There are no jobs on a dead planet?

Question

What do you guys who are worried about the economy say about that?

I say the answer is phasing out old technogies (coal etc) - renewable energy and green options create jobs too!

I completely agree that the costs will be so much higher to not act, but i don't necessarily agree that nuclear is the best option, it depends on the situation.

1st, we only have enough uranium reserves for 40 years (totally not sustainable, considering the energy needed to create the plants)

2nd, we have no complete solution for nuclear waste!!

3rd, in countries like australia (where i'm from) - where conditions are perfect for wind, solar and geotherm (and more) technologies - it seems ridiculous to go with nuclear!

oh and to anyone who's reading "CLEAN COAL technology" is NOT clean, and we don't even have the technology yet, why are we wasting valuable time and resources on a technology that is dirty, pollutes, and DOESN'T EVEN EXIST? Go renewable -solar, wind, hydro, geotherm etc etc

:D

i don't work at all, i'm a high school student in australia!

But that doesn't mean i'm ignorant/uneducated etc etc etc

i know things are happening, and that people are waking up to climate change, it just needs to happen a whole lot faster, and governments need to help out too (although i know that we need to work together, and that the government can't do everything)

Answer 1

Funny how the VERY people worried about GW right now have been against the option that now in hindsight would have prevented much of the "damage" to begin with. Most of Europe has been run off of nuclear power for decades, but not here in the good ole' US of A. It's also funny how many of them are changing their tune now. And these are the very people who claim to have the answer. My question is how many times do you go along with someone as short-sighted as they are? What happens when we implement on a global scale something they propose that they don't understand fully? Good thing we didn't spread soot on the arctic ice to prevent global cooling in the 70's. Maybe we need to put massive mirrors in orbit so that we can stop global warming. We might start a new ice age which would lead massive starvation, but at least we will be nice and cool while we are hungry.

Dad, get off of your communistic soap box. Just who exactly do you think will be contracting these massive global jobs? Those same evil people that own the big oil companies. Oh, and Haliburton.

Answer 2

You're right that not dealing with global warming would be devastating to the economy. That's why corporate CEOs are actually asking for government action.

But right now, technologies other than nuclear cannot pick up the whole load in the time we have to act. They're just not cost effective enough. Particularly since we need to make huge quantities of electricity (or hydrogen) to run vehicles with.

Solar, wind, and biofuels should be emphasized. But we will have to construct some nuclear power plants. We can build plants that are safe and safe from terrorists. We're good at that kind of engineering. We know how to bury the waste safely, it's just a political problem to pick a site.

Here's a good book about the issue from a very dedicated environmentalist who understands global warming, can calculate the numbers, and knows what we have to do.

"The Revenge of Gaia" by James Lovelock

A good goal would be to run the nuclear plants only for the 30-50 year life of a plant, and replace them with solar and wind, using better technologies that will become available.

Answer 3

No matter how much a switch to nuclear power may cost it's a bargain compared to the effects of staying with what we've got (i.e. coal, methane and a few token clean options that can't really replace coal that actually aren't up to supplying the power we need but which merely distract us away from doing what we need to do). Australia probably has enough low cost Uranium to supply all the world's energy needs for thousands of years (and the definition of low cost happens to be lower than what the current price of Uranium is) it'll just need the mining industry to ramp up (creating more jobs) and for the government to allow the environment to be saved (along with allowing those who have solved nuclear waste to actually put their plans into action).

If one wants to try something else then I think you should still put nuclear up even as a threat if the alternatives can't deliver, the clean coal people should be told that if they can't deliver a clean coal plant they'll have their industry destroyed. Maybe that will actually motivate them to get the damn thing working (assuming of course that it isn't just PR crap which I suspect clean coal is).

Even the cost of replacing oil for transportation (which unlike fossil fuel generated electricity we can't replace within a couple of decades) is going to look cheap compared to rising sea levels.

