4 ms·

Its also not an option. Renewables wont hold up to scaled demand and nuclear fission is demonized, there is no other viable technological path.

afarrell 7y ago
Could nuclear fusion be similarly demonised?
- de_watcher 7y ago
  It's hard because of the Sun argument.
- _ph_ 7y ago
  Neither are demonized. With fission, the concerns are lower, but still there will be radioctive waste which eventually has to be disposed of, but it is much less of a problem than with fission reactors. Still, fusion has not only to be shown to work at all but then will have to show that it is price-competetive to reneweables.
pietrovismara 7y ago
You know, we could instead revisit the concept we have of growth. Instead of growing for the sake of it, like a tumor, we could define what kind of growth we want and in what direction, and see if it's compatible with our resources. Do we really need growth or do we need happiness? Once we scientifically solved major health issues does it really make sense to keep growing indefinitely? Couldn't we just put a limit to our population and enjoy our fully automated utopia?
- glckr 7y ago
  Putting a limit on population would imply a dystopia to most.
  - pietrovismara 7y ago
    Not really, just some common sense and shared culture.
- 0-_-0 7y ago
  The population of Europe is already declining and other continents are likely to follow as their standard of living increases. Average fertiliy across the world has been in decline for about 50 years now and has halved over this period [1]. If the trend continues we will simply run out of people and go extinct. https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate
- bpizzi 7y ago
  > we could instead revisit the concept we have of growth You say 'we' like humanity wasn't 7 billions or so completely autonomous actors. This would be a more accurate sentence: '7 billions autonomous actors could decide to act as one, and the act could be lowering its growth rate'. You see, it simply won't happen.
  - pietrovismara 7y ago
    First of all, it's not 7 billions sentients but rather a handful of government. Furthermore, humanity at the moment already agrees blindly that the only way forward is reckless growth, if we all managed to agree on something without even knowing why, perhaps we can also agree on something more rational.
    - bpizzi 7y ago
      > rather a handful of government. Which are mostly democracies, or sort of. China, Russia and North Korea apart, every big population center is governed in a way or another threw a certain form of consensus. > humanity at the moment already agrees blindly that the only way forward is reckless growth Again you talk as if humans were a single body. You're not agreeing blindly on 'reckless growth', as far as I can tell, and you're far from being alone in that case. Humanity speaking and thinking as one is just a dream (you're free to dream, thought!).
- chr1 7y ago
  > we could define what kind of growth we want and in what direction The best proposal so far is growth with speed of light in all directions. > Do we really need growth or do we need happiness? What about the people who are not happy when our knowledge about world, and the number of populated planets does not grow or does not grow fast enough? > Once we scientifically solved major health issues The two greatest health issues are senescence and limited capability of learning new things, when we solve those we'll need even more people to create art so that we don't get bored, and to develop new technologies so that we do not die when sun explodes in couple of billion years.
- scarejunba 7y ago
  You are welcome to take VHEMT’s path. I want kids.
  - pietrovismara 7y ago
    You didn't get what I mean. We need to foster a culture that prevents reckless growth by discouraging having more than n children per family. I'm talking cultural peer pressure, not imposition. You can have as many children as you want (if you so selfishly want to behave), the important is that the majority of the population understands that they're not doing a favor to their fellow humans by having more than n children.
arnoooooo 7y ago
The viable technological path is using less energy. It's not just about CO2: a high energy society is a society that will hit other ecological limits. I would add that centralized power production is an issue by itself, as it seems difficult now to avoid social and political instability. So unless we develop small scale fusion, which does not seem ideal (lots of disseminated nuclear waste in the form of activated reactor materials), fusion is not ideal.
- satanspastaroll 7y ago
  Unfortunately just using less energy will not happen by asking nicely, and as most do not want that, it will not happen. Instead we should focus on the things that are achievable, like increasing efficiency. >fusion is not ideal. Why does it have to be ideal? It should be sufficient. Anything is better than burning coal.
_ph_ 7y ago
Fission isn't demonized. There are valid concerns with using fission energy concerning general risk of contamination after an accident, waste disposal and finally that new plants are too expensive to build so it is plainly too expensive. Having fusion working would be a big benefit, but as there is no production-ready technology, so reneweables are our only hope in the fight against climate change.
pfdietz 7y ago
Renewables scale up just fine.

