6 ms·

With the fossil and biofuel status quo powering more than 80% of the world causing climate change and air pollution on the scale of 8 million deaths per year [1

With the fossil and biofuel status quo powering more than 80% of the world causing climate change and air pollution on the scale of 8 million deaths per year [1], I don't find this argument particularly compelling. Sure there are hazards with nuclear, but even in wild hypothesized scenarios the damage from not doing nuclear is worse. For perspective, fossil + biofuel kill a full Chernobyl's worth of people (short term plus long term deaths) every 7 hours, and counting. And as for loss of habitability, the dose rates around Chernobyl are elevated but not incompatible with life. Around Fukushima, I'd join Elon Musk in eating any locally grown food. Better to avoid airplanes if you're concerned about those levels of radiation, below the threshold known to cause the smallest measurable increase in cancer (100 mSv acute, 300 mSv annual). Good read here: [2] [1] https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_1 https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_1 [2] https://thoughtscapism.com/2019/05/08/what-about-radioactive-wastelands-a-look-at-chernobyls-effects-on-nature/ https://thoughtscapism.com/2019/05/08/what-about-radioactive...

throwaway6532 5y ago
I'm not as worried about global warming as I used to be after taking a look at world demographics and learning a bunch of stuff about global supply chains and agricultural practices as a result of this conflict breaking out. World population is likely to steeply decline, and globalization plus high living standards will most probably go away. We just won't consume as much energy or make and trade as much stuff in the future.
- 14u2c 5y ago
  So basically you are hoping it all sorts itself out? Maybe it will, but that seems like an incredibility risky position for humanity to make without hedging our bets.
  - throwaway6532 5y ago
    We're long past the point of hedging our bets. Put it this way... when the world runs out of NPK fertilizers (or can't access them) and billions of people start to starve to death, climate change will no longer be seen as the big risk. After going down the rabbit hole that is modern agricultural practices, and more importantly the supply chains that underpin them, the writing is absolutely on the wall for humanity.
- kadoban 5y ago
  > World population is likely to steeply decline, and globalization plus high living standards will most probably go away. We just won't consume as much energy or make and trade as much stuff in the future. So, rewording that: a bunch of people will die, enough to reduce the global population, the ones who are left are going to be miserable. And all of that makes you _less_ worried?
  - throwaway6532 5y ago
    Well, I said it makes me less worried _about climate change_. It makes me significantly more worried about the political violence that historically breaks out under such circumstances and the wars that get started by nations to secure scarce and precious resources. The Guano Wars will look tame in comparison to whoever decides to go after the phosphate rock reserves in Morocco.
Gwypaas 5y ago
Doesn't that make renewables the optimal solution? Recyclable, no pollution to speak of when generating electricity and no radiological risks.
- lm28469 5y ago
  The thing is we don't live in a fairy tale, we're limited in resources and time. We can't ditch both nuclear + fossil right now so we have to prioritize one over the other for the next xx years until we figure out a way of making renewables good enough, right now they're a good addition at best and a gimmick at worst. And it's not like renewables are a silver bullet either. If you ditch nuclear to import panels or wind mills from countries like China I'd like to see a full life cycle pollution/emission report
- acidburnNSA 5y ago
  Briefly setting aside the term 'renewable' and focusing on wind and solar, the primary disadvantage of wind and solar of course is their intermittency. Due to low capacity factors, you have to build a lot more capacity (in GW) than your peak demand. For example, CA uses about 25 GW-day of electricity per day. To make that much on a perfectly calm CA winter day, you need to have about 100 GW of solar capacity standing by. Then, you need to also build energy storage/shifting systems that can shift the energy from the noontime peak to the night, where baseload demand never falls below 20 GWe. Now consider that there are often 15-day wind lulls in huge regional areas, and sometimes these coincide with big cloudy areas. The oft quoted "low" costs of wind and solar in levelized $/kWh completely ignore and hide the fact that you have to overbuild at this magnitude and include the storage. The overbuild also implies a massive over-taxing of earth's land and mineral resources to build and rebuild the collectors and storage system. Saying solar is the cheapest form of energy is like saying kids tents in the yard are the cheapest form of housing, and just pretending the indoor plumbing and heating and pantry of the parent's house cost nothing. Systems costs are what matter. LCOE must stop driving policy. Building 30 GW of load-following nuclear would be cheaper and have far lower impact on the environment. The alternate less cooperative answer is no. 'Renewables' as a concept are not the answer. Biofuel is renewable but causes climate change and air pollution while nuclear is low carbon and low pollution but not considered renewable. Furthermore, nuclear fuel on earth can power 100% of our primary energy for 4 billion years using the known and demonstrated technology of breeder reactors. This is just as long as the nuclear fusion fuel that powers solar, wind, hydro, bio will last, and so nuclear is just as renewable as those.

