As I wrote previously, nuclear energy is in a very curious situation where it's pretty much the cleanest form of energy production that exists, and it's the most efficient way of reliably producing vast quantities of it (energy production is not depending on weather conditions, nor time of day or year), and it's one of the safest forms of energy production in existence, when we look at the total number of casualties of different forms of energy production. Nuclear plants themselves produce almost no CO2 emissions at all, and nuclear waste is handled so carefully that it literally causes zero environmental pollution. Nuclear fuel mining does cause pollution, but not any more than the production of any other form of energy production (in other words, there is no cleaner alternative overall, especially when be compare it to the amount of energy produced). Nuclear plant accidents are extraordinarily rare, and the death toll of nuclear energy, when taking into account the number of estimated deaths in all of their forms cause by all possible forms of energy production, is one of the lowest in existence.
Yet, country after country is getting rid of nuclear energy production, because it's the bogeyman of energy production, and feared by everybody. Country after country is scoring virtue signaling points by announcing that they will be reducing and getting rid of nuclear energy completely.
What people seldom stop to think, however, is what they are replacing the nuclear energy production with. People are a bit too lazy to think about it. Most people understand that 100% of that nuclear energy production is not being replaced by solar panels and windmills, because most people understand that's completely impossible. You would literally need to pretty much cover the entire country with solar panels and windmills in order to produce the same amount of energy as the nuclear plants. Most people are aware of this, at one level or another, yet they still choose to ignore it and do not ask too many questions. Not many people stop and ask "hmmm... I know that solar panels and windmills cannot produce as much power as all these nuclear plants... and I know that the energy requirements of the country have not gone significantly down... so what exactly is the nuclear power being replaced with?"
Because if they knew what the nuclear power plants are being replaced with, they might not feel as easy and they do when they deliberately don't think about it.
In most countries that are reducing nuclear power production, it's being replaced largely with biomass, natural gas, and oil power plants. In some of these countries it's being replaced partially with solar and wind energy, and hydroenergy, but only partially. Usually these "renewable" energy sources form a very small fraction of all the energy production (typically in the 10-20% range at its very most), the rest being produced by biomass, natural gas and oil. In some countries even coal plants are being used to replace nuclear plants.
And the thing is, biomass, natural gas, oil, and especially coal power plants generate staggering amounts of CO2.
So the irony is that by getting rid of nuclear power plants, the CO2 emissions of these countries has been steadily going up, not down. Getting rid of nuclear power plants is only making the situation worse. Much worse. By getting rid of nuclear power plants, these countries are helping to destroy the environment and the world.
Also ironically (although logically), many countries where the majority of energy is produced by nuclear power plants have lower CO2 emissions than those that are getting rid of it and choosing more "environmentally friendly" alternatives.
Because, apparently, burning biomass, natural gas and oil is more "environmentally friendly". By some strange twisted logic.
Yet, country after country is getting rid of nuclear energy production, because it's the bogeyman of energy production, and feared by everybody. Country after country is scoring virtue signaling points by announcing that they will be reducing and getting rid of nuclear energy completely.
What people seldom stop to think, however, is what they are replacing the nuclear energy production with. People are a bit too lazy to think about it. Most people understand that 100% of that nuclear energy production is not being replaced by solar panels and windmills, because most people understand that's completely impossible. You would literally need to pretty much cover the entire country with solar panels and windmills in order to produce the same amount of energy as the nuclear plants. Most people are aware of this, at one level or another, yet they still choose to ignore it and do not ask too many questions. Not many people stop and ask "hmmm... I know that solar panels and windmills cannot produce as much power as all these nuclear plants... and I know that the energy requirements of the country have not gone significantly down... so what exactly is the nuclear power being replaced with?"
Because if they knew what the nuclear power plants are being replaced with, they might not feel as easy and they do when they deliberately don't think about it.
In most countries that are reducing nuclear power production, it's being replaced largely with biomass, natural gas, and oil power plants. In some of these countries it's being replaced partially with solar and wind energy, and hydroenergy, but only partially. Usually these "renewable" energy sources form a very small fraction of all the energy production (typically in the 10-20% range at its very most), the rest being produced by biomass, natural gas and oil. In some countries even coal plants are being used to replace nuclear plants.
And the thing is, biomass, natural gas, oil, and especially coal power plants generate staggering amounts of CO2.
So the irony is that by getting rid of nuclear power plants, the CO2 emissions of these countries has been steadily going up, not down. Getting rid of nuclear power plants is only making the situation worse. Much worse. By getting rid of nuclear power plants, these countries are helping to destroy the environment and the world.
Also ironically (although logically), many countries where the majority of energy is produced by nuclear power plants have lower CO2 emissions than those that are getting rid of it and choosing more "environmentally friendly" alternatives.
Because, apparently, burning biomass, natural gas and oil is more "environmentally friendly". By some strange twisted logic.
Comments
Post a Comment