4 ms·

> Why not put forth realistic options that would pass? The problem is, there's no "middle solution" to climate change. There was 30 years ago, but we didn't do

by notJim 7y ago

> Why not put forth realistic options that would pass? The problem is, there's no "middle solution" to climate change. There was 30 years ago, but we didn't do it then, and now it's too late. There's nothing "realistic" about being too indecisive to save the planet.

manfredo 7y ago
There is always a middle solution, the problem is that many people aren't willing to do it. All US electricity generation could be replaced with nuclear power for 1/5th to 1/10th the cost of this plan. Realistically, probably ~70-80% since we might not want to build plants in earthquake prone zones. How's that for a middle ground?
- krainboltgreene 7y ago
  Does switching the US to nuclear power bring back the lungs of the earth (Brazil's forests)? Does it stop carnival cruise ships from emitting 10x more carbon emissions than all of Europe's cars? Is it going to reduce the 640,000 tons of gear that are thrown into the oceans? If a middle ground is "not surviving" then it sounds pretty shit.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    > Does switching the US to nuclear power bring back the lungs of the earth (Brazil's forests)? Does it stop carnival cruise ships from emitting 10x more carbon emissions than all of Europe's cars? Is it going to reduce the 640,000 tons of gear that are thrown into the oceans? Wind and solar power do not do any of these things either. By comparison, maritime nuclear power could power cruise ships. Nuclear powered carbon sequestration can produce oxygen. I don't know why you're bringing up ocean waste dumping, since that's a waste disposal issue and has little to do with energy production. For the same amount of money it would take to build up wind and solar capacity to 100% (or even close to 100%) of electricity generation, we could build nuclear plants that put out 5x as much energy or more. And then use that excess energy to sequester CO2 out of the atmosphere. That's what it takes to actually stop global warming. Even eliminating all CO2 emissions won't stop global warming because the existing CO2 emissions are enough to keep temperatures rising for the next 100 years.

by notJim 7y ago

manfredo 7y ago

There is always a middle solution, the problem is that many people aren't willing to do it. All US electricity generation could be replaced with nuclear power for 1/5th to 1/10th the cost of this plan. Realistically, probably ~70-80% since we might not want to build plants in earthquake prone zones. How's that for a middle ground?

krainboltgreene 7y ago
Does switching the US to nuclear power bring back the lungs of the earth (Brazil's forests)? Does it stop carnival cruise ships from emitting 10x more carbon emissions than all of Europe's cars? Is it going to reduce the 640,000 tons of gear that are thrown into the oceans? If a middle ground is "not surviving" then it sounds pretty shit.
- manfredo 7y ago
  > Does switching the US to nuclear power bring back the lungs of the earth (Brazil's forests)? Does it stop carnival cruise ships from emitting 10x more carbon emissions than all of Europe's cars? Is it going to reduce the 640,000 tons of gear that are thrown into the oceans? Wind and solar power do not do any of these things either. By comparison, maritime nuclear power could power cruise ships. Nuclear powered carbon sequestration can produce oxygen. I don't know why you're bringing up ocean waste dumping, since that's a waste disposal issue and has little to do with energy production. For the same amount of money it would take to build up wind and solar capacity to 100% (or even close to 100%) of electricity generation, we could build nuclear plants that put out 5x as much energy or more. And then use that excess energy to sequester CO2 out of the atmosphere. That's what it takes to actually stop global warming. Even eliminating all CO2 emissions won't stop global warming because the existing CO2 emissions are enough to keep temperatures rising for the next 100 years.