4 ms·

I can’t really reconcile people who genuinely, in their heart of hearts, believe we’re on the precipice of doom because of carbon emissions, and are at the same

I can’t really reconcile people who genuinely, in their heart of hearts, believe we’re on the precipice of doom because of carbon emissions, and are at the same time strongly against nuclear power. Can someone who feels this way chime in and help me understand? I’m genuinely curious how these two ideas fit together.

cmehdy 6y ago
The only people fitting both categories at once would have to be in favour of a very very quick de-growth/economic contraction and return to the lifestyle that was ubiquitous a couple centuries ago: no fossil fuels is pretty much a show-stopper for modern civilization. That's a position that can be argued for and defended while being entirely coherent though (although it's not one that I'm particularly thrilled to run towards).
jhayward 6y ago
We can build a lot more carbon free generation, much quicker, and reduce the carbon load of the atmosphere quicker by never ever building anther nuclear plant and instead use that money for renewables, transmission, and storage. It is simple. There are cheaper and quicker, and lots less risky ways to decarbonize generation.
- opo 6y ago
  >...use that money for renewables, transmission, and storage. If grid storage was simple or easy, it would have become ubiquitous decades ago. To deal with seasonal variations in power output, would require new massive battery systems that could store power for months and/or a massive over buildup of power generation. Neither of these options would be cheap and it isn’t clear how the cost would compare with building nuclear power plants. More importantly, nobody has yet tried to build such a long term grid storage system. (And no, using natural gas to cover for shortfalls from power sources that are intermittent is not a long term answer.) Many people also ignore how expensive and time-consuming it would be to rebuild the grid so that for example, the southwest could provide solar power for the east coast. Even the relatively small proposed Tres Amos SuperStation hasn’t been completed yet. It is possible there will be some major advances in grid storage that will allow us to stop using natural gas to cover for the intermittent nature of wind and solar. In that case - great! But... what if that doesn't pan out? The dangers we are facing in the coming decades are immense. Is your fear of nuclear power so great that if you had to choose, you would prefer the world to suffer through catastrophic climate change rather than use nuclear power?
arnoooooo 6y ago
I believe we're heading for a very rough time if we can avoid collapse. In an unstable society, I want energy production that is simple and decentralized. Nuclear energy does not fit that bill.
justatdotin 6y ago
I can't really reconcile people who deny the reality of climate chaos yet insist we must urgently embrace a nuclear solution. Can anyone who feels this way delete their account? I'm genuinely tired of your shtick.

cmehdy 6y ago

The only people fitting both categories at once would have to be in favour of a very very quick de-growth/economic contraction and return to the lifestyle that was ubiquitous a couple centuries ago: no fossil fuels is pretty much a show-stopper for modern civilization. That's a position that can be argued for and defended while being entirely coherent though (although it's not one that I'm particularly thrilled to run towards).

jhayward 6y ago

We can build a lot more carbon free generation, much quicker, and reduce the carbon load of the atmosphere quicker by never ever building anther nuclear plant and instead use that money for renewables, transmission, and storage. It is simple. There are cheaper and quicker, and lots less risky ways to decarbonize generation.

opo 6y ago
>...use that money for renewables, transmission, and storage. If grid storage was simple or easy, it would have become ubiquitous decades ago. To deal with seasonal variations in power output, would require new massive battery systems that could store power for months and/or a massive over buildup of power generation. Neither of these options would be cheap and it isn’t clear how the cost would compare with building nuclear power plants. More importantly, nobody has yet tried to build such a long term grid storage system. (And no, using natural gas to cover for shortfalls from power sources that are intermittent is not a long term answer.) Many people also ignore how expensive and time-consuming it would be to rebuild the grid so that for example, the southwest could provide solar power for the east coast. Even the relatively small proposed Tres Amos SuperStation hasn’t been completed yet. It is possible there will be some major advances in grid storage that will allow us to stop using natural gas to cover for the intermittent nature of wind and solar. In that case - great! But... what if that doesn't pan out? The dangers we are facing in the coming decades are immense. Is your fear of nuclear power so great that if you had to choose, you would prefer the world to suffer through catastrophic climate change rather than use nuclear power?

arnoooooo 6y ago

I believe we're heading for a very rough time if we can avoid collapse. In an unstable society, I want energy production that is simple and decentralized. Nuclear energy does not fit that bill.

justatdotin 6y ago

I can't really reconcile people who deny the reality of climate chaos yet insist we must urgently embrace a nuclear solution. Can anyone who feels this way delete their account? I'm genuinely tired of your shtick.