7 ms·

So a lot of the discussions here are around EU or US opinions about nuclear power. The problem is something entirely different. India and China will move to em

So a lot of the discussions here are around EU or US opinions about nuclear power. The problem is something entirely different. India and China will move to emphatically reject coal restrictions during COP26. Remember India has probably some of the largest investments in renewable rightnow. But I dont think people outside of these countries have even an idea of the amount of hunger for power that is being generated as huge populations start clawing out of hunger and poverty. 3 years back, there were 240 million Indians who had NO electricity - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-01-24/living-in-the-dark-240-million-indians-have-no-electricity https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-01-24/living-in... So talking about pollution in this context is only solvable through large sources of clean power. We dont have enough land in India to support renewables for 1.3 billion people. Neither does China. Europe ? Very easily so. Coal ban is not an option. Unless nuclear power and technology transfer is on the table. India and China have both rejected targets - https://www.ft.com/content/eef90c01-4cbe-48b7-8b2c-2beb398a4fb1 https://www.ft.com/content/eef90c01-4cbe-48b7-8b2c-2beb398a4... COP26 basically seems to be a non starter now. with coal being pushed back in and nuclear pushed back out.

glogla 5y ago
Yes. This is a huge win for coal lobby. This might be the turning point that kills humanity.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  > This might be the turning point that kills humanity. What makes you say that? To me it seems like the worst case is probably human deaths in the hundreds of millions, not extinction.
  - Goety 5y ago
    As you accurately describe the threat is mass conflict and disorder. Why do you willingly support that or changing the narrative? Global instability is likely to lead to more conflict and war without any guarantees of end. A vast population reduction of vulnerable people for a lot of people IS extinction.
    - throwawaysea 5y ago
      > Why do you willingly support that? I’m sure where you got that impression. But language matters and the worst case outcome isn’t a situation that “kills humanity”. I was asking for clarification in case there was something I was missing in terms of impact that would actually lead to extinction, which by definition means a complete end to all human life.
      - Goety 5y ago
        which is why i included 'or [support] changing the narrative' i appreciate your language as well.
  - xvilka 5y ago
    In the worst case only few hundred millions will survive.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    > To me it seems like the worst case is probably human deaths in the hundreds of millions, not extinction. I think this underestimates the societal repercussions of an initial set of hundreds of millions of deaths. Millions of deaths probably means billions of refugees looking for new places to live, probably in places that are already struggling with the changes themselves.
mytailorisrich 5y ago
China can build nuclear power plants and indeed is building a large number of them. But as you mention the demand for energy is vast and they can't 'just' get rid of coal.
- sandGorgon 5y ago
  China's nuclear power plants come from the US. Westinghouse's bankruptcy set back the targets for many years. Of course, the big problem is also geopolitical concerns here. I would say that India is in a better position here (on geopolitics), however the tech transfer from US even to India has been iffy at best. Here's a bigger problem - India has set a goal to switch to electrical vehicles by 2030. If that happens, all gasoline/petrol/diesel consumption will switch to coal. Which means that switching to EV will double India's pollution norms. Unless nuclear power takes over.
  - mytailorisrich 5y ago
    Actually the majority of China's nuclear power plants are a local design based on French technology (there's been a long term cooperation with France, which has built a couple of nuclear power plants there, including recently)
    - sandGorgon 5y ago
      The point is - if westinghouse transfer had happened, this would have already been in place. I'm not disputing what they are doing now. Eventually all countries will have the ability to make gen 5 reactors...but the COP26 is today. And we lost time. That's the reason why coal usage will double or triple in the next 2 years primarily from India or China.
  - domsom 5y ago
    > Which means that switching to EV will double India's pollution norms. Unless nuclear power takes over. Why is nuclear the only alternative?
  - adrianN 5y ago

glogla 5y ago

Yes. This is a huge win for coal lobby. This might be the turning point that kills humanity.

throwawaysea 5y ago
> This might be the turning point that kills humanity. What makes you say that? To me it seems like the worst case is probably human deaths in the hundreds of millions, not extinction.
- Goety 5y ago
  As you accurately describe the threat is mass conflict and disorder. Why do you willingly support that or changing the narrative? Global instability is likely to lead to more conflict and war without any guarantees of end. A vast population reduction of vulnerable people for a lot of people IS extinction.
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    > Why do you willingly support that? I’m sure where you got that impression. But language matters and the worst case outcome isn’t a situation that “kills humanity”. I was asking for clarification in case there was something I was missing in terms of impact that would actually lead to extinction, which by definition means a complete end to all human life.
    - Goety 5y ago
      which is why i included 'or [support] changing the narrative' i appreciate your language as well.
- xvilka 5y ago
  In the worst case only few hundred millions will survive.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > To me it seems like the worst case is probably human deaths in the hundreds of millions, not extinction. I think this underestimates the societal repercussions of an initial set of hundreds of millions of deaths. Millions of deaths probably means billions of refugees looking for new places to live, probably in places that are already struggling with the changes themselves.

mytailorisrich 5y ago

China can build nuclear power plants and indeed is building a large number of them. But as you mention the demand for energy is vast and they can't 'just' get rid of coal.

sandGorgon 5y ago
China's nuclear power plants come from the US. Westinghouse's bankruptcy set back the targets for many years. Of course, the big problem is also geopolitical concerns here. I would say that India is in a better position here (on geopolitics), however the tech transfer from US even to India has been iffy at best. Here's a bigger problem - India has set a goal to switch to electrical vehicles by 2030. If that happens, all gasoline/petrol/diesel consumption will switch to coal. Which means that switching to EV will double India's pollution norms. Unless nuclear power takes over.
- mytailorisrich 5y ago
  Actually the majority of China's nuclear power plants are a local design based on French technology (there's been a long term cooperation with France, which has built a couple of nuclear power plants there, including recently)
  - sandGorgon 5y ago
    The point is - if westinghouse transfer had happened, this would have already been in place. I'm not disputing what they are doing now. Eventually all countries will have the ability to make gen 5 reactors...but the COP26 is today. And we lost time. That's the reason why coal usage will double or triple in the next 2 years primarily from India or China.
- domsom 5y ago
  > Which means that switching to EV will double India's pollution norms. Unless nuclear power takes over. Why is nuclear the only alternative?
- adrianN 5y ago