|
|
|
|
|
|
by jthrowsitaway
1541 days ago
|
|
|
> And if we look at the matter our earth and atmosphere is composed of, nuclear energy will likely do a much more distinct impact in the long term than any other man-made energy production efforts so far. Citation is very much needed. Comparing nuclear energy with the dirty business of the fossil fuel chain is a no-brainer in my mind. Nuclear energy isn't perfect, but it's a lot more contained than fossil fuels. |
|
|
This may hold if, as most of those studies do, compare the almost-certain effects that are almost-now. They fail -like any study- on vague and long term effects. Eg. who will condense health effects of radiation spread by fighting in chernobyl ruins into a reasonable paper any time soon?
So we cannot reliable know the impact of nuclear waste, that if not treated again, will be nuclear waste for 100.000 of years for some kinds of waste and this is for sure.
For fossils, we in fact can not precisely know the if reducing CO2 emissions again, if climate effects will vane in time. But we have some expectations on the intertia this system has. Still not knowing precisely trigger effects that may start processes going thousands of years (melting ice etc.) And we can expect most dust and toxic effects to stop within years, if those operations are stopped. Nature will close the holes we digged in 10s of years.
For windmills, solar panels and batteries we can be sure it's impact is not far away from it's dirty production, maintenance and recycling impact. Again, of course, one day may prove we're going to far and all wind has been stopped by windmills...