4 ms·

This totally ignores nuclear energy. If we are really in for "catastropic" climate change, then one of the things you can do is quickly build crappy, unsafe nuc

This totally ignores nuclear energy. If we are really in for "catastropic" climate change, then one of the things you can do is quickly build crappy, unsafe nuclear power plants. Even if you have a Chernobyl somewhere in the world every 5 years, you are still probably better off than with catastrophic climate change. Basically, it is this thinking that makes a lot of people suspicious about climate change. If all things that you would do to combat climate change are things the progressives/environmentalists want to do anyway (increase taxes, more government regulation of industry, more urbanization, more public transportation, etc) and nothing that they would not want to do, people on the other side of the political spectrum have their bs detector go off.

buzzkillington 7y ago
There are a lot of people, like myself, who would love nothing more than having 100% nuclear power and understand climate change. Unfortunately the left is as anti-science as the right when it comes to their sacred cows.
- cryptica 7y ago
  I support climate change and the extinction of the human species so I think the future is looking really good.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- avmich 7y ago
  When one tries to analyze pros and contras of nuclear energy, he can get conflicting data. Some say "overall modern nuclear beats handily anything", other say "nuclear is good only if you omit externalities like problem of spent fuel". Both sides provide data which supports their point of view, without explaining the data of the other side. So it's hard to make a reasonable judgement.
animalnewbie 7y ago
To continue what you're saying, why not put these plants in deserts and other uninhabited regions? Russia is huge, China is 80% empty, America is sparse, Australia is 95% percent empty and India has a desert too. Power supply would be an issue but can be solved. (Numbers likely hyperbolic). Instant solution of middle East problem. Perhaps that's why? Maybe Mideast is what stops nuclear plants, just like saudis, via Citibank, decided Obama cabinet?
- nsnick 7y ago
  Water is needed currently for nuclear power. https://nuclear.duke-energy.com/2014/01/22/importance-of-water-at-nuclear-plants https://nuclear.duke-energy.com/2014/01/22/importance-of-wat...
ShorsHammer 7y ago
> This totally ignores nuclear energy. Yeah and it was a good comment without the us v them environmental bait. I say this as someone who supports nuclear but accepts the reality that building a new plant is essentially impossible to supply urban areas now. It has plenty of applications but we mostly live in democracies and even countries with strong nuclear support have been all cutting back after Fukushima, much to my dismay. Small modular reactors should have a future for remote communities and a few other applications, space especially. The actual tech behind modern modular reactors is exciting[0]. Besides that the game is up for traditional nuclear plants that require decades to be built against horrendous public opposition in the face of a solar or wind farm that can be hooked up in a year for the same price. It's simply not viable anymore. [0] https://www.nuscalepower.com/benefits/built-for-resilience https://www.nuscalepower.com/benefits/built-for-resilience
darkmighty 7y ago
I don't see why this needs to be politicized this heavily. The facts are essentially indisputably in the side of climate disaster as likely. This shouldn't be the cause of 'progressives' (although maybe it should be the cause of 'environmentalists' -- even though I'm not sure who the heck should be an 'anti-environmentalist' in right mind), this should be just something we have to do as a species living on the planet. If 'progressives' picked it up and (some) 'conservatives' did not, I think it's an unfortunate failure of conservatives (and science communicators, and society as a whole, etc.). I support Nuclear Energy too, but I can see it has difficulty gaining traction for a huge list of reasons, and this is across the political, social and economic spectrum. But basically the need for Nuclear is largely obsolete -- it was the only attractive option when Solar (and Wind to an extent) wasn't so cheap. Solar costs about the same or less, is available more or less everywhere, and has no contamination issues. Also of very worthy note IMO is that the (electrical) energy supply isn't the whole picture. A good chunk of emissions are from transportation sector and some from industrial processes. There is also advocacy in those sectors (which comes off as 'progressive') simply because of consistency and necessity to achieve a reasonable climate plan. Note that nuclear energy, or solar energy, can't solely avoid incoming disasters.
- daxorid 7y ago
  Let me preface this by saying I believe in AGW, and that it's an existential risk. > I don't see why this needs to be politicized this heavily One huge reason is that the coincident ideologies of the left can't be taken seriously by those on the right. Or, put another way, they don't believe them. Specifically, if one was truly serious about the urgency of solving climate change, they would not simultaneously advocate for raising the standard of living of non-Western populations to Western levels, before the carbon footprint required of said standard of living was dramatically reduced first. Carbon emission reduction right now, with the urgency required to prevent collapse, is fundamentally incompatible with open borders. So when someone on the right sees an open-borders advocate clamoring for immediate carbon emissions reductions, the conclusion is not necessarily that they don't believe the science, it's that they don't believe you do. And the only valid conclusion is that you're motivated by politics, not by legitimate concern for the species.
ygggvg 7y ago
There is not enough uranium available to just switch to nuclear. Bill Gates is trying to invent some slow wave something reactor needed to make that work but it is not working yet.
- nitrogen 7y ago
  Is this a problem with the existence of ore, or a problem with the current supply chain?
  - ygggvg 7y ago
    It is the existence of it.
avmich 7y ago
> things the progressives/environmentalists want to do anyway Progressive/environmentalists are a smart bunch, and the movement has enough history. They figured already what's useful, why and how - now their predictions are getting more visible, have more support. To consider that bs just because somebody figured it earlier than you and now has even more arguments is sad.

