5 ms·

> addressing this problem (of global antropogenic climate change ) requires some quite radical changes in the way our society works I don't think so. 27% of ou

by Udik 6y ago

> addressing this problem (of global antropogenic climate change ) requires some quite radical changes in the way our society works I don't think so. 27% of our CO2 emissions are in electricity generation. Replacing every non-renewable energy source with nuclear we could bring those emissions to zero. Reconverting to electrical our other sources of emissions (heating, transport) where possible could cut another 20-30% of our emissions. That's an easy solution, realtively cheap and feasible with today's technologies, and not requiring massive societal transformations.

esarbe 6y ago
Granted; energy production is the source of a huge part of current CO2 emissions. But even if you could magically turn every coal-burning plant into an nuclear plant; you'd still have to account of 73% of carbon emissions from transportation, industry, residential, commercial and agricultural sources. > Reconverting to electrical our other sources of emissions (heating, transport) where possible could cut another 20-30% of our emissions. Not sure what you mean by this. Transport and heating were never electrical to begin with, were they? Without changing our patterns of resource consumption this will not change. And that will not come without societal transformations that de-emphasise consumerism and with it capitalism to some degree.
pjc50 6y ago
> Replacing every non-renewable energy source with nuclear we could bring those emissions to zero Quite possibly .. in 2040. We need renewables in the meantime.
- Udik 6y ago
  I think that if we decided to stop using fossil fuels entirely, we would replace them much quicker with nuclear power than with renewables. Saying you don't want A because it would take too much and instead you want B which you don't even know how long it might take- probably much more- doesn't seem very sensible.
  - ryathal 6y ago
    Nuclear would almost definitely provide real results faster than renewables, but renewables provide the illusion of progress. Being able to show progress let's them look a lot better than they actually are.
    - pjc50 6y ago
      Other way round: the UK has built a lot of wind power in the time taken to not build Hinkley C.
_Microft 6y ago
Nuclear power is no longer an "easy solution" because it would take at least a decade before a new nuclear power plant would go into operation. If we had wanted nuclear power, we should have started building it two decades ago.
- Udik 6y ago
  Well, how many decades would the proposed societal changes and a transition to 100% renewables require? What would be your alternative plan to cut global co2 emissions by 30%-40% within the next, say, twenty years?
  - _Microft 6y ago
    Photovoltaics and wind power will get us a long way. Both of them are seeing installed power increased by roughly 20-30% year over year [0]. If we can keep this pace for the next five years and half the rate for the second half of this decade, they'll make up more than >30% of power production already (in 2030!). [0] Growth of installed photovoltaic (nameplate) power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics#/media/File:PV_cume_semi_log_chart_2014_estimate.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics#/media/File:PV_c...
    - Udik 6y ago
      Which means that if this rate of installation continues, in 20 years you'd have replaced about 100% of the power requirements of today in nameplate values- but the actual production is at best 20%-30% of that value. So in 20 years you would have offset say 30% of that 27% of emissions due to electricity generation: so 8% of todays' emissions. In 2040. Is this your grand plan to save earth from an existential threat? If we installed nuclear capacity for 200% of today's power generation, instead, we'd have enough spare capacity to convert transport, heating and some industrial processes to electric, reducing our carbon footprint beyond the 30% mark into the 40% or 50%.

by Udik 6y ago

esarbe 6y ago

Granted; energy production is the source of a huge part of current CO2 emissions. But even if you could magically turn every coal-burning plant into an nuclear plant; you'd still have to account of 73% of carbon emissions from transportation, industry, residential, commercial and agricultural sources. > Reconverting to electrical our other sources of emissions (heating, transport) where possible could cut another 20-30% of our emissions. Not sure what you mean by this. Transport and heating were never electrical to begin with, were they? Without changing our patterns of resource consumption this will not change. And that will not come without societal transformations that de-emphasise consumerism and with it capitalism to some degree.

pjc50 6y ago

> Replacing every non-renewable energy source with nuclear we could bring those emissions to zero Quite possibly .. in 2040. We need renewables in the meantime.

Udik 6y ago
I think that if we decided to stop using fossil fuels entirely, we would replace them much quicker with nuclear power than with renewables. Saying you don't want A because it would take too much and instead you want B which you don't even know how long it might take- probably much more- doesn't seem very sensible.
- ryathal 6y ago
  Nuclear would almost definitely provide real results faster than renewables, but renewables provide the illusion of progress. Being able to show progress let's them look a lot better than they actually are.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    Other way round: the UK has built a lot of wind power in the time taken to not build Hinkley C.

_Microft 6y ago

Nuclear power is no longer an "easy solution" because it would take at least a decade before a new nuclear power plant would go into operation. If we had wanted nuclear power, we should have started building it two decades ago.

Udik 6y ago
Well, how many decades would the proposed societal changes and a transition to 100% renewables require? What would be your alternative plan to cut global co2 emissions by 30%-40% within the next, say, twenty years?
- _Microft 6y ago
  Photovoltaics and wind power will get us a long way. Both of them are seeing installed power increased by roughly 20-30% year over year [0]. If we can keep this pace for the next five years and half the rate for the second half of this decade, they'll make up more than >30% of power production already (in 2030!). [0] Growth of installed photovoltaic (nameplate) power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics#/media/File:PV_cume_semi_log_chart_2014_estimate.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics#/media/File:PV_c...
  - Udik 6y ago
    Which means that if this rate of installation continues, in 20 years you'd have replaced about 100% of the power requirements of today in nameplate values- but the actual production is at best 20%-30% of that value. So in 20 years you would have offset say 30% of that 27% of emissions due to electricity generation: so 8% of todays' emissions. In 2040. Is this your grand plan to save earth from an existential threat? If we installed nuclear capacity for 200% of today's power generation, instead, we'd have enough spare capacity to convert transport, heating and some industrial processes to electric, reducing our carbon footprint beyond the 30% mark into the 40% or 50%.