My Life on this planet.

When I was younger I thought nuclear energy power stations are the way forward: impressive and even beautiful buildings (I like the material concrete in buildings) whereby an amassing technique produces from quite a small place energy for many.  During the recent Cop28 climate top in the United Arab Emirates (where a general agreement was reached such as to face out fossil fuel use  although it was to be expected some would search for loopholes ), many countries advocated to use nuclear energy as a clean solution to counter climate change. However, evidence showed me that the energy is too powerful and dangerous, too dirty and too expensive while we remain dependent from others for our energy to justify its further use on our planet. So, I continue to think we should try to find better ways to generate energy, just as I wrote a year ago  although this reactors can help to bridge the time towards clean energy. Here my reasoning against continuing the use of radioact...

A plan as a result of fear for rising sea levels Some engineers consider that two dams should be built to protect millions of people in the Netherlands, Belgium, Scotland and England at a cost of 250 to 500 billion £. The proposal comes from the Netherlands because after having sold their gas, now the country fears part of it may disappear below the sea due to climate change. I think that taking climate change actions to prevent or at least slowdown climate change happens are probably much cheaper although less spectacular but at least the result will be clean air, ground and water. Further, huge pumps will be needed to remove the large volumes of water that rivers empty in what will eventually become a freshwater lake. Thus, the result will be a rising sea level of the ocean and a low freshwater sea so we only need to wait for the moment one or both dams break so a huge tsunami destroys the whole area. Not to mention the closing of what is now the busiest sea for transport over sea...