5 ms·

I thought this bit was interesting: "As a scientist, what concerns me the most is not that we have passed yet another round-number threshold but what this cont

by graeme 9y ago

I thought this bit was interesting: "As a scientist, what concerns me the most is not that we have passed yet another round-number threshold but what this continued rise actually means: that we are continuing full speed ahead with an unprecedented experiment with our planet, the only home we have," Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University, tweeted Thursday" We really are going ahead full speed. Global emissions have been rising in recent years, not falling.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
And even countries like Germany who say they take climate change seriously are revising their CO2 goals because they are having trouble meeting them due to their abandonment of nuclear power. https://euobserver.com/environment/140475 https://euobserver.com/environment/140475 At this point if you are opposing nuclear power, you aren't taking climate change seriously, even if you say you are.
- abenedic 9y ago
  I have a feeling that one of the biggest blockers to actually doing something about climate change is how easily the conversation gets derailed. Almost everyone agrees on clean energy, but once you get into specifics people lose their cohesion(people are pro- or anti-nuclear power, or for or against wind energy(birds, off-peak power, etc.)). I think people get too focused on any one particular solution, and cannot see that a mixture of things probably is best. Nuclear for places that can tolerate it plus wind or solar for peak times. Hydro and solar/wind for places that can't. I have heard for years, and at various times expounded myself, of the virtues of nuclear. But the public in most industrialized countries cannot stand the thought of it near them, so looking at a more balanced approach makes sense.
  - btrettel 9y ago
    > I think people get too focused on any one particular solution, and cannot see that a mixture of things probably is best. Nuclear for places that can tolerate it plus wind or solar for peak times. Hydro and solar/wind for places that can't. I agree that a mixture is necessary. With that being said, the examples you give are entirely technological, which I think is likely insufficient to solve climate change. I think we need a combination of technological, psychological, and political approaches. For example, as a cyclist, I'm continually disappointed by the reasons people tell me they'd never be able to adopt cycling for transportation. I'm told that they wouldn't be able to do X, Y, or Z, or that they'd feel very restricted, etc. But when I tell them that most cyclists do X no problem and they could rent a car if they wanted to do Y and Z (which are done infrequently), they aren't convinced. It seems to me that many people face a false dilemma here because they see cycling as far more difficult than it actually would be. If you design your life to make cycling possible, it's perfectly acceptable, even preferable in my case because I want the exercise. Most people pick where they live based at least in part on their driving commute, so it would only be fair to do the same for a cycling commute. Population reduction is another area which you could mention as part of a combination of solutions. In my experience those conversations are often counterproductive. But it seems clear to me that population can't keep increasing if we only have one planet, and we might prefer to have less people with a higher quality of life. (My views on population ethics are not fully formed for what it's worth.) My view is that climate change is a lost cause, so instead I'm focusing on adaptation to the new normal.
    - mandrake-c-papi 9y ago
      > My view is that climate change is a lost cause, so instead I'm focusing on adaptation to the new normal. I hate this attitude. You may be doing everything possible as an individual to prevent further climate change, but the majority of people I hear spouting this attitude do not. It's based on the premise that there will actually be some sort of "new normal" that is worth surviving for. The ongoing impact of our actions is indeterminable - we could end up with something so inconceivably bad that all your adaptation efforts are pointless, or that you simply cannot live a life of any value when compared to the early 21st century. Also, it smacks of "F*ck you, I've got mine". You assume that the impact of climate change are survivable, apparent by the fact that you want to focus on adaptation, but this attitude ignores the fact that there are billions of other people on the planet. Maybe climate change can be survived by us in our situation with all our first world advantages, but there are millions, possibly billions, who don't have that choice. Focus on adaptation for all you like, but please don't forget that prevention is greater than cure and that it's not too late.
      - tim333 9y ago
        It seems over negative as well. There are a couple of simple things that may help with CO2: 1) Exponential improvements with wind solar and batteries. They are all getting like 50% better / year. Project that and you can fix things 2) Re the confusion over different approaches, we have a solution and its called the market. Just have a global $50/ton tax/credit on emissions/sequestration. Politically hard but otherwise would likely fix rising CO2.
      - Bendingo 9y ago
        > it smacks of "F*ck you, I've got mine". You're projecting. Parent's attitude is completely rational. > prevention is greater than cure and that it's not too late Not sure exactly what you think it's not too late for, however it is delusional to believe we will stabilise, let alone reduce, greenhouse gas levels.
      - zaarn 9y ago
