3 ms·

There is far more money involved, and unlike CFCs there are no easy plug and play substitutes. Nuclear power is not a panacea. It looks good on paper but in pr

by api 10y ago

There is far more money involved, and unlike CFCs there are no easy plug and play substitutes. Nuclear power is not a panacea. It looks good on paper but in practice there are tons of hidden costs and failures can be catastrophic. It also pretty much demands hefty regulation, which further adds to the cost in both monetary and social ways. Finally there is a whole geopolitical order built around fossil fuels. Changing our energy system would fundamentally alter the power balance of the world.

throwaway5752 10y ago
Solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear add up to well more than current usage. Nuclear could be phased out as storage or distributed grid matured. With modifications to standards of living expectations we could live renewably as a species and save oil and gas for plastics and other materials that require hydrocarbon feedstock. The trouble is that this would result in a much lower consumption world. And lots of people in the are rich as a result unneccessary consumption.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  "modifications to standard of living expectations" are purely untenable and ultimately destructive to everything that defines human society. If you really want to get people to oppose you, try to guilt trip them, tell them they have to be too cold all winter and too hot all summer, tell them they can never travel again, cram them into tiny apartments where they can hear every bodily function their neighbor performs. The solution to resource depletion and pollution is to give people what they want in a way that's actually sustainable. Build thicker walls and floors to block sound and conserve energy. Design more efficient lighting and appliances. Develop renewable energy. Etc. Everything non-essential to human survival is everything that makes us human.
  - throwaway5752 10y ago
    I would make one quibble. The hard constraint is the sustainable part, the planet doesn't care about our intangible needs. I'm not saying that everyone should live in massive planned urban districts, but on average we have to use less than X energy across Y people, and we are very far away from averaging X/Y per capita.
    - nitrogen 10y ago
      Right, there is an equation of some kind that dictates the energy balance we can sustain. I'm suggesting that there are more terms to that equation that we can adjust, and that the term of "what people want" is the most difficult. We can find ways to increase the planet's energy budget, we can find ways to increase efficiency, we can even find ways to make people desire more efficient behaviors. My main concern, and maybe I misread your first comment, is that forcing or guilt-tripping or shaming people into less fulfilling lifestyles is not going to be very productive, IMO.
      - throwaway5752 10y ago
        "Right, there is an equation of some kind that dictates the energy balance we can sustain" CO2 produced/energy * energy/person * people on Earth I know it feels like I'm oversimplifying it, but of course this equation just reduces to the total amount of CO2 produced by humans. There is a ceiling to the rate we can produce it that is compatible with life as we know it on this planet, and we are over that ceiling. We can tune each of those. CO2/energy - solar, wind, and short term bridge of nuclear; energy/person - more remote work, car sharing, more insulation; # of people - vaccines, birth control access, and other programs to slow population growth. You have to understand, I believe there is a very harsh reality that we have limited time to solve this problem before we are facing an irrecoverable disaster. Best regards.
anigbrowl 10y ago
Oh come, that's the same sort of argument people were trotting out 25 years ago. Could we at least address the significant changes that have taken place in energy production and so on over that period? The power balance of the world is in flux right now, please stop trying to handwave the problem away, it's insulting to everyone who has invested time in understanding the upsides and downsides of alternative energy sources, the costs and benefits of their deployment, and so on.

by api 10y ago

throwaway5752 10y ago

Solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear add up to well more than current usage. Nuclear could be phased out as storage or distributed grid matured. With modifications to standards of living expectations we could live renewably as a species and save oil and gas for plastics and other materials that require hydrocarbon feedstock. The trouble is that this would result in a much lower consumption world. And lots of people in the are rich as a result unneccessary consumption.

nitrogen 10y ago
"modifications to standard of living expectations" are purely untenable and ultimately destructive to everything that defines human society. If you really want to get people to oppose you, try to guilt trip them, tell them they have to be too cold all winter and too hot all summer, tell them they can never travel again, cram them into tiny apartments where they can hear every bodily function their neighbor performs. The solution to resource depletion and pollution is to give people what they want in a way that's actually sustainable. Build thicker walls and floors to block sound and conserve energy. Design more efficient lighting and appliances. Develop renewable energy. Etc. Everything non-essential to human survival is everything that makes us human.
- throwaway5752 10y ago
  I would make one quibble. The hard constraint is the sustainable part, the planet doesn't care about our intangible needs. I'm not saying that everyone should live in massive planned urban districts, but on average we have to use less than X energy across Y people, and we are very far away from averaging X/Y per capita.
  - nitrogen 10y ago
    Right, there is an equation of some kind that dictates the energy balance we can sustain. I'm suggesting that there are more terms to that equation that we can adjust, and that the term of "what people want" is the most difficult. We can find ways to increase the planet's energy budget, we can find ways to increase efficiency, we can even find ways to make people desire more efficient behaviors. My main concern, and maybe I misread your first comment, is that forcing or guilt-tripping or shaming people into less fulfilling lifestyles is not going to be very productive, IMO.
    - throwaway5752 10y ago
      "Right, there is an equation of some kind that dictates the energy balance we can sustain" CO2 produced/energy * energy/person * people on Earth I know it feels like I'm oversimplifying it, but of course this equation just reduces to the total amount of CO2 produced by humans. There is a ceiling to the rate we can produce it that is compatible with life as we know it on this planet, and we are over that ceiling. We can tune each of those. CO2/energy - solar, wind, and short term bridge of nuclear; energy/person - more remote work, car sharing, more insulation; # of people - vaccines, birth control access, and other programs to slow population growth. You have to understand, I believe there is a very harsh reality that we have limited time to solve this problem before we are facing an irrecoverable disaster. Best regards.

anigbrowl 10y ago

Oh come, that's the same sort of argument people were trotting out 25 years ago. Could we at least address the significant changes that have taken place in energy production and so on over that period? The power balance of the world is in flux right now, please stop trying to handwave the problem away, it's insulting to everyone who has invested time in understanding the upsides and downsides of alternative energy sources, the costs and benefits of their deployment, and so on.