This is the issue with fossil fuel technology in general. In short, we are not responsible enough. If we were fully responsible as people, we could do it. Once rich countries did it, poor countries would demand it, and they are especially unprepared. A bit of economic and political risk and voila, regions devastated.
There should be a simple rule: if you can't manage sewage and garbage, you can't handle fossil fuel technologies.
>> There should be a simple rule: if you can't manage sewage and garbage, you can't handle fossil fuel technologies.
I know this is sarcastic but the UK is in the middle of an absolutely massive scandal with raw sewage being continuously discharged in rivers and the sea for many years now:
>> Pollution warnings for dozens of beaches in England and Wales were issued after water companies discharged untreated sewage and wastewater into the sea.
>> Raw sewage was pumped into rivers and seas about 375,000 times in 2021, the Environment Agency says.
>> In 2022, Ofwat, the water regulator for England and Wales, launched cases against six water companies over discharging sewage at times when this should not have happened.
And of course there's the little-known matter of anthropogenic climate changed caused by CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels. I know it's hard to believe, but it is starting to become a bit of a problem.
This is a pretty bad problem, and they have had years to fix it.
In Brazil, it's actually even worse. Only around 35% of Brazil sewage is treated to Brazil standards!
Many towns dump raw sewage onto rivers/ocean continuously, and as a result around 15% of the population don't even have access to basic water sources due to this. Disgusting.
Fossil fuel technology is easy. You dispose of the waste products into the atmosphere which is like infinitely vast! Most of the really damaging stuff will be washed out by rain, and stored in all of these previously-useless lakes and rivers. Let's be honest, what has a lake or river done for YOU lately?
If those dinosaurs didn't want us to burn their decayed corpses so we could have McMansions in the suburbs and still commute to the office every day, they shouldn't have been hit by that big meteor!
I think there are lots of cases where we definitely rushed to market way too soon in several situations. The realistic thing about it is that you can only test things as far as someone can think of crazy situations to test against. Even if we tested against every crazy combination and permutation of situations, something in real life will always come along and provide an even crazier situation. Sure, you add that to the list for the next time.
However, we are smart enough to know that certain things will have similar results just based on experience. We know that burning of anything will release things into the air, so we can test the results of burning $newThing. If $newThing is made from very similar processes and materials of $knownThing, we can look to see what issues may have been learned and test with those in mind. At some point, based on experience up until now, you make conclusions that it might just be safe enough which is good enough for corps looking to recoup R&D
There are no existential risks from Oil. Danger is small and proportional to an installation. You have a big refinery fire and five people die? That could happen with any tech.
Fukishima is unusable for generations. Chernonbyl same.
Spent fuel from a nuclear reactor could feasibly make most of Manhattan unlivable in just a few hours.
Oil and Nuclear don't share the same risk profile.
> There are no existential risks from Oil. Danger is small and proportional to an installation. You have a big refinery fire and five people die? That could happen with any tech.
Nuclear accident deaths, all time: around 300.
Nuclear bomb deaths, all time: around 150,000.
Fossil fuels deaths: 8.7M people dead, per year. It's not even close.
The kind of damage a few malicious or negligent individuals can cause in an afternoon from nuclear operations can't be matched by fossil fuels. Fossil fuels have caused damage through the effort of billions of people over centuries.
The history of fossil fuels also shows us that humans are negligent over time, which seems to me a good argument against building a large infrastructure of nuclear operations.
This is the issue with sewage technology in general. In short, we are not responsible enough. If we were fully responsible as people, we could do it. Once rich countries did it, poor countries would demand it, and they are especially unprepared. A bit of economic and political risk and voila, regions devastated.
There should be a simple rule: if you can't manage garbage, you can't handle sewage technologies.
There should be a simple rule: if you can't manage sewage and garbage, you can't handle fossil fuel technologies.