5 ms·

Or 10X investment in nuclear...

arcticbull 6y ago
We need both, to be completely honest. Nuclear is a zero-carbon (well, low-carbon), sustainable solution to powering the world. And the safest form of energy in the world when measured in terms of deaths per TWh of generated power. Not a popular opinion, I'll grant you.
- sslayer 6y ago
  >We need both Agreed, Lets wipe out a country with nuclear.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    Again, the safest form of electricity. [1] Certainly if you add the deaths from rooftop solar to that solar chart, and also the deaths from the Bangqiao Dam to hydro (200,000 people in one go). [1] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
- munk-a 6y ago
  It would honestly just be nice to see some MSR[1]s or other "modern" reactors brought on to start disabusing people of their "Nuclear means big explosions" misconceptions. Nuclear is quite safe - it's downside is that it's expensive due to a large initial capital investment. But, once that's secured, it ends up being quite profitable - it's just hard to attract investors into an investment with a ten year RoI. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor
- MauranKilom 6y ago
  > And the safest form of energy in the world when measured in terms of deaths per TWh of generated power. My mind on this is is not settled, but how does this factor in the unknown future of radioactive waste? We're not even through 0.1% of the time it will remain a threat. Every single nuclear TWh comes with a debt that must be repaid over thousands of years. Ensuring the death toll from that remains at zero is basically impossible to guarantee right now.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    Radioactive waste is super dense, easy to contain (throw it in Yucca mountain and seal 'er up) and easy to detect with a Geiger counter. Further, you can dramatically reduce the physical quantity of waste using fast neutron reactors or breeder reactors.
ekianjo 6y ago
More like 100X is needed, globally.
- babelfish 6y ago
  Bill Gates does a good job of outlining the main area where we need change (and how much of it) in his new book.
  - SkyMarshal 6y ago
    /second that recommendation. I listened to the audiobook version recently and it's a good distillation of the problem [1] and outline of what it will take to definitively solve it. A good starting point for anyone who wants to understand it more clearly, or jumping off point for further deep dives. [1]: We need to go from 51 billion tons of greenhouse gasses per year to 0 by 2050.
  - swader999 6y ago
    Bill Gates, the same guy that was all over Epstein's flight logs?
pmastela 6y ago
And 10X investment in fusion… Declaring a war on bitcoin would be as futile as War on Drugs and the Prohibition. Might as well embrace it, try to tax and regulate it, and move the revenue from it to worthwhile initiatives that can buy humanity more time. Having said that, in an ideal world, I’d agree with you and say we should shutdown bitcoin and all other activity that’s superfluous to humanity’s struggle against climate change. Industrialized meat production is out. International air travel is out. Raising all other product prices according to the climate externalities they cause. Doubly or triply replanting the forests in the Amazon and elsewhere. It’s gonna take sacrifices now to prevent suffering later, if we’re going to make it past this potential Great Filter.

We need both, to be completely honest. Nuclear is a zero-carbon (well, low-carbon), sustainable solution to powering the world. And the safest form of energy in the world when measured in terms of deaths per TWh of generated power. Not a popular opinion, I'll grant you.

sslayer 6y ago
>We need both Agreed, Lets wipe out a country with nuclear.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Again, the safest form of electricity. [1] Certainly if you add the deaths from rooftop solar to that solar chart, and also the deaths from the Bangqiao Dam to hydro (200,000 people in one go). [1] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
munk-a 6y ago
It would honestly just be nice to see some MSR[1]s or other "modern" reactors brought on to start disabusing people of their "Nuclear means big explosions" misconceptions. Nuclear is quite safe - it's downside is that it's expensive due to a large initial capital investment. But, once that's secured, it ends up being quite profitable - it's just hard to attract investors into an investment with a ten year RoI. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor
MauranKilom 6y ago
> And the safest form of energy in the world when measured in terms of deaths per TWh of generated power. My mind on this is is not settled, but how does this factor in the unknown future of radioactive waste? We're not even through 0.1% of the time it will remain a threat. Every single nuclear TWh comes with a debt that must be repaid over thousands of years. Ensuring the death toll from that remains at zero is basically impossible to guarantee right now.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Radioactive waste is super dense, easy to contain (throw it in Yucca mountain and seal 'er up) and easy to detect with a Geiger counter. Further, you can dramatically reduce the physical quantity of waste using fast neutron reactors or breeder reactors.

ekianjo 6y ago

More like 100X is needed, globally.

babelfish 6y ago
Bill Gates does a good job of outlining the main area where we need change (and how much of it) in his new book.
- SkyMarshal 6y ago
  /second that recommendation. I listened to the audiobook version recently and it's a good distillation of the problem [1] and outline of what it will take to definitively solve it. A good starting point for anyone who wants to understand it more clearly, or jumping off point for further deep dives. [1]: We need to go from 51 billion tons of greenhouse gasses per year to 0 by 2050.
- swader999 6y ago
  Bill Gates, the same guy that was all over Epstein's flight logs?

pmastela 6y ago

And 10X investment in fusion… Declaring a war on bitcoin would be as futile as War on Drugs and the Prohibition. Might as well embrace it, try to tax and regulate it, and move the revenue from it to worthwhile initiatives that can buy humanity more time. Having said that, in an ideal world, I’d agree with you and say we should shutdown bitcoin and all other activity that’s superfluous to humanity’s struggle against climate change. Industrialized meat production is out. International air travel is out. Raising all other product prices according to the climate externalities they cause. Doubly or triply replanting the forests in the Amazon and elsewhere. It’s gonna take sacrifices now to prevent suffering later, if we’re going to make it past this potential Great Filter.