3 ms·

My solution would simply be to massively focus on nuclear. Replace all existing coal plants with nuclear plants and plug them into the network. Once you have m

by nickik 7y ago

My solution would simply be to massively focus on nuclear. Replace all existing coal plants with nuclear plants and plug them into the network. Once you have mass production of nuclear power plants, you can start using nuclear power to create liquid alcohol fuels. Start a process of changing cars to electric or alcohol based fuels, the same goes for ships and eventually planes. The process of switching to alcohol based fuels can be started in parallel, with early on using fossil fuels. Start taxing fossil fuel usage to make people move over to liquid fuels. This vision was created out by one of the nuclear innovates. He invented the PWR (currently used nuclear) but rejected it as a terrible design for human energy production. His insistence that PWR were not 'perfectly save' got him essentially fired. He had come up with Molten Salt reactors to fix all the issues of PWRs. His vision was more to use nuclear heat to turn salt water into water you can use for irrigation. Not really produce Liquid fuels in a carbon neutral way but the vision makes sense. Now, unfortunately this should really have started in the 70s, but it would have been the most systematic approach to actually solving the problem. But of course that requires the population not to freak out about nuclear and to accept potentially higher oil prices.

perfunctory 7y ago
Let's suppose this is a good plan. But it's still just a plan. How do we actually realize it? We both know voting alone won't cut it.
- nickik 7y ago
  No clue. Some leader or party making it their program. Very trick in democracies specially today with people having been so indoctrinated into so many of the old environmentalist ideas that are counter-productive. Meaning things like Anti-Nuclear, Anti-GMO and so on. Usually this wouldn't happen because of climate change. France pushed nuclear because they wanted to be independent of Saudi princes. But the French example clearly shows that a industrial country can go away from fossil fuel electricity in 15 years if its actually determined to do so and using nuclear energy. And they did it with 1960s technology, the same kind of effort with modern types of nuclear plants, could potentially be even faster. There is no question in my mind if there was political consensuses on a plan, any industrial nation could move away from 90% of fossil fuels usage within 20 years and it wouldn't actually cost as much as people tend to think.
jeffreyrogers 7y ago
Doesn't burning ethanol still create CO2? I don't think we can maintain our current level of energy use from hydrocarbon based fuels (ethanol or otherwise) while still keeping CO2 emissions low.
- cesarb 7y ago
  With ethanol, the carbon which burns to create the CO2 came from atmospheric CO2 in the first place, during the growth of the sugar cane which was used to produce that ethanol. That is, the CO2 emissions from ethanol are not a problem because they are matched by an identical amount of CO2 capture.
  - lightedman 7y ago
    "That is, the CO2 emissions from ethanol are not a problem because they are matched by an identical amount of CO2 capture." You're missing every other machine using non-ethanol fuel to operate which is required for harvesting/producing ethanol biofuel. Ethanol's net CO2 output is positive, not negative. That is not good.
    - cesarb 7y ago
      Setting aside that these are not the CO2 emissions from "burning ethanol", do any of these "machines required for harvesting/producing ethanol" require a "non-ethanol fuel", or do they use that fuel for now just because it's convenient, and could be easily replaced by other sources? I know that the power for the refining plants is produced by burning the remainder of the sugar cane plant (which produces so much power that the refining plants sell the remainder electricity), but I don't know which fuel the trucks and tractors currently use.
      - lightedman 7y ago
        "Setting aside that these are not the CO2 emissions from "burning ethanol", do any of these "machines required for harvesting/producing ethanol" require a "non-ethanol fuel", or do they use that fuel for now just because it's convenient." You can't set that aside. Consider the whole chain of production and usage or be consigned to a disingenuous selective argument upon the level of quack doctors. Plain and simple.
greglindahl 7y ago
> Now, unfortunately this should really have started in the 70s, Today's solar and wind boom was started in the 70s. It's kind of amazing how many people prefer the "bird in the bush" over the "bird in the hand".
- nickik 7y ago
  That depends on definition. Yes, people were playing around with those things. But the idea that from the 70s to 2000s you could have systematically used wind and solar to replace fossil fuels is nonsense. Even today no industrial country is even close to having even all its energy from solar and wind. And were not even talking about transportation. For an alternative level you can look at France. France basically removed fossil fuels from its electricity production in less then 20 years of producing nuclear. And we know that CO2 saved earlier is more valuable. Now they never went to the step of trying to introduce alcohol fuels, as of course their goal was to limit import of oil to make the French economy resilient and not to save CO2.
  - greglindahl 7y ago
    > But the idea that from the 70s to 2000s you could have systematically used wind and solar to replace fossil fuels is nonsense. I didn't say anything like that! What I meant is that the sustained technology development effort you called for actually happened for other energy-generating technologies, starting on the date you suggested. The result is that costs fell by several orders of magnitude, and also that it makes sense to widely deploy them now.
  - scaphandre 7y ago
    > Even today no industrial country is even close to having even all its energy from solar and wind There are reports that Scotland has been generating 200% of household energy needs from wind alone in 2019. That sounds close to me. Here is a news report, and wiki: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/15/scotland-has-produced-enough-wind-energy-to-power-its-homes-twice-over.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/15/scotland-has-produced-enough... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Scotland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Scotland

