Arab slave trade, the Moslem invasion, the imperial kingdoms in Zimbabwe and Mali, and hundreds of others lost to time without record. The same in Central America, Aztecs replacing Maya replacing smaller empires. I don't think there is such a thing as a static "intact tribal culture", humans have adapted and adopted. The pace of that pressure probably got much faster with technology, and at some point cultures may not be able to adapt. We may be at that point on a large scale actually, one of the reasons I am not on facebook! But to say hardship as experienced today is proximally caused by one thing, even mainly, is a counterfactual. There was strife and hardship before and would have been anyway. There may have been degrees of difference, maybe large, but this is the way things actually are, not how I wish them. It is the only starting point I can start from. I can't accomplish change there without changing how I live here, and I think you would agree.
Modern village life in Africa is often shown as being full of strife and hardship, scratching a living, but this is most often the direct result of imperial and colonial destruction to their way of life, and continued manipulation from extremist capitalists and external political manipulators more than it is the problems of traditional tribal dynamics.
I am simply saying that I have not anywhere near enough information to be turned into believing that the military peace as we know it amounts to a level of true security or a higher standard of living then might be achieved if we put a small amount of that military expenditures towards true diplomacy and culture building.
Arch enemy? I mean, I don't like you, but I don't think you qualify as "arch enemy". Here, try this tiny ad:
Greenhouse of the Future ebook - now free for a whilehttps://permies.com/goodies/greenhouse