10 ms·

IMO the problem is that most sides in the discussion don't propose any viable solutions: On one side there are the climate change deniers (and the people who d

• the_gastropod 10y ago
  There's a third that I'm familiar with, and find compelling: construction. Building a new nuclear power plant costs tens of billions of dollars (usually requiring government funding) and ~10 years from start to finish. The efficiency of wind and solar power is increasing rapidly, and in 10 years will likely be a better investment than a nuclear plant.
  • Cybiote 10y ago
    "The world construction rate peaked at 30 GW of nuclear power per year in 1984" ... "The rate of new build was biggest in 1984, and had a value of (drum-roll please...) about 30 GW per year – about 30 1-GW reactors." https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_171.shtml https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_171.shtml
    • merpnderp 10y ago
      And the world doesn't even have to reach France's historic rate. Just getting anywhere close to it, and filling the gaps with wind, solar, and natgas, would be a overwhelming win for stopping CO2 production (and providing cheap and plentiful energy).
• scarmig 10y ago
  I'm all for nuclear. Among people who want to mitigate climate change, there's no more dislike of nuclear than among public at large (which is to say, too much, but not an exceptional amount). The biggest issue with nuclear is that it, by itself, is entirely insufficient to deal with the problem. And the best policy solutions to climate change--namely, a refundable carbon tax--would themselves encourage the proliferation of nuclear to the extent nuclear is actually helpful.
  • omginternets 10y ago
    I'm all for nuclear in the short-term, but in the long-term it's just substituting one problem for another. I don't see how we can possibly break out of this cycle without revisiting the notion of an infinite-growth economy. Until we curb human population and energy consumption, we'll continue sprinting from dead-end to dead-end.
    • merpnderp 10y ago
      Human population is already leveling off. The richer a people become, the lower their reproduction rate. The lack of population growth has already become a major economic issue in many parts of the world. And we have, for all current intents and purposes, an infinite supply of nuclear, solar, and wind energy.
      • omginternets 10y ago
        The issue with nuclear power is waste, not supply. I'm the first to argue that radiological waste is the ideal form of toxic waste -- dense and contained -- but we still can't consume an infinite amount. Further, I question the notion that solar and wind power are infinite in supply. At some point, absorbing solar radiation that would otherwise heat the surface of the earth must have some effect on global weather patterns, and a similar argument can be made for wind power. I don't think we're anywhere near that point, but it just goes to show that the "infinite growth" mindset is extremely problematic in the long run. As for human population, this is true of first-world countries, but not universally true. India is an example of extreme demographic growth. Any way you want to cut it, our power (or, more generally, resource) demands cannot grow infinitely. Where you are correct is in pointing out that the population constraint is fundamentally at odds with the geopolitical and economic need for demographic growth. This is precisely the point I'm lamenting.
• yequalsx 10y ago
  The only viable, realistic solution is for people to stop having as many children as they currently do. The population of the planet is beyond carrying capacity at current levels of consumption.
  • gaius 10y ago
    Making the "save the world for my kids" argument particularly ironic.
    • jackmott 10y ago
      save the world for my kid.
    • yequalsx 10y ago
      It's not at all ironic since I'm not advocating that there be no children.
      • gaius 10y ago
        The poster above says I have no doubt that climate change is a problem. I have kids Well, duh, that's why.
  • adrianN 10y ago
    That is too slow. We have a little more than twenty years at current production levels to stop producing GHGs [1]. Reducing the population (to 0?) takes a lot longer. [1] http://www.trillionthtonne.org/ http://www.trillionthtonne.org/
    • NumberCruncher 10y ago
      >> Reducing the population takes a lot longer. There are also involuntary reduction methods...
      • adrianN 10y ago
• Chathamization 10y ago
  Part of the problem is that there's a certain group of people who are more interested in pushing their pet solutions than they are in pushing effective solutions. Most of the analyses I've read say that stuff like nuclear and geothermal aren't going to be major components of the fight against climate change. For nuclear specifically, a mass roll out of nuclear plants is simply too difficult - cost, production bottlenecks, public opposition, production time and delays, etc. Almost no new plants are being built in the U.S. currently - you can't easily go from that to replacing a large percentage of the power system with nuclear plants. I'm not sure how any reasonable person could see nuclear as being one of the more viable or effective solutions (particularly when compared to low-hanging fruit like increased energy efficiency).
  • merpnderp 10y ago
    "For nuclear specifically, a mass roll out of nuclear plants is simply too difficult - cost, production bottlenecks, public opposition, production time and delays, etc." And yet many Asian countries are doing just this.
    • Chathamization 10y ago
      Which countries? China is usually the one that gets mentioned the most for really pushing nuclear (which they've been doing for years now), but they're currently at about 3% and are hoping to reach 4% by 2020. And even at this pace, they're facing serious problems[1][2]. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-01-11/china-should-control-pace-of-reactor-construction-outlook-says http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-01-11/china-shou... [2]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/aug/25/wikileaks-fears-china-nuclear-safety https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/aug/25/wikileak...
