|
|
|
|
|
|
by cjslep
4320 days ago
|
|
|
Generally, when people advertise about "carbon-free and emission-free", they are talking about the powerplant's operation. Likewise with cars, they are advertised based on their operation. Asking about the rest of the supply chain is generally a good thing (and having critical reading skills in general), but phrasing it the way you are ("How do people fall for things like this?") comes off in an extremely negative light and is not helping your argument. EDIT: Moved other response to address your other post. |
|
|
Concerning the carbon free issue: That is false advertising and needs to be put in an extremely negative light because it suggests something to the consumer which is not true. How much carbon or emissions a power plant generates under some specific conditions (like in its main operation time) is completely irrelevant to how environmently friendly it is. The complete balance needs to be taken into account, otherwise you end up cheating yourself (or others) into believing you have reduced emissions when overall you haven't.
It's true that standing next to a kg of U238 for a limited amount of time will likely not hurt you much. The same is true for lead for example. That does not mean it is not hazardous! It still needs to be taken care of. Also, it is interesting that you ignored the Pu. I'm not trying to fear-monger. The statement from the article is simply wrong. Nuclear waste has to be taken care of for tens of thousands of years, not hundreds.