The Carmichael coal mine in Queensland

[JessFR]

It is a disgrace. Coal is an energy source with no future. The time has long come to stop using it, but governments, and the Australian government in particular, have acted against humanity and their societies best interests in the (not very) long term for short term profit. It's disgusting.

Nuclear power isn't perfect, but I'd say it's miles ahead of coal as an energy source. It has its own environmental issues, but at least it's long term problems are both truly LONG term, and quite possibly solvable. Coal on the other hand is a dead end. And that's not even to mention all the other energy generation technologies that are much cleaner and renewable. We have lots of options yet we so frequently seem to choose the one that is the worst by every measure except for short term profit. It's completely unacceptable.

I haven't watched public TV in some time, but when I last did, I remember becoming infuriated repeatedly over propaganda ads by the coal industry talking about "the future of Australian coal". Coal has no future! It would be laughable if it weren't so deplorable.

 

[aihfl]

The right wing in the US likes to vilify "green energy" as killing the coal industry, but it's actually fracked natural gas that's killing coal, which is marginally better. Unless you happen to live next to the fracking. The coal industry is a dinosaur. It's on it's way to inevitable extinction.

 

[swilow]

^I also think environmental realities have killed coal. It is one of the leading sources of carbon emissions, I think responsible for around 20% of global emissions, and its use is certainly not winding back.

Honestly, any source of energy derived from fossil fuels has no future but the mining companies that exploit all of these deposits are so powerful that it is very difficult to gain any political will towards throttling their production.

Nuclear power isn't perfect, but I'd say it's miles ahead of coal as an energy source. It has its own environmental issues, but at least it's long term problems are both truly LONG term, and quite possibly solvable. Coal on the other hand is a dead end. And that's not even to mention all the other energy generation technologies that are much cleaner and renewable. We have lots of options yet we so frequently seem to choose the one that is the worst by every measure except for short term profit. It's completely unacceptable.

And Australia has decent deposits of uranium. That we ship overseas of course.

I'm with you, nuclear power is a much better option than coal. Its a shame that the publics almost superstitious fear of nuclear power seems to prevent more widespread usage; the anti-nuclear campaign is embedded in cultural memory as a truth these days, plus incidents such as Chernobyl and Fukashima have further tainted nuclear energy.

If we only we could really exploit solar power though.

I haven't watched public TV in some time, but when I last did, I remember becoming infuriated repeatedly over propaganda ads by the coal industry talking about "the future of Australian coal". Coal has no future! It would be laughable if it weren't so deplorable.

The idea that coal production is inextricably linked to jobs and the economy really disgusts me. It is propaganda aimed at compelling the disinterested public to somehow defend coal/natural gas/petroleum mining and fear any change to this industries output as a threat to their own economic security. There is a truth to it, but I don't believe its as deeply linked as is implied. Anyhow, the truth is that climate change poses a way bigger threat to everybody's security than winding back fossil fuel production.

 

[JessFR]

I completely agree, nuclear fission power is an extremely safe technology and has been for some time. But various events have convinced people it's a disaster waiting to happen.

But the disaster waiting to happen is climate change, and nuclear power has a lot of potential at supplying the power we need at substantially lower environmental cost.

Of course, it's not suitable in all conditions everywhere, and it's certainly not the only solution. Solar power is another excellent option, but it's unlikely solar and wind by themselves are the answer to this problem.

This is one of the reasons I kinda hate the green party. I mean, I can't deny that they're probably the most principled party in Australian politics. But their views on nuclear power are counter productive, they're an example of some of the worst of environmentalists insistence on a "perfect" solution over a practical, workable one. They have other policies I dislike too. But at least they try and stand up for the environment. Even if the way they do it is occasionally stupid and extreme, it still deserved credit where credits due.

And yes, we have lots of uranium, and land that's geologically very stable, but Australian society has their profound nuclear hysteria.

Its this sort of shit that helps me not worry about climate change. If people are so dumb that even the ones who acknowledge the environmental problems can't help but steer us into danger because of their own fear and ignorance, maybe human society deserves the coming calamity.

 

[Xorkoth]

Totally, totally agreed Jess. I can't tell you how many times I have had this argument with people in my area. My girlfriend is one of them. She absolutely will not change her mind about nuclear power. She always quotes Fukushima and Chernobyl as reasons why it shouldn't exist, to which I say, Chernobyl was archaic, caused by human error, and is no longer an issue. And yeah Fukushima was horrible but who the fuck builds a nuclear reactor in sight of the ocean in a historically tsunami-prone area? We need to cluster nuclear power plants together in geologically inactive places, far from the ocean, where they won't be hit by various natural disasters. At that point it's nearly 100% clean power for the world. If we could perfect solar power that would be ideal but we already HAVE a nearly 100% clean power source, that we don't make nearly enough use of.

