If those people were charged $5-10
instead of $1 for a reusable bag, the rate of reusing would go up substantially! 
4 Likes
True. But the logistics on reuse of bags for home delivery could get tricky.
Around here, grocery stores have a pile of cardboard boxes their supplies come in. Customers pack their groceries in one of the boxes giving it another life however briefly before sending to recycling.
@shawbridge Of course, the circle should be from start to finish. The waste from a nuclear plant is minimal. Each used up rod is encased in concrete and stored. He cites numbers, x cubic feet waste for y electricity production. I was reading the audio book. I ordered a hard copy. When it comes, I can update the numbers. It is very diluted. If an airplane happens to crash on it, nothing much will happen. He suspects people think that the power plant will explode like a nuclear bomb and get fearful. Well, I did. The author also considers how it relates to other fuels. He points out that coal saved forests in Britain. Before coal, people cut down trees to heat homes. Oil did the same. Before oil and farm machinery, they had to dedicate 25% farmland to grow feeds for farming animals/horses. Now, farmland is shrinking while producing more food. He thinks nuclear would do the same replacing fossil fuel since it needs even smaller footprint.
1 Like
Why use bags? Pack the stuff up like Costco does - in cardboard boxes leftover from product packaging. Seems to work great there.
What do people who get home milk delivery do with glass bottles?
1 Like
The irony is that wood supposedly counts as a “renewable” fuel so in Europe coal power plants have now been converted to burning wood chips that they import from the US. All this despite the fact that it produces much more CO2 per unit of electricity produced compared to natural gas.or even oil and is less efficient than coal.
1 Like
Nuclear has by far the greatest NIMBY opposition. People will much more strongly oppose a nuclear waste disposal site anywhere in their state than they will oppose coal plants blowing emissions (including fly ash containing radioactive elements) into the air every day. It may not be rational, but that is where we are today.
2 Likes
They are deforesting in West Virginia to supply to Germany. WV probably isn’t the only place. I wonder how much additional pollution it produces to transport the huge amount of firewood across Atlantic Ocean.
@ucbalumnus All major environmental groups, Sierra Club, EDF, NRDC, etc are against nuclear. Whether it is related or not, they all get huge contributions from oil industry. Who knew? In Vermont, they tried to reduce the pollution by 25% by going solar/wind. Instead, the pollution went up 16% because they needed more gas powered power plants to back up.
3 Likes
Who are “they”?
I live in a place where there is lot of logging.
At least where I see logging, it’s a lot like farming except the crop grows longer. They mark the trees for harvest and pick trees that need thinning. They plants trees to replace those cut down.
The wood used for generation is a byproduct of logging. The trees are used for paper products and lumber but there is waste. I see the trucks with the waste going to the generator. It’s not lumber that serves any other purpose.
It’s called renewables because they use materials that would otherwise go to waste. Since it’s regulated, I suspect it’s cleaner than a fireplace or wood pellet stove. We have houses that use wood burning furnace for heat but they don’t make them anymore because of environmental issues.
1 Like
@BunsenBurner Logging company? who is contracted rot supply firewood? You ask who are they a lot. It must be my way of phrasing. I should have said there is aq lot of deforesting in WV… Would that make any material difference?
@deb922 I’d think that is scavenging rather than renewing. Nobody would object to it, I’d think. I am guessing to satisfy the energy need of Germany, it takes far more than a byproduct of logging. Could even be a clearcutting. Otherwise, it probably didn’t make to news I heard. I am sure one can google to see how much firewood is going to Germany.
Where I am you can harvest firewood from forest. Most people take already fallen trees. It helps clear out and prevent wildfire. I doubt that will be enough for a nation’s power supply.
I ask to name “them” - so we can know who “they” really are. Because vague statements like “solar industry” or “logging company” sound like beginning of conspiracy theories.
Think what you like. I don’t know the name. I would imagine there’s more than one company if it is supplying a whole nation as big as Germany. If interested, you could google, logging in WV or Solar panels in Sonoma and Mojave. Have fun!
Please don’t “imagine.” If you don’t know for sure who is doing what, please do not make up “facts.” I’d like to know exactly who is deforesting WV.
Here is an article I’ve read before on the wood chip export issue. I’m not sure it mentions WV or not but I think it goes over the environmental impacts.
1 Like
I’m used to logging coming with replanting. Trees are a crop in many places just like any other crop. It’s just not an annual crop. Does that not happen in WV?
None of that means it’s the best source of energy, but it would amaze me if places are harvesting trees without replacing them - except, of course, where it’s done for development. On that I agree with your author that there’s way too much going on.
There is no replacing coal, gas, or oil without it costing a ton for synthetic. Abandoned mines haven’t done any good for our state either.
For nuclear, where do they get the fuel? Is there a radiation effect on the workers mining it? I don’t know much about it other than it’s “good” except for some really strong cons, like spent fuel storage and what if sabotage or accidents happen. It has surprised me to see reactors shut down, but we’re told (locally) that it costs too much to keep them going as they age.
Yes, every energy source has pros and cons. There really is no unicorn when it comes to energy; raw materials, production, distribution, storage and waste.
6 Likes
I agree, but some are better than others and the world needs to focus on them with research and implementation.
@Creekland According to the book, there was no real danger from Three Mile island or Fukushima. The radiation level was low enough they shouldn’t have evacuated Fukushima. There was higher level from Chernobyl. I imagine nuclear fuel comes from mining. And we have to consider the effect of mining. If high concentration, the effect of mining will be small hopefully. That was not discussed in the book. They must be controlling radiation effect on miners. They have been mining for over 80 years(?). The author claims spent nuclear fuel poses little threat. The cost is driven up by increasing regulations at least partially. That;'s something one has to look into if they keep nuclear plants. One may be able to streamline regulations without compromising safety. Caklifornia just voted to keep Diablo Canyon nuclear plant that was slated to close in the near future.
He’s never going to get anyone around here to believe that - and his knowledge is hindsight. Armchair quarterbacking doesn’t work in the real world.
With Chernobyl one should look up the effects on the people and area - tons of birth defects afterward. We had students from Ukraine who clued us into it some years back. I just googled - too many articles to try to pick just one.
That was an accident, so its particular problem can theoretically be avoided by differing designs and protocols. What if someone opts for war or sabotage?
Google has a bit about Uranium mining issues too. Here’s one from the NIH:
Does anyone know if this has changed?
" In 1987, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recognized that current occupational standards for radon exposure in the United States do not provide adequate protection for workers at risk of lung cancer from protracted radon decay exposure, recommending that the occupational exposure limit for radon decay products should be reduced substantially. To date, this recommendation by NIOSH has not been incorporated into an enforceable standard by the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration."
1 Like
Blatant dismissal of the human (and wild animal if one does not care about humans!) life losses due to Chernobyl disaster is extremely insensitive.
1 Like