With the media so obsessed with the eventual "waste" from green energy production - end of life solar panels, turbine blades, batteries etc, wouldn't it be great if they provided context?
There are 9000 oil tanker ships on the planet. 10s of thousands of petrol trucks. 10s of thousands of petrol stations. 10s of thousands of miles of pipeline.
All of which are environmentally damaging to dispose of.
Yet, never discussed in the media. Its just the green boogeyman.
For starters, they skip over the 30 billion tonnes of waste that is disposed of by dumping it into the atmosphere, every year.
The drilling industry uses up 19.2 million tonnes of steel per year, leaves nearly all of it in the ground. But the 120,000 uncapped oil wells on the continent are a multi-hundred-billion-dollar cleanup problem that is simply not addressed.
9000 tankers? Big deal! The Gulf of Mexico ALONE has 4000 platforms, each bigger than a tanker by far.
@tcely I live a few miles from Hinkley Point. I have had a tour of the B station and have zero fears with it. A banana gives off more radiation than a modem nuclear station emits into the environment.
The only things we need to sort with nuclear is dealing with the waste (which realistically isn't actually that much, in comparison to other energy types like coal), and the sheer cost of building the stations.
@tcely I think a lot of the cost as actually due to the multiple decades of the west not building enough of them. The skills having to be relearned, new designs being created fresh rather than incrementally, meaning significant issues during building (so, cost overruns etc).
And with nuclear waste, even if we bury it in a deep hole, it isn't a major problem, as compared to other fuel types, it's a tiny amount of waste.
@tcely@localzuk Has anyone run down the ultimate source of the anti-nuclear campaign? It was a well coordinated effort. Soviet propaganda? Certain Middle Eastern countries that wanted American military support, and therefore American oil dependency? (I can think of three countries in particular that would have an incentive there, especially after 1991.) Nowadays China?
The "climate emergency" thing is definitely anti-Western propaganda. China is still expanding coal power.
@tcely@localzuk Countries with incentives: Russia (sells oil), China (wants to handicap the west, still expanding fossil fuel use domestically), Kuwait (sells oil, got invaded, wants American protection), Saudi and Israel (Saudi sells oil, both afraid of getting invaded and want American protection.)
@localzuk
Another interesting stat, 40% of all shipping is just moving fossil fuels around.
I do agree with you but all of them should be looked at and the real queations asked should be "is this sustainable and is this fast enough to get us under 1.5c." Becase if we go much over 1.5c-2c with emisisons we are likely on the way to collapsing civilisation and all the other questions are moot.
Obviously coal, gas and oil aren't but then either are ecars.
@localzuk It's absolutely a weaponized argument, and absolutely no reason to stop switching to renewable energy.
But your context is a bit misleading: the reason fossil fuel has so many oil tankers, petrol trucks etc is because fossil fuel is still the dominant energy source.
It would be more honest to compare, say, the amount of waste produced per kWh generated.
Regardless of the outcome of that comparison, making energy production less wasteful is never a bad thing.
@localzuk True ,but the so called green energy sector needs more oversignt ,people dont notice that many of these companies are just fossil fuel subcompanies who recklessly pollute wildland sites ,wind farm companies are now the only (and increasing ) threat to the blanket bog and wetlands here ,by aggressively taking legal action to over rule local councils,they are destroying millions of tons of peat every year ,trying to beat the protections here soon to be bestowed by UNESCO status
@localzuk unfortunately, if you're going to compare the waste of end of life wind turbines and solar panels to that of oil tankers and pipelines, you will need to include all of the batteries of all the cars and trucks those turbines and panels had to charge up. The numbers aren't in yet, but given that lithium cannot be recycled as readily as a tanker made out of iron and are currently rated to last only 10 years or so, I think the ecological damage might be more significant than you think.
@quirk sorry, but that's nonsense. If you're doing that, are we going to include all the cars that use petrol and diesel? All the gas hobs in kitchens? All the gas boilers?
This is about lack of context regarding media coverage of energy production.
Consumption is an entirely different matter. But yes, if you want to include all that? Electric vehicles are also greener than their fossil fuel burning ancestors.
@quirk not to mention, lithium can't be recycled in huge amounts yet but it is an issue of commercial scale, not technological difficulty. Their are various recycling methods now for lithium batteries. But, the volumes of those cells needing recycling have not become high enough as yet to scale up the industries to do it, so those companies that do area still quite small.
@localzuk We were sold the promise that plastic would be recyclable, yet it mostly ends up in landfills. Why should I believe the promise of recyclable lithium? Also, your tankers won't go away; they'll be shipping lithium instead of oil, but it will be a two way trip.
@localzuk green energy doesn't make cars go away, you're just changing the energy source. You can't just measure what comes out of the tailpipe without considering the ecological damage caused by the manufacturing process. We know a gas powered car could last 20-30 years, and possibly indefinitely if designed properly, but an electric car locks us into a 10 year limit. Of course we would be better off without cars, but I believe outlawing planned obsolescence would be of greater benefit.
@localzuk the average lifespan of an ICE car is determined by the manufacturer and their planned obsolescence. There are automobiles engineered to last a million miles. They don't make them anymore because they hurt shareholder profits.
@localzuk depends on the conversation. If it's about what we can do to reduce carbon emissions and reduce our ecological footprint, it's relevant. If it's about exchanging one set of problems for a whole new set of problems while kicking that can down the road to future generations, then you're right; it's not relevant.
@localzuk I saw an Instagram post (that pissed me off) that was a condemnation of belts made from reclaimed ocean plastic because “they eventually become plastic waste again.” 🫠
@localzuk
I remember an NBC news special report years ago that dropped Thanksgiving week to show how tofurky was made. They showed goo coming out of tubes and called it so gross, but they never show a turkey being slaughtered
@jornane I live a few miles from Hinkley Point, and have been on a tour if the B station there before it shut down. Zero issue with nuclear, other than cost these days.
A banana is more radioactive than anything a nuclear plant is putting out into the world other than the small amount of waste.
@dr_rugby yes, there's various schemes alone these days. In comparison to every other form of generation, the amount of waste is tiny as well. 390,000 tonnes in total from 1954 to 2016.
@localzuk
Bogeymen also love to say that we have not got established recycling for the massive quantities of solar panels & batteries now being installed, ignoring that the stream of panels & batteries currently being retired is quite small and retired lithium batteries will be a very attractive recycling proposal once we have large numbers available. Businesses always reflect current opportunities.
@localzuk They're obsessed with saying anything negative about green energy to help fossil fuel companies squeeze a little more profit from wrecking the planet.
We definitely need context in this. Waste from petroleum products are probably 1000's of times greater. We'll never hear about it because those corporate overlords are filling the pockets of media, too.
@localzuk People should compare the environmental cost of energy sources throughout the entire lifecycle of each source, including exploration, extraction, transportation, consumption and disposal. The potential for environmental damage should also be considered.
@localzuk I once pointed out that you could put a century’s worth of green energy waste - wind turbine blades, solar panels, that sort - into the moon scape of a single coal strip mine and bury it.
@localzuk@dillonthebiologist oil rigs, refineries, gas tanks, gas heaters, oil tanks, oil heaters, coal mines, giant excavators the list goes on and on and on.
Add comment