buzzkillington 7y ago

There are a lot of people, like myself, who would love nothing more than having 100% nuclear power and understand climate change. Unfortunately the left is as anti-science as the right when it comes to their sacred cows.

cryptica 7y ago
I support climate change and the extinction of the human species so I think the future is looking really good.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
avmich 7y ago
When one tries to analyze pros and contras of nuclear energy, he can get conflicting data. Some say "overall modern nuclear beats handily anything", other say "nuclear is good only if you omit externalities like problem of spent fuel". Both sides provide data which supports their point of view, without explaining the data of the other side. So it's hard to make a reasonable judgement.

animalnewbie 7y ago

To continue what you're saying, why not put these plants in deserts and other uninhabited regions? Russia is huge, China is 80% empty, America is sparse, Australia is 95% percent empty and India has a desert too. Power supply would be an issue but can be solved. (Numbers likely hyperbolic). Instant solution of middle East problem. Perhaps that's why? Maybe Mideast is what stops nuclear plants, just like saudis, via Citibank, decided Obama cabinet?

nsnick 7y ago
Water is needed currently for nuclear power. https://nuclear.duke-energy.com/2014/01/22/importance-of-water-at-nuclear-plants https://nuclear.duke-energy.com/2014/01/22/importance-of-wat...

ShorsHammer 7y ago

> This totally ignores nuclear energy. Yeah and it was a good comment without the us v them environmental bait. I say this as someone who supports nuclear but accepts the reality that building a new plant is essentially impossible to supply urban areas now. It has plenty of applications but we mostly live in democracies and even countries with strong nuclear support have been all cutting back after Fukushima, much to my dismay. Small modular reactors should have a future for remote communities and a few other applications, space especially. The actual tech behind modern modular reactors is exciting[0]. Besides that the game is up for traditional nuclear plants that require decades to be built against horrendous public opposition in the face of a solar or wind farm that can be hooked up in a year for the same price. It's simply not viable anymore. [0] https://www.nuscalepower.com/benefits/built-for-resilience https://www.nuscalepower.com/benefits/built-for-resilience

darkmighty 7y ago

I don't see why this needs to be politicized this heavily. The facts are essentially indisputably in the side of climate disaster as likely. This shouldn't be the cause of 'progressives' (although maybe it should be the cause of 'environmentalists' -- even though I'm not sure who the heck should be an 'anti-environmentalist' in right mind), this should be just something we have to do as a species living on the planet. If 'progressives' picked it up and (some) 'conservatives' did not, I think it's an unfortunate failure of conservatives (and science communicators, and society as a whole, etc.). I support Nuclear Energy too, but I can see it has difficulty gaining traction for a huge list of reasons, and this is across the political, social and economic spectrum. But basically the need for Nuclear is largely obsolete -- it was the only attractive option when Solar (and Wind to an extent) wasn't so cheap. Solar costs about the same or less, is available more or less everywhere, and has no contamination issues. Also of very worthy note IMO is that the (electrical) energy supply isn't the whole picture. A good chunk of emissions are from transportation sector and some from industrial processes. There is also advocacy in those sectors (which comes off as 'progressive') simply because of consistency and necessity to achieve a reasonable climate plan. Note that nuclear energy, or solar energy, can't solely avoid incoming disasters.

daxorid 7y ago
Let me preface this by saying I believe in AGW, and that it's an existential risk. > I don't see why this needs to be politicized this heavily One huge reason is that the coincident ideologies of the left can't be taken seriously by those on the right. Or, put another way, they don't believe them. Specifically, if one was truly serious about the urgency of solving climate change, they would not simultaneously advocate for raising the standard of living of non-Western populations to Western levels, before the carbon footprint required of said standard of living was dramatically reduced first. Carbon emission reduction right now, with the urgency required to prevent collapse, is fundamentally incompatible with open borders. So when someone on the right sees an open-borders advocate clamoring for immediate carbon emissions reductions, the conclusion is not necessarily that they don't believe the science, it's that they don't believe you do. And the only valid conclusion is that you're motivated by politics, not by legitimate concern for the species.

ygggvg 7y ago

There is not enough uranium available to just switch to nuclear. Bill Gates is trying to invent some slow wave something reactor needed to make that work but it is not working yet.

nitrogen 7y ago
Is this a problem with the existence of ore, or a problem with the current supply chain?
- ygggvg 7y ago
  It is the existence of it.

avmich 7y ago

> things the progressives/environmentalists want to do anyway Progressive/environmentalists are a smart bunch, and the movement has enough history. They figured already what's useful, why and how - now their predictions are getting more visible, have more support. To consider that bs just because somebody figured it earlier than you and now has even more arguments is sad.