5 ms·

I hate to rain on your parade, but any solution that doesnt lean heavily on nuclear is not a solution. 50% of the population may be climate deniers (need a ref

I hate to rain on your parade, but any solution that doesnt lean heavily on nuclear is not a solution. 50% of the population may be climate deniers (need a reference though), but there is a large group of progressives that loved the green new deal also, which did not include nuclear energy, so there is blame on both sides.

DFHippie 5y ago
Yes, we should pour money into nuclear power, not so much because it's efficient or necessary, but because unless we give the denialists this sop they won't play ball. It's the price of cooperation. I'm serious. If wasting money on nuclear is the price we have to pay, we should pay that price. The key word there is "if". In reality if the people treating the issue seriously get behind nuclear the goalposts will move again. Al Gore's shoe size or entrees or thermostat will prove it's all a liberal hoax and we'll roll on just as before but considerably warmer and with a few energy companies a bit richer.
runarberg 5y ago
I hear this kind of rhetoric all the time. 15 years ago it was “any solution to world hunger that doesn’t lean heavily on GMO is not a solution.”. The lack of food security was/is not a problem of production but of distribution. GMO may produce more nutrient rich food, but has failed to do so at scale (also so does better soil management and more crop variety). Today, people are instead advocating nuclear power as the unproven solution to a real crisis. The problem is not of technology, but of policy and political will. Renewable energy has been a real option since the 80s. Lithium Ion batteries were invented in the 90s, and proliferated less then 15 years later (and are arguably the wrong solution for large scale energy storage). If we would have gotten behind renewables in the 70s—like we should have—the technology would be even more favorable. However in the 70s we went all in on nuclear and it failed. Nuclear has failed to scale to be the dominant power generation method in the past despite political will and ample funding, and we have no reason to believe it will be different this time around. There is also more to the climate disaster then just polluting power generation. There is a genuine lack in green infrastructure. Highways and airports are the favorable transportation infrastructures, even though they are the most polluting. Buildings keep being made out of polluting cement, water is wasted on inefficient agricultural practices to grow unessisary crops in arid places, etc. It is as if there is a genuine lack of interest from the political class in tackling the climate crisis. As if the climate crisis is not a problem of technology but something else, like say policy.
- fulafel 5y ago
  Indeed, it's classic mindset problem of wanting to solve a social and policy problem by your pet tech silver bullet idea.

DFHippie 5y ago

Yes, we should pour money into nuclear power, not so much because it's efficient or necessary, but because unless we give the denialists this sop they won't play ball. It's the price of cooperation. I'm serious. If wasting money on nuclear is the price we have to pay, we should pay that price. The key word there is "if". In reality if the people treating the issue seriously get behind nuclear the goalposts will move again. Al Gore's shoe size or entrees or thermostat will prove it's all a liberal hoax and we'll roll on just as before but considerably warmer and with a few energy companies a bit richer.

runarberg 5y ago

I hear this kind of rhetoric all the time. 15 years ago it was “any solution to world hunger that doesn’t lean heavily on GMO is not a solution.”. The lack of food security was/is not a problem of production but of distribution. GMO may produce more nutrient rich food, but has failed to do so at scale (also so does better soil management and more crop variety). Today, people are instead advocating nuclear power as the unproven solution to a real crisis. The problem is not of technology, but of policy and political will. Renewable energy has been a real option since the 80s. Lithium Ion batteries were invented in the 90s, and proliferated less then 15 years later (and are arguably the wrong solution for large scale energy storage). If we would have gotten behind renewables in the 70s—like we should have—the technology would be even more favorable. However in the 70s we went all in on nuclear and it failed. Nuclear has failed to scale to be the dominant power generation method in the past despite political will and ample funding, and we have no reason to believe it will be different this time around. There is also more to the climate disaster then just polluting power generation. There is a genuine lack in green infrastructure. Highways and airports are the favorable transportation infrastructures, even though they are the most polluting. Buildings keep being made out of polluting cement, water is wasted on inefficient agricultural practices to grow unessisary crops in arid places, etc. It is as if there is a genuine lack of interest from the political class in tackling the climate crisis. As if the climate crisis is not a problem of technology but something else, like say policy.

fulafel 5y ago
Indeed, it's classic mindset problem of wanting to solve a social and policy problem by your pet tech silver bullet idea.