Two of those articles are from 2017, insane to see how much their wealth has soared since then. Muskrat wasn't even on the list in 2017. Saint Luigi hear our prayers ..
Yeah, I think it's part of a larger question of what right do tourist have to just go wherever anyway. Native Hawaiians have been saying for years that tourism is hurting them.
I hear and understand this perspective. For me, the overwhelming focus on carbon emissions misses the point that the planet and our relationship to it is sick. We have to consider the overall health of the planet and future generations when we make our decisions.
I'm by no means advocating for increasing the utilization of coal, oil, and gas, but just wanting to challenge my own feelings around nuclear energy.
Some how I feel like the fact that nuclear is also reliant on extraction gets lost in the focus on decarbonization.
My objectionsn to nuclear are also similarly moral. I just have such a huge issue with an energy source that creates a waste that will be around for generations.
Uranium mining has also created so many environmental disasters and is a risk to human health on that end.
That being said, I also understand that batteries and solar require rare earth minerals which causes more mining and human rights violations.
I appreciate the comment on what waste we're willing to deal with. It's also important to look at the embedded energy of the process, the energy return on investment, and the overall ecological footprint.
It's interesting to me that the conversation has shifted so far from ecological footprinting to carbon footprinting. I don't think the Navajo Nation would agree that nuclear energy creates less emissions that coal. The mining and end life of nuclear energy is just too toxic for me to ever consider it clean or green.
Of course, I also have an issue with hydropower, so đ€·đ»
It's crazy to me that Germany still has such a dirty grid. I had a German economics professor like 20 years ago that was telling us all the aggressive actions Germany was taking to reach carbon neutrality. What happened?
I like this take. Isn't solar punk itself a "counter-take" to the overwhelming distopian future visions? I've always said, we need to clearly describe the future we hope for so people know what we are working towards.
đ thanks
Two of those articles are from 2017, insane to see how much their wealth has soared since then. Muskrat wasn't even on the list in 2017. Saint Luigi hear our prayers ..
Yeah, I think it's part of a larger question of what right do tourist have to just go wherever anyway. Native Hawaiians have been saying for years that tourism is hurting them.
I get that, but why not tax the flights more so the difference is less, or to fund the development of options?
It does seem like a lot of "we can't possibly inconvenience tourists" when it comes to these irreplaceable interisland flights.
I saw this posted somewhere else, and that was my first thought. My second thought was "boats". Lol
Isn't the main beneficiary of centralized power generation industry and not the average citizen?
Cool.
I hear and understand this perspective. For me, the overwhelming focus on carbon emissions misses the point that the planet and our relationship to it is sick. We have to consider the overall health of the planet and future generations when we make our decisions.
I'm by no means advocating for increasing the utilization of coal, oil, and gas, but just wanting to challenge my own feelings around nuclear energy.
Some how I feel like the fact that nuclear is also reliant on extraction gets lost in the focus on decarbonization.
My objectionsn to nuclear are also similarly moral. I just have such a huge issue with an energy source that creates a waste that will be around for generations.
Uranium mining has also created so many environmental disasters and is a risk to human health on that end.
That being said, I also understand that batteries and solar require rare earth minerals which causes more mining and human rights violations.
If fusion were ever to be feasible, would it also need to used mined uranium, or are there other fuel sources?
I also have such an issue with just looking at carbon footprinting.
I appreciate the comment on what waste we're willing to deal with. It's also important to look at the embedded energy of the process, the energy return on investment, and the overall ecological footprint.
Why is there a ban on recycling if that much is reusable? I thought it was an issue with reactor design?
đ
Has anywhere actually solved the issue of waste handling?
I think nuclear also benefits a centralized grid structure more than community-based energy production and use.
It's interesting to me that the conversation has shifted so far from ecological footprinting to carbon footprinting. I don't think the Navajo Nation would agree that nuclear energy creates less emissions that coal. The mining and end life of nuclear energy is just too toxic for me to ever consider it clean or green.
Of course, I also have an issue with hydropower, so đ€·đ»
It's crazy to me that Germany still has such a dirty grid. I had a German economics professor like 20 years ago that was telling us all the aggressive actions Germany was taking to reach carbon neutrality. What happened?
I like this take. Isn't solar punk itself a "counter-take" to the overwhelming distopian future visions? I've always said, we need to clearly describe the future we hope for so people know what we are working towards.