14 ms·

Great, but we don't have the transmission, storage or gas generation currently. So we need to spend trillions to build a system that still produces enough CO2

Great, but we don't have the transmission, storage or gas generation currently. So we need to spend trillions to build a system that still produces enough CO2 to make a mass extinction inevitable by 2100. Am I the only one that sees a problem with this?

nl 7y ago
mass extinction inevitable by 2100 This is very emotive language, which is fine, but there is no currently projected scenario where mass extinction is inevitable or even likely. Great, but we don't have the transmission, storage or gas generation currently. We are well on the way. In many parts of the world this is the majority energy mix already. So we need to spend trillions to build a system that still produces enough CO2 This is untrue. It's roughly the same cost as replacing coal stations with new coal stations, which is roughly ten times cheaper than replacing them with nuclear. And it cuts energy production C02 production by about 70% which is easily enough to meet most targets to stabilise the climate.
- nfg 7y ago
  The poster said ‘a mass extinction’ which does not mean what you seem to think it does: “An extinction event (also known as a mass extinction or biotic crisis) is a widespread and rapid decrease in the biodiversity on Earth.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event It seems very fair - even overly cautious! - to push the inevitability of that out to 2100 when many would say it is already in progress.
  - nl 7y ago
    You are right of course. However the OP said (in their original post): In short industrial civilization will be non-viable in the tropics by the 2050s and world wide by the 2100s. I took it in that context. I'd also note the there are multiple causes of mass extinction of which climate change is one.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
imtringued 7y ago
Well, what else are you going to suggest? Obsolete monolithic nuclear plants? Pro nuclear activists don't actually know the trade offs between nuclear plant designs and the inherent problems that are caused by "super projects". It's just a pet peeve to differentiate themselves from the "green hippies". Where are all the modular reactor factories that the nuclear industry needs? Why is everyone focusing on one shot construction of nuclear infrastructure instead of keeping it alive by periodically replacing existing reactors? Let me describe the way nuclear power plants have been built. Company E wants to build a power plant. It cannot take advantage of an old design because those have been declared unsafe. They only want to build a single one but they are forced to make a custom design. The custom design costs hundreds of millions in R&D before it can be approved by the government. Afterwards the company has to ask for government support because a 10-30 billion dollar project is very difficult to finance and insure by a single company. Now the construction phase begins. Making parts for nuclear power plants requires specialized factories which are often already running at capacity because they are busy with other projects. You can now wait a year or more for the parts to be delivered. Alternatively you can also construct factories dedicated to the construction of nuclear power plants. Once you have all the parts and finished the construction process you can run the nuclear plant for 50 years or more. 30 years later a design defect has been discovered. It can be fixed but it requires a partial redesign. 2 billion have to be spent on upgrades. Now 50 years have passed and the plant is reaching the end of its life. The design is now considered obsolete and should be replaced immediately. The government is now on the hook for the decommissioning process. Costs? Unknown but definitively not less than 10 billion dollars. Because decommissioning is so expensive the government keeps the plant online for another 15 years. Your country has several dozens of these plants and once someone makes a critical mistake or a natural disaster strikes you get a Chernobyl or Fukushima type event again. These power plants are responsible for the bad reputation of the nuclear industry but at the same time the industry willingly took the risk. They have nobody to blame but themselves. Ok, what if we just get rid of those plants and replace them with new ones? The cycle repeats. New design. No economies of scale. New custom factories because the old ones didn't have any customers for 65 whole years. Mistakes can't be fixed. Again, this is not something that green activists forced these companies to do. You know what the answer to these problems is? Making lots of small nuclear power plants. Companies can afford them. They can be cheaply mass produced. They can be cheaply replaced. Custom factories are maintained over time instead of closed down. Yet strangely no nuclear activist proposes these types of reactors because they do not acknowledge the inherent problems nuclear faces. Instead, the focus lies on new designs that don't even exist but promise to do everything better without addressing any of the actually important flaws. Nuclear plant designs are like cryptographic hashing. You will always find a flaw given enough time.

nl 7y ago

mass extinction inevitable by 2100 This is very emotive language, which is fine, but there is no currently projected scenario where mass extinction is inevitable or even likely. Great, but we don't have the transmission, storage or gas generation currently. We are well on the way. In many parts of the world this is the majority energy mix already. So we need to spend trillions to build a system that still produces enough CO2 This is untrue. It's roughly the same cost as replacing coal stations with new coal stations, which is roughly ten times cheaper than replacing them with nuclear. And it cuts energy production C02 production by about 70% which is easily enough to meet most targets to stabilise the climate.

nfg 7y ago
The poster said ‘a mass extinction’ which does not mean what you seem to think it does: “An extinction event (also known as a mass extinction or biotic crisis) is a widespread and rapid decrease in the biodiversity on Earth.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event It seems very fair - even overly cautious! - to push the inevitability of that out to 2100 when many would say it is already in progress.
- nl 7y ago
  You are right of course. However the OP said (in their original post): In short industrial civilization will be non-viable in the tropics by the 2050s and world wide by the 2100s. I took it in that context. I'd also note the there are multiple causes of mass extinction of which climate change is one.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

imtringued 7y ago

Well, what else are you going to suggest? Obsolete monolithic nuclear plants? Pro nuclear activists don't actually know the trade offs between nuclear plant designs and the inherent problems that are caused by "super projects". It's just a pet peeve to differentiate themselves from the "green hippies". Where are all the modular reactor factories that the nuclear industry needs? Why is everyone focusing on one shot construction of nuclear infrastructure instead of keeping it alive by periodically replacing existing reactors? Let me describe the way nuclear power plants have been built. Company E wants to build a power plant. It cannot take advantage of an old design because those have been declared unsafe. They only want to build a single one but they are forced to make a custom design. The custom design costs hundreds of millions in R&D before it can be approved by the government. Afterwards the company has to ask for government support because a 10-30 billion dollar project is very difficult to finance and insure by a single company. Now the construction phase begins. Making parts for nuclear power plants requires specialized factories which are often already running at capacity because they are busy with other projects. You can now wait a year or more for the parts to be delivered. Alternatively you can also construct factories dedicated to the construction of nuclear power plants. Once you have all the parts and finished the construction process you can run the nuclear plant for 50 years or more. 30 years later a design defect has been discovered. It can be fixed but it requires a partial redesign. 2 billion have to be spent on upgrades. Now 50 years have passed and the plant is reaching the end of its life. The design is now considered obsolete and should be replaced immediately. The government is now on the hook for the decommissioning process. Costs? Unknown but definitively not less than 10 billion dollars. Because decommissioning is so expensive the government keeps the plant online for another 15 years. Your country has several dozens of these plants and once someone makes a critical mistake or a natural disaster strikes you get a Chernobyl or Fukushima type event again. These power plants are responsible for the bad reputation of the nuclear industry but at the same time the industry willingly took the risk. They have nobody to blame but themselves. Ok, what if we just get rid of those plants and replace them with new ones? The cycle repeats. New design. No economies of scale. New custom factories because the old ones didn't have any customers for 65 whole years. Mistakes can't be fixed. Again, this is not something that green activists forced these companies to do. You know what the answer to these problems is? Making lots of small nuclear power plants. Companies can afford them. They can be cheaply mass produced. They can be cheaply replaced. Custom factories are maintained over time instead of closed down. Yet strangely no nuclear activist proposes these types of reactors because they do not acknowledge the inherent problems nuclear faces. Instead, the focus lies on new designs that don't even exist but promise to do everything better without addressing any of the actually important flaws. Nuclear plant designs are like cryptographic hashing. You will always find a flaw given enough time.