Even the unions in Australia realise that nuclear is needed to save the environment (of course they tend to be more interested in saving the coal industry so...).

Don't worry about those who claim breeders will produce weapons grade material, if they're being operated in the optimum way to produce power they won't be doing that (and if they're being operated to produce weapons someone is going to notice). Besides, having everyone have lots of energy is a good way to prevent resource wars.

Answer 4

I agree with you all the way . Phasing out all that old crap would create more jobs then we would know what to do with. Just getting rid of the rich oil tycoons sitting on all that cash would give everyone a new start for the better. The same people have been getting our money from oil for years and years now . It would be great to keep it at home that much cash would feed us all

Answer 5

Bob makes a good point about nuclear power. Nuclear power is probably the only source of power that is sufficiently reliable and available in the large amounts needed to replace coal.

Coal is contaminated with radioactive Uranium and Thorium. Coal burning in the United States, (mostly for electrical power) produces over 2,000 tons of radioactive waste in the form of Uranium and Thorium iin the coal ash and what goes up the smokestack with the fly ash. Coal burning in the United States produces more radioactive waste than nuclear power plants! We do not avoid radioactive waste by using coal instead of nuclear energy.(1)

Personally I prefer wind energy, it has a cost of production of only 4cents per kilowatt hour(2).

Unfortunately the wind does not always blow when you need it. Wind energy is too unreliable. Wind energy can be a supplemental source, but it is not sufficiently reliable to be your primary source.

With respect to sustainability of nuclear power, more fuel can be produced in what are called "Breeder" reactors than is consumed. The reason that "Breeder" reactors are not currently being used for commercial energy productuion is political.

"Breeder" reactors produce weapons grade nuclear material. In other words the fuel produced in "Breeder" reactors can be used in nuclear weapons. the idea was that if we do not use "Breeder" reactors we will cut down on nuclear weapons proliferation.

The issue is so critical that it appears to me that we must overcome our political problems with the issue of the production of weapons grade material and also the waste disposal issue for nuclear power plants.

Other green options for energy production can be supplemental sources in some cases, but the amounts that are potentially available are so small that they cannot replace coal as an energy source for electricity production.

Solar energy for electricity production with solar photovoltaic cells has a cost of production that is over ten times the cost of current methods of energy production. The cost of electricity produced by solar photovoltaic cells is too high for most of us.

Only the very wealthy can afford solar photovoltaic cells for electricity production.

Solar energy for hot water production is relatively low cost however. The use of solar energy for hot water production can significantly reduce the use of fossil fuels for the heating of water at a price that most people can afford.


If you really want to help the environment, focus your energy on persuading your legislators to outlaw the use of coal as an energy source. If you do just that one thing you will have an enormous positive effect on the environment.


All of the other micromanaging has been done for the past 45 years that I have been involved with the environmental movement and has produced only very disappointing results. It does not appear to me that will change at any time in the near future.
.

Answer 6

Why do you think this isn't happening? Green is very profitable. Look how much Wal-Mart is making from CFC light bulbs. They ain't giving those things away.

Coal is very plentiful and environmentalist won't let you build nuclear power. New technologies are being used with coal to reduce and eliminate sulfur and other particulate matter.

Action is being taken. You just don't see it because you don't work in these areas.

Answer 7

How do you intend to kill a planet, are you really so shortsighted as to not realize that the Eco system of the Earth has gone through change after change after change. Only the very naive, or dumb would believe that they can change the climate of this world. Which are you?

Answer 8

i'm not worried. gw is all lies. when you grow up, you'll understand.

not one prediction has come true since the 70's.

NO

famine,
global ice age,
mass death
uninhabitable part of the plant
running out of fossil fuels
running out of space for people

nope, not one.

now you BELIEVE global warming is the one?

kinda like having the winning lottery ticket?

Answer 9

We're all gonna die!!!

Answer 10

wat is question?