        Last time I checked we breezed past the symbolic point-of-no-return at 400 ppm CO2... so it kinda is too late. We can try some damage prevention if you feel like it.
  - hndamien 9y ago
    Nuclear was a fantastic solution, then we wasted a lot of time, and they take a long time to come online, and renewables got a lot better. If it makes sense then go for it, but I doubt it makes sense any more.
    - ergothus 9y ago
      Not an expert, but I was convinced to switch from "nuke is a bad idea" to "nuke asap is a less bad idea than any other current option" when I was pointed to the ridiculously messy situation we have and the transmission problem 1) the situation now is that, as longterm as nuke waste is, it pales in comparison to the long-term of coal and natural gas extraction, transport, and burning. 2) renewables are great and where we want to go...but the tech is not at a place where we can get 100% yet and we have no efficient way to transmit power long distances nor store power, so we can't have solar in a desert in Arizona power Fargo Minnesota. Why do you think nuke power likely doesn't make sense anymore?
      - hndamien 9y ago
        A nuclear power plant will take 10 years to come online, and will last for about 50 years. You then have the transmission problems, toxic waste problem and risks. I'm willing to largely ignore the toxic waste and risks because they are addressing a far bigger problem. So let's call them negligible (even though they aren't) and I still think nuclear today is a hard case to make. Getting these approved are large capital expenditures of around $9 billion that come online all at once. Then you have the transmission problems as mentioned. I have not done the math but it seems that it would be faster, and more politically tenable to use decentralised solar virtual power plants and wind such that individual households become largely responsible for their own power and act in concert as the grid supplier and battery. The main thing preventing this seems to be capital investment, regulation and political will.
- jamesblonde 9y ago
  The debate is not about nuclear power. Whether we keep existing reactors or not is not going to have a significant effect on future greenhouse gas levels. Very few new nuclear power stations are being built globally, so it won't be part of the solution. I agree that it could be - if we were really worried, as we should be. Realistically, we just need the US on board. Then things will change. But a decisive majority of the US population is in a strange anti-science place these days, and the world's future rests on their shoulders. That's a scary thought...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - jfnixon 9y ago
    The debate should not be about existing nuclear plants. The debate should be about using modern passive safety designs for plants yet to be built.
    - timb07 9y ago
      How do you debate designs that haven't been built yet? Historically, nuclear power plants take years or decades to build, and at great cost. The risk to investors is so high that they only proceed with some kind of state-funded insurance. If there really was a modern nuclear reactor design that would compete in the energy market with wind and solar, everyone would be building them already.
      - supreme_sublime 9y ago
        From my understanding a lot of the reason for this is it only really makes sense to make large scale reactors; mostly due to approval processes and regulations already in place. There's a massive up front cost no matter the scale of the operation, so it makes most sense to do larger projects vs smaller ones. https://newatlas.com/small-modular-nuclear-reactors/20860/ https://newatlas.com/small-modular-nuclear-reactors/20860/
- blueprint 9y ago
  Those plants have to be built, but we don't have time for that anyway. Now we must focus very closely on self-preservation. But how many people have the means to leave Earth and survive apart from it for however long it will take for Earth to return to habitability? Moreover, how can I find people who are able to work on that specific problem without convincing themselves it's not their personal responsibility and subsequently forgetting themselves?
  - kaybe 9y ago
    There is nothing we can do to Earth that will get the survivability level even close to any other option out there.
    - blueprint 9y ago
      It's merely that it's going to be safer to be far enough away. edit: i cant reply so quickly due to rules so to clarify for what you asked me in response, I'm talking about being a certain radius away from a killzone. You need more information to verify this.
      - kaybe 9y ago
        Where would you deem safer and why?
- kaybe 9y ago
  The difference of not using nuclear power in Germany is less than 1% of the planned 40% reduction, even if we assume that only the worst coal plants are used to substitute. This is a larger problem, sadly. (That said, by now I'm all for keeping the nuclear plants running a few years longer, but that is not enough by far.)
- nnain 9y ago
  Solar is a great solution for so many countries! In India, unfortunately, the governments audacious energy generation announcements for 2020 seem to be getting slowed down by its own bureaucratic hurdles (and possibly lobbying by big Energy corps). Given the lower ppp of Indian consumers, the Solar panels still aren't cheap enough (add to it the cost of wiring/batteries/accessories) and the government isn't providing enough subsidy (especially on imports). I can only hope that some Silicon Wafer manufacturing lands in India soon; otherwise the Energy transition will take forever.
blueprint 9y ago
> Global emissions have been rising in recent years, not falling. It's been said that (a) every living creature is influenced by environment, and (b) humans tend to do things harmful to themselves near an "end".

