Hiya, apologies for reactivating this thread but as a customer, fan and evangelist of Bulb’s positive environmental impact i’d like to understand how Bulb sees the huge issues with renewable raw materials in the supply chain Vs the very light footprint of Nuclear.
Increasing numbers of environmentalists believe Nuclear is much better option to mitigate the impacts of future climate change.
Please can Bulb comment on the below? (NB. please not the last few lines and the video link)
Mining vast quantities of ‘non renewable’ of the rare earth minerals required to make Wind Turbines and Solar Panels is decimating large tracts of our Earth, leaving vast areas of black sludge wasteland, notably in Northern China. Each year substantially more people die in rare events like been struck by lightning (~6000/year) and in plane crashes (~250/yr) than have died from historical Nuclear Power disasters (Chernobyl (54 short term, 4000 long term (WHO/UN data) , Fukushima (<5) so <80/yr over 50 yrs.
~1.8 million people die each year in China due to Air and Water pollution. Mining of rare earth minerals is a significant contributor although the Global (especially Western) demand for consuming plastic and chemical based products and burning coal are the major factors.
Millions of people will die within the next 100 years from climate change because Nuclear is such a political hot potato. It seems like it would solve a lot of issues and it’s risks can easily be mitigated. My gut feel is that a key reason it’s not being pursued is that there is a far lower global consumption footprint and therefore ‘return on investment’ for big business with Nuclear than with renewable.
Many of these issues are succinctly and eloquently summarised in this TED video by a lifetime environmentalist. It also highlights how “Big Oil” stands to benefit from the intermittent nature of Renewables;
“Why renewables can’t save the planet”