afarrell 7y ago

Could nuclear fusion be similarly demonised?

de_watcher 7y ago
It's hard because of the Sun argument.
_ph_ 7y ago
Neither are demonized. With fission, the concerns are lower, but still there will be radioctive waste which eventually has to be disposed of, but it is much less of a problem than with fission reactors. Still, fusion has not only to be shown to work at all but then will have to show that it is price-competetive to reneweables.

pietrovismara 7y ago

You know, we could instead revisit the concept we have of growth. Instead of growing for the sake of it, like a tumor, we could define what kind of growth we want and in what direction, and see if it's compatible with our resources. Do we really need growth or do we need happiness? Once we scientifically solved major health issues does it really make sense to keep growing indefinitely? Couldn't we just put a limit to our population and enjoy our fully automated utopia?

glckr 7y ago
Putting a limit on population would imply a dystopia to most.
- pietrovismara 7y ago
  Not really, just some common sense and shared culture.
0-_-0 7y ago
The population of Europe is already declining and other continents are likely to follow as their standard of living increases. Average fertiliy across the world has been in decline for about 50 years now and has halved over this period [1]. If the trend continues we will simply run out of people and go extinct. https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate
bpizzi 7y ago
> we could instead revisit the concept we have of growth You say 'we' like humanity wasn't 7 billions or so completely autonomous actors. This would be a more accurate sentence: '7 billions autonomous actors could decide to act as one, and the act could be lowering its growth rate'. You see, it simply won't happen.
- pietrovismara 7y ago
  First of all, it's not 7 billions sentients but rather a handful of government. Furthermore, humanity at the moment already agrees blindly that the only way forward is reckless growth, if we all managed to agree on something without even knowing why, perhaps we can also agree on something more rational.
  - bpizzi 7y ago
    > rather a handful of government. Which are mostly democracies, or sort of. China, Russia and North Korea apart, every big population center is governed in a way or another threw a certain form of consensus. > humanity at the moment already agrees blindly that the only way forward is reckless growth Again you talk as if humans were a single body. You're not agreeing blindly on 'reckless growth', as far as I can tell, and you're far from being alone in that case. Humanity speaking and thinking as one is just a dream (you're free to dream, thought!).
chr1 7y ago
> we could define what kind of growth we want and in what direction The best proposal so far is growth with speed of light in all directions. > Do we really need growth or do we need happiness? What about the people who are not happy when our knowledge about world, and the number of populated planets does not grow or does not grow fast enough? > Once we scientifically solved major health issues The two greatest health issues are senescence and limited capability of learning new things, when we solve those we'll need even more people to create art so that we don't get bored, and to develop new technologies so that we do not die when sun explodes in couple of billion years.
scarejunba 7y ago
You are welcome to take VHEMT’s path. I want kids.
- pietrovismara 7y ago
  You didn't get what I mean. We need to foster a culture that prevents reckless growth by discouraging having more than n children per family. I'm talking cultural peer pressure, not imposition. You can have as many children as you want (if you so selfishly want to behave), the important is that the majority of the population understands that they're not doing a favor to their fellow humans by having more than n children.

arnoooooo 7y ago

The viable technological path is using less energy. It's not just about CO2: a high energy society is a society that will hit other ecological limits. I would add that centralized power production is an issue by itself, as it seems difficult now to avoid social and political instability. So unless we develop small scale fusion, which does not seem ideal (lots of disseminated nuclear waste in the form of activated reactor materials), fusion is not ideal.

satanspastaroll 7y ago
Unfortunately just using less energy will not happen by asking nicely, and as most do not want that, it will not happen. Instead we should focus on the things that are achievable, like increasing efficiency. >fusion is not ideal. Why does it have to be ideal? It should be sufficient. Anything is better than burning coal.

_ph_ 7y ago

Fission isn't demonized. There are valid concerns with using fission energy concerning general risk of contamination after an accident, waste disposal and finally that new plants are too expensive to build so it is plainly too expensive. Having fusion working would be a big benefit, but as there is no production-ready technology, so reneweables are our only hope in the fight against climate change.

pfdietz 7y ago

Renewables scale up just fine.