by graeme 9y ago

RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago

And even countries like Germany who say they take climate change seriously are revising their CO2 goals because they are having trouble meeting them due to their abandonment of nuclear power. https://euobserver.com/environment/140475 https://euobserver.com/environment/140475 At this point if you are opposing nuclear power, you aren't taking climate change seriously, even if you say you are.

abenedic 9y ago
I have a feeling that one of the biggest blockers to actually doing something about climate change is how easily the conversation gets derailed. Almost everyone agrees on clean energy, but once you get into specifics people lose their cohesion(people are pro- or anti-nuclear power, or for or against wind energy(birds, off-peak power, etc.)). I think people get too focused on any one particular solution, and cannot see that a mixture of things probably is best. Nuclear for places that can tolerate it plus wind or solar for peak times. Hydro and solar/wind for places that can't. I have heard for years, and at various times expounded myself, of the virtues of nuclear. But the public in most industrialized countries cannot stand the thought of it near them, so looking at a more balanced approach makes sense.
- btrettel 9y ago
  > I think people get too focused on any one particular solution, and cannot see that a mixture of things probably is best. Nuclear for places that can tolerate it plus wind or solar for peak times. Hydro and solar/wind for places that can't. I agree that a mixture is necessary. With that being said, the examples you give are entirely technological, which I think is likely insufficient to solve climate change. I think we need a combination of technological, psychological, and political approaches. For example, as a cyclist, I'm continually disappointed by the reasons people tell me they'd never be able to adopt cycling for transportation. I'm told that they wouldn't be able to do X, Y, or Z, or that they'd feel very restricted, etc. But when I tell them that most cyclists do X no problem and they could rent a car if they wanted to do Y and Z (which are done infrequently), they aren't convinced. It seems to me that many people face a false dilemma here because they see cycling as far more difficult than it actually would be. If you design your life to make cycling possible, it's perfectly acceptable, even preferable in my case because I want the exercise. Most people pick where they live based at least in part on their driving commute, so it would only be fair to do the same for a cycling commute. Population reduction is another area which you could mention as part of a combination of solutions. In my experience those conversations are often counterproductive. But it seems clear to me that population can't keep increasing if we only have one planet, and we might prefer to have less people with a higher quality of life. (My views on population ethics are not fully formed for what it's worth.) My view is that climate change is a lost cause, so instead I'm focusing on adaptation to the new normal.
  - mandrake-c-papi 9y ago
    > My view is that climate change is a lost cause, so instead I'm focusing on adaptation to the new normal. I hate this attitude. You may be doing everything possible as an individual to prevent further climate change, but the majority of people I hear spouting this attitude do not. It's based on the premise that there will actually be some sort of "new normal" that is worth surviving for. The ongoing impact of our actions is indeterminable - we could end up with something so inconceivably bad that all your adaptation efforts are pointless, or that you simply cannot live a life of any value when compared to the early 21st century. Also, it smacks of "F*ck you, I've got mine". You assume that the impact of climate change are survivable, apparent by the fact that you want to focus on adaptation, but this attitude ignores the fact that there are billions of other people on the planet. Maybe climate change can be survived by us in our situation with all our first world advantages, but there are millions, possibly billions, who don't have that choice. Focus on adaptation for all you like, but please don't forget that prevention is greater than cure and that it's not too late.
    - tim333 9y ago
      It seems over negative as well. There are a couple of simple things that may help with CO2: 1) Exponential improvements with wind solar and batteries. They are all getting like 50% better / year. Project that and you can fix things 2) Re the confusion over different approaches, we have a solution and its called the market. Just have a global $50/ton tax/credit on emissions/sequestration. Politically hard but otherwise would likely fix rising CO2.
    - Bendingo 9y ago
      > it smacks of "F*ck you, I've got mine". You're projecting. Parent's attitude is completely rational. > prevention is greater than cure and that it's not too late Not sure exactly what you think it's not too late for, however it is delusional to believe we will stabilise, let alone reduce, greenhouse gas levels.
    - zaarn 9y ago
      Last time I checked we breezed past the symbolic point-of-no-return at 400 ppm CO2... so it kinda is too late. We can try some damage prevention if you feel like it.
- hndamien 9y ago
  Nuclear was a fantastic solution, then we wasted a lot of time, and they take a long time to come online, and renewables got a lot better. If it makes sense then go for it, but I doubt it makes sense any more.
