|
|
|
|
|
|
by orbifold
2667 days ago
|
|
|
Compare that to carbon dioxide, which also lasts in the atmosphere a long time (roughly 1-2 orders of magnitude less than nuclear waste, which on the other hand has very localised effects) and is released by thousands of coal power plants unchecked and with minimal regulation all over the world. Not to mention the deadly air pollution, which causes chronic illnesses and death in the thousands. |
|
|
The same money that would go into taking over costs for private nuclear companies could easily flow into new technologies and energetic cycles, some of which the US is actively working against on political and economic levels.
Climate change will have an incredible impact on migration, so the best way to reduce CO2 is to make it in a way that gives Africa and its people a future. You could e.g. Force CO2 neutrality for carbon plants by having them plant trees in Africa. Which not only would reduce their CO2 impact and create jobs where they are needed to stop future drama, but increase soil stability, help with the increasing temperatures and potentially even provide food.
Btw. Coal plants are heavily regulated over hear in Europe — the filters they have to have have the size of a little house.
The question is: is the future more important than beeing/staying the geopolitical and economical leader? It is only about priorities and not about the unavailability of solutions. Are tou willing to give up long term competitveness for short term gain?
Petrol could be replaced by closed Ethyl cycles produced by solar panels in the sahara (which would again create jobs there) and we wouldn’t have to use electric cars whose battery production costs more CO2 than the car would save. The infrastructure to use Ethyl is basically there (If I am not wrong the Chinese add over 10% of Ethyl to their petrol already).
I think the solution are closed cycles. If water wouldn’t have a cycle on it’s own or without us creating it we would all have died of thirst.