      • throwanem 10y ago
        "Serious problems" is pretty disingenuous. They're facing increased risk as a result of using updated 2nd-generation technology, rather than licensing the Westinghouse AP-1000 design at enormous cost. They're aware of the chance they're taking, but they also seem to consider that less of a risk than being beholden to a US firm. Whether that's an accurate assessment in the long run or not, it's their choice to make, and not one the US would be likely to emulate - after all, we've got Westinghouse and the AP-1000 design right here. We've also got a much more thoroughly developed uranium production pipeline and a similar extent of available reserves, which means we won't face the same structural problems China does in ramping up fuel production - they're essentially having to build that process from scratch, and there's only so far it's worth letting your plant production outpace your ability to fuel the reactors you're building.
• vacri 10y ago
  It's not a fear of nuclear power plants that's creating the Brown Clouds of asia.
• Brakenshire 10y ago
  I don't think the two sides you describe are correct, at least globally. In the UK, 70-80% of people agree that anthropogenic climate change is happening, and the Green party (who have the kind of position you're describing) only get 5% of the vote. You're presenting everyone who thinks that action needs to be taken as part of a much smaller, unrepresentative group. Also, I agree that flat blocking of nuclear is unreasonable. But in my opinion disagreement on the issue is a relatively marginal issue in the general sweep of tackling climate change. Again, in the UK, we're just at the end of an open commissioning process for new nuclear, led by the centre right party, with agreement across all major parties. Despite that level of political support, and a complete lack of protectionism (to the extent that one of the leading bids is funded by a Chinese state-owned energy company!) it is still going to be very expensive, and has a very long development and construction time. Undoubtedly it's sensible for baseline demand (i.e. continuous 24hr demand which doesn't require scaling up or down), but to me it's not going to be a make or break solution either way. It's not sensible to completely tie yourself in to an expensive, monolithic technology to come online in 20 years, and operate for 50 years thereafter. It's an important hedge which we should definitely take up, but it's not the total solution which people present.
  • CWuestefeld 10y ago
    flat blocking of nuclear is unreasonable. But in my opinion disagreement on the issue is a relatively marginal issue in the general sweep of tackling climate change. The new DNC platform coming out of the convention this week doesn't seem to agree with you. It focuses solely on renewable sources, sweeping nuclear under the carpet. 70-80% of people agree that anthropogenic climate change is happening I don't understand why those concerned about climate change continue to insist on putting the word "anthropogenic" in there. It's mostly irrelevant to the conversation, and comes off as little more than finger-pointing. If there's a problem that needs to be addressed, whether it's caused by humans or not isn't really the issue. If there were an asteroid heading toward the earth, we wouldn't say "we didn't throw that rock at ourselves, so we'll ignore it". Likewise, the discussion over climate change should be on the climate change; trying to make the cause of the problem part of its name just creates additional contention.
• Retric 10y ago
  Nuclear costs more than wind without subsidies making it a non starter. We are still wasting a lot of money on nuclear R&D in the misplaced hope of changing this, but the underlying economics are still terrible. In terms of change, we have dramatically cut back on CO2 production vs. predictions from even 10 years ago. So we are making progress.
  • Brakenshire 10y ago
    It is cheaper than wind plus storage. Wind plus storage might even be impossible to meet baseload requirements with current technology. Even if battery costs fall by 80%, they wouldn't feasibly be able to store grid-scale electricity for weeks. But admittedly the situation may change within the lifetime of a new nuclear station, or even in the 20 years before it's actually built.
    • Retric 10y ago
      Yes. Base load power is a misnomer based on coal/nuclear plants having poor responses to changing demand. Without fuel use over production is completely viable. Some net storage for 99.9% reliability for a combo of wind / solar / hydro in the US adds ~10-20% which is still vastly lower than nuclear which is expensive even after massive subsides. Yes, the grid will look rather different, but backbone power transmission is going to stay a tiny percentage of GDP. (The gap between max wind output and median output is huge, but the gap between median output and minimum output over a day for a large area is much smaller.) PS: You see a lot of overly simplistic analysis that fails to account for the hydro power as energy storage and shifting demand east west to shift solar production vs. demand. A massive dam stores a lot of power which can be released on demand at any point in the year. Add some pumped hydro storage for fitting the day to day demand curve which can be thousands of miles from both production and use and storage is already both cheap and a solved problem.
• mjklin 10y ago
  This reminds me of the Critic's Lament: 1) Paint too bleak a picture: Most people will conclude there's nothing to be done, and take no action. 2) Paint too rosy a picture: Most people will conclude it's no big deal, and take no action.