  - ergothus 9y ago
    Not an expert, but I was convinced to switch from "nuke is a bad idea" to "nuke asap is a less bad idea than any other current option" when I was pointed to the ridiculously messy situation we have and the transmission problem 1) the situation now is that, as longterm as nuke waste is, it pales in comparison to the long-term of coal and natural gas extraction, transport, and burning. 2) renewables are great and where we want to go...but the tech is not at a place where we can get 100% yet and we have no efficient way to transmit power long distances nor store power, so we can't have solar in a desert in Arizona power Fargo Minnesota. Why do you think nuke power likely doesn't make sense anymore?
    - hndamien 9y ago
      A nuclear power plant will take 10 years to come online, and will last for about 50 years. You then have the transmission problems, toxic waste problem and risks. I'm willing to largely ignore the toxic waste and risks because they are addressing a far bigger problem. So let's call them negligible (even though they aren't) and I still think nuclear today is a hard case to make. Getting these approved are large capital expenditures of around $9 billion that come online all at once. Then you have the transmission problems as mentioned. I have not done the math but it seems that it would be faster, and more politically tenable to use decentralised solar virtual power plants and wind such that individual households become largely responsible for their own power and act in concert as the grid supplier and battery. The main thing preventing this seems to be capital investment, regulation and political will.
jamesblonde 9y ago
The debate is not about nuclear power. Whether we keep existing reactors or not is not going to have a significant effect on future greenhouse gas levels. Very few new nuclear power stations are being built globally, so it won't be part of the solution. I agree that it could be - if we were really worried, as we should be. Realistically, we just need the US on board. Then things will change. But a decisive majority of the US population is in a strange anti-science place these days, and the world's future rests on their shoulders. That's a scary thought...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jfnixon 9y ago
  The debate should not be about existing nuclear plants. The debate should be about using modern passive safety designs for plants yet to be built.
  - timb07 9y ago
    How do you debate designs that haven't been built yet? Historically, nuclear power plants take years or decades to build, and at great cost. The risk to investors is so high that they only proceed with some kind of state-funded insurance. If there really was a modern nuclear reactor design that would compete in the energy market with wind and solar, everyone would be building them already.
    - supreme_sublime 9y ago
      From my understanding a lot of the reason for this is it only really makes sense to make large scale reactors; mostly due to approval processes and regulations already in place. There's a massive up front cost no matter the scale of the operation, so it makes most sense to do larger projects vs smaller ones. https://newatlas.com/small-modular-nuclear-reactors/20860/ https://newatlas.com/small-modular-nuclear-reactors/20860/
blueprint 9y ago
Those plants have to be built, but we don't have time for that anyway. Now we must focus very closely on self-preservation. But how many people have the means to leave Earth and survive apart from it for however long it will take for Earth to return to habitability? Moreover, how can I find people who are able to work on that specific problem without convincing themselves it's not their personal responsibility and subsequently forgetting themselves?
- kaybe 9y ago
  There is nothing we can do to Earth that will get the survivability level even close to any other option out there.
  - blueprint 9y ago
    It's merely that it's going to be safer to be far enough away. edit: i cant reply so quickly due to rules so to clarify for what you asked me in response, I'm talking about being a certain radius away from a killzone. You need more information to verify this.
    - kaybe 9y ago
      Where would you deem safer and why?
kaybe 9y ago
The difference of not using nuclear power in Germany is less than 1% of the planned 40% reduction, even if we assume that only the worst coal plants are used to substitute. This is a larger problem, sadly. (That said, by now I'm all for keeping the nuclear plants running a few years longer, but that is not enough by far.)
nnain 9y ago
Solar is a great solution for so many countries! In India, unfortunately, the governments audacious energy generation announcements for 2020 seem to be getting slowed down by its own bureaucratic hurdles (and possibly lobbying by big Energy corps). Given the lower ppp of Indian consumers, the Solar panels still aren't cheap enough (add to it the cost of wiring/batteries/accessories) and the government isn't providing enough subsidy (especially on imports). I can only hope that some Silicon Wafer manufacturing lands in India soon; otherwise the Energy transition will take forever.

blueprint 9y ago

> Global emissions have been rising in recent years, not falling. It's been said that (a) every living creature is influenced by environment, and (b) humans tend to do things harmful to themselves near an "end".