23 ms·

I have to think there are major ecological concerns with blocking sunlight over large areas. They may not be negative impacts, but surely it isn't a no-impact

I have to think there are major ecological concerns with blocking sunlight over large areas. They may not be negative impacts, but surely it isn't a no-impact situation.

Robotbeat 9y ago
There is always some impact. There's a disease in our energy discussions where if something has ANY effect or can be measured at all, it is considered a big no-no. We lack a sense of proportion. Radiation is SUPER easy to measure even tiny amounts, for instance, since you can look for the signature of a certain decay tree, so people hear that you can measure radiation from Fukushima and lose their minds. Likewise, people make a big deal about solar using up a lot of land, but then forget that agriculture uses up on the order of 100 TIMES the land that solar would take up if we relied entirely on solar for electricity. The sense of scale is entirely lacking.
- VLM 9y ago
  "The sense of scale is entirely lacking." Agree and it extends to risks. Better to kill 100K people per year with coal, than possibly maybe hundreds might die (but almost certainly zero actually will) in a nuclear accident. Your diet and your car are far more likely to kill you than global warming.
  - macintux 9y ago
    > Your diet and your car are far more likely to kill you than global warming. True for me. True for my (entirely hypothetical and never likely to exist) grandchildren? Less clear.
- mikeash 9y ago
  An example of this which always gets me with nuclear power is the waste problem. The fact that the waste remains dangerous for tens of thousands of years is always held up as a huge problem, completely ignoring the vast quantities of extremely poisonous chemical waste produced by other industries which lasts forever. "This waste is dangerous." "OK, guess we'd better be careful with it." "This waste is dangerous for the next 10,000 years." "Holy shit! We need to build a high-tech underground fortress to contain it!"
  - sgift 9y ago
    > "This waste is dangerous for the next 10,000 years." "Holy shit! We need to build a high-tech underground fortress to contain it!" Time is a major risk factor. Look where we were 10,000 years ago. There is relevant chance that 10,000 years in the future no one will easily understand the danger of radiation anymore, so we have to prepare for that possibility.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      You seem to have missed the other half of the point I was making, which was that there's lots of non-nuclear hazardous waste which lasts forever and we don't get nearly as upset about those.

I have to think there are major ecological concerns with blocking sunlight over large areas. They may not be negative impacts, but surely it isn't a no-impact situation.

Robotbeat 9y ago

There is always some impact. There's a disease in our energy discussions where if something has ANY effect or can be measured at all, it is considered a big no-no. We lack a sense of proportion. Radiation is SUPER easy to measure even tiny amounts, for instance, since you can look for the signature of a certain decay tree, so people hear that you can measure radiation from Fukushima and lose their minds. Likewise, people make a big deal about solar using up a lot of land, but then forget that agriculture uses up on the order of 100 TIMES the land that solar would take up if we relied entirely on solar for electricity. The sense of scale is entirely lacking.

VLM 9y ago
"The sense of scale is entirely lacking." Agree and it extends to risks. Better to kill 100K people per year with coal, than possibly maybe hundreds might die (but almost certainly zero actually will) in a nuclear accident. Your diet and your car are far more likely to kill you than global warming.
- macintux 9y ago
  > Your diet and your car are far more likely to kill you than global warming. True for me. True for my (entirely hypothetical and never likely to exist) grandchildren? Less clear.
mikeash 9y ago
An example of this which always gets me with nuclear power is the waste problem. The fact that the waste remains dangerous for tens of thousands of years is always held up as a huge problem, completely ignoring the vast quantities of extremely poisonous chemical waste produced by other industries which lasts forever. "This waste is dangerous." "OK, guess we'd better be careful with it." "This waste is dangerous for the next 10,000 years." "Holy shit! We need to build a high-tech underground fortress to contain it!"
- sgift 9y ago
  > "This waste is dangerous for the next 10,000 years." "Holy shit! We need to build a high-tech underground fortress to contain it!" Time is a major risk factor. Look where we were 10,000 years ago. There is relevant chance that 10,000 years in the future no one will easily understand the danger of radiation anymore, so we have to prepare for that possibility.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    You seem to have missed the other half of the point I was making, which was that there's lots of non-nuclear hazardous waste which lasts forever and we don't get nearly as upset about those.