by nickik 7y ago

perfunctory 7y ago

Let's suppose this is a good plan. But it's still just a plan. How do we actually realize it? We both know voting alone won't cut it.

nickik 7y ago
No clue. Some leader or party making it their program. Very trick in democracies specially today with people having been so indoctrinated into so many of the old environmentalist ideas that are counter-productive. Meaning things like Anti-Nuclear, Anti-GMO and so on. Usually this wouldn't happen because of climate change. France pushed nuclear because they wanted to be independent of Saudi princes. But the French example clearly shows that a industrial country can go away from fossil fuel electricity in 15 years if its actually determined to do so and using nuclear energy. And they did it with 1960s technology, the same kind of effort with modern types of nuclear plants, could potentially be even faster. There is no question in my mind if there was political consensuses on a plan, any industrial nation could move away from 90% of fossil fuels usage within 20 years and it wouldn't actually cost as much as people tend to think.

jeffreyrogers 7y ago

Doesn't burning ethanol still create CO2? I don't think we can maintain our current level of energy use from hydrocarbon based fuels (ethanol or otherwise) while still keeping CO2 emissions low.

cesarb 7y ago
With ethanol, the carbon which burns to create the CO2 came from atmospheric CO2 in the first place, during the growth of the sugar cane which was used to produce that ethanol. That is, the CO2 emissions from ethanol are not a problem because they are matched by an identical amount of CO2 capture.
- lightedman 7y ago
  "That is, the CO2 emissions from ethanol are not a problem because they are matched by an identical amount of CO2 capture." You're missing every other machine using non-ethanol fuel to operate which is required for harvesting/producing ethanol biofuel. Ethanol's net CO2 output is positive, not negative. That is not good.
  - cesarb 7y ago
    Setting aside that these are not the CO2 emissions from "burning ethanol", do any of these "machines required for harvesting/producing ethanol" require a "non-ethanol fuel", or do they use that fuel for now just because it's convenient, and could be easily replaced by other sources? I know that the power for the refining plants is produced by burning the remainder of the sugar cane plant (which produces so much power that the refining plants sell the remainder electricity), but I don't know which fuel the trucks and tractors currently use.
    - lightedman 7y ago
      "Setting aside that these are not the CO2 emissions from "burning ethanol", do any of these "machines required for harvesting/producing ethanol" require a "non-ethanol fuel", or do they use that fuel for now just because it's convenient." You can't set that aside. Consider the whole chain of production and usage or be consigned to a disingenuous selective argument upon the level of quack doctors. Plain and simple.

greglindahl 7y ago

> Now, unfortunately this should really have started in the 70s, Today's solar and wind boom was started in the 70s. It's kind of amazing how many people prefer the "bird in the bush" over the "bird in the hand".

nickik 7y ago
That depends on definition. Yes, people were playing around with those things. But the idea that from the 70s to 2000s you could have systematically used wind and solar to replace fossil fuels is nonsense. Even today no industrial country is even close to having even all its energy from solar and wind. And were not even talking about transportation. For an alternative level you can look at France. France basically removed fossil fuels from its electricity production in less then 20 years of producing nuclear. And we know that CO2 saved earlier is more valuable. Now they never went to the step of trying to introduce alcohol fuels, as of course their goal was to limit import of oil to make the French economy resilient and not to save CO2.
- greglindahl 7y ago
  > But the idea that from the 70s to 2000s you could have systematically used wind and solar to replace fossil fuels is nonsense. I didn't say anything like that! What I meant is that the sustained technology development effort you called for actually happened for other energy-generating technologies, starting on the date you suggested. The result is that costs fell by several orders of magnitude, and also that it makes sense to widely deploy them now.
- scaphandre 7y ago
  > Even today no industrial country is even close to having even all its energy from solar and wind There are reports that Scotland has been generating 200% of household energy needs from wind alone in 2019. That sounds close to me. Here is a news report, and wiki: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/15/scotland-has-produced-enough-wind-energy-to-power-its-homes-twice-over.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/15/scotland-has-produced-enough... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Scotland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Scotland