Then she argues that the waste is radioactive. To which I say... okay, but it can be contained. And even if it leaks, the damage it's doing is TREMENDOUSLY less than we already KNOW burning coal is doing all the time. Burning of fossil fuels, of which coal is probably primary, or at least equal to oil, is, IMO, the single biggest disaster humans have caused on the planet. So much of what is going wrong is due primarily to burning coal for power. But we can't risk a rare nuclear meltdown? We can't bury a little toxic waste, if it means avoiding the irrevocable destruction of the climate? Yeah, we need power, but we don't need to burn coal.

God, just think of Chernobyl hadn't happened... how much less carbon would be in the atmosphere? I can barely stand to think about it. People are so spooked by it. There's a town nearby where I live that has a nulcear power plant, and also sinkholes. Half the people I talk to honestly believe that - somehow - the sinkholes are the fault of the nuclear power plant. Some also think a series of mysterious disappearances are somehow linked, too. Every nefarious or mysterious thing is the fault of Evil Big Nuclear. It pisses me off because I know they mean well but hating on nuclear power is a step in the wrong direction. A step which we unfortunately took decades ago and haven't stepped back from.

 

[JessFR]

You know there's evidence to suggest that the Simpsons has done a lot of damage in this respect too. A whole generation has grown up on Homer being the line between a nuclear meltdown, or as Mr burns would call it, "an unrequested fission surplus".

It's frustrating that people can't tell fiction and reality apart, but they really do struggle with it. Largely because the human brain really doesn't pay much attention to how good a source of information is. Most people don't remember where they learned what they believe. So long as they heard it repeatidly, the untrained mind evaluates it as a truth and incorporates it.

As for Fukushima. My go to for anyone who brings it up in the context of the safety of nuclear power is to ask them to guess how many people died due to the melt down, and then correct them as soon as they give any answer above 0. They never accept it of course. Their minds are already made up. But in reality, if anything Fukushima shows just how safe nuclear power is.

Another thing is to ask them if it's possible for a nuclear power plant to result in a nuclear explosion, then ask them where they get off having any opinion at all on the subject if they don't even know enough to know the answer is no.

People tend to be too ignorant to even realize just how ignorant they are. Just how much they don't know. And this is also why I think the educational system is a complete joke. Most people complete high school but can't even tell you what the periodic table actually is. What a waste of everyone's time and money.

 

[Xorkoth]

People tend to be too ignorant to even realize just how ignorant they are. Just how much they don't know. And this is also why I think the educational system is a complete joke. Most people complete high school but can't even tell you what the periodic table actually is. What a waste of everyone's time and money.

I agree with everything you're saying, except that I don't think everyone needs to know about the period table. It's valuable simply for everyone to know how to read and do basic artithmetic. My friend's girlfriend has 2 kids. They're so smart, I love those kids. But she "home schools" them, and doesn't actually do anything. As a result, the oldset one, who is 10, doesn't know how to read (nor does the younger one). He knows some words, but every time I hang out with him he's constantly trying to research stuff, but has to ask me to read everything to him. He's SO smart though, it breaks my heart. THIS is why we need public education. Because otherwise a lot of peoples' parents aren't going to teach them shit and we'll have an illiterate population. I'm talking basic skills you and I take for granted, and wouldn't even be participating on this forum if we didn't have.

 

[JessFR]

Sure, I agree we should have a public educational system. Just not the one we have now. It's barely any better than nothing at all. And it's not like it's actually resulting in an education for your friends girlfriends kids. The system is still allowing them to receive no education.

I'm not saying that we should just have nothing and hope people manage on their own. I'm saying we need to completely rethink the entire system from scratch. Start over. Cause what we have now is pathetic.

As for the periodic table, I'm not saying everyone should have to memorize all the major elements, just that everyone with the intelligence to comprehend the basic, beginners concept of what it is, should know. Unless someone's intellectually handicapped, they should be expected to have a basic, general understanding of chemistry. It's something that everyone should know, because if they did, we would probably have a lot less people being suckered with "organic iron supplements" and 99% of everything else in that section of your local pharmacy. Not even to get started on homeopathy.

I agree that the education system shouldn't waste everyone's time trying to teach people shit that 99.9% of them will never use. But the lack of a basic concept of chemistry is something that causes no end of problems in society. So I'd designate that important enough to include.

Personally, I'd say the scientific method itself, how to think rationally and scientifically, should be the number 1 focus of education. Without it, people have no way of filtering out even the most obvious bullshit and lies.

 

[Xorkoth]

Yeah I'll agree for sure, that the sciences have suffered greatly, and that the general scientific method - the ability to reason through problems using evidence - is at least tied with the most important thing one should gain from education. And also that home schooling should be closely regulated if it's to be allowed.