throwaway6532 5y ago

I'm not as worried about global warming as I used to be after taking a look at world demographics and learning a bunch of stuff about global supply chains and agricultural practices as a result of this conflict breaking out. World population is likely to steeply decline, and globalization plus high living standards will most probably go away. We just won't consume as much energy or make and trade as much stuff in the future.

14u2c 5y ago
So basically you are hoping it all sorts itself out? Maybe it will, but that seems like an incredibility risky position for humanity to make without hedging our bets.
- throwaway6532 5y ago
  We're long past the point of hedging our bets. Put it this way... when the world runs out of NPK fertilizers (or can't access them) and billions of people start to starve to death, climate change will no longer be seen as the big risk. After going down the rabbit hole that is modern agricultural practices, and more importantly the supply chains that underpin them, the writing is absolutely on the wall for humanity.
kadoban 5y ago
> World population is likely to steeply decline, and globalization plus high living standards will most probably go away. We just won't consume as much energy or make and trade as much stuff in the future. So, rewording that: a bunch of people will die, enough to reduce the global population, the ones who are left are going to be miserable. And all of that makes you _less_ worried?
- throwaway6532 5y ago
  Well, I said it makes me less worried _about climate change_. It makes me significantly more worried about the political violence that historically breaks out under such circumstances and the wars that get started by nations to secure scarce and precious resources. The Guano Wars will look tame in comparison to whoever decides to go after the phosphate rock reserves in Morocco.

Gwypaas 5y ago

Doesn't that make renewables the optimal solution? Recyclable, no pollution to speak of when generating electricity and no radiological risks.

lm28469 5y ago
The thing is we don't live in a fairy tale, we're limited in resources and time. We can't ditch both nuclear + fossil right now so we have to prioritize one over the other for the next xx years until we figure out a way of making renewables good enough, right now they're a good addition at best and a gimmick at worst. And it's not like renewables are a silver bullet either. If you ditch nuclear to import panels or wind mills from countries like China I'd like to see a full life cycle pollution/emission report
acidburnNSA 5y ago
Briefly setting aside the term 'renewable' and focusing on wind and solar, the primary disadvantage of wind and solar of course is their intermittency. Due to low capacity factors, you have to build a lot more capacity (in GW) than your peak demand. For example, CA uses about 25 GW-day of electricity per day. To make that much on a perfectly calm CA winter day, you need to have about 100 GW of solar capacity standing by. Then, you need to also build energy storage/shifting systems that can shift the energy from the noontime peak to the night, where baseload demand never falls below 20 GWe. Now consider that there are often 15-day wind lulls in huge regional areas, and sometimes these coincide with big cloudy areas. The oft quoted "low" costs of wind and solar in levelized $/kWh completely ignore and hide the fact that you have to overbuild at this magnitude and include the storage. The overbuild also implies a massive over-taxing of earth's land and mineral resources to build and rebuild the collectors and storage system. Saying solar is the cheapest form of energy is like saying kids tents in the yard are the cheapest form of housing, and just pretending the indoor plumbing and heating and pantry of the parent's house cost nothing. Systems costs are what matter. LCOE must stop driving policy. Building 30 GW of load-following nuclear would be cheaper and have far lower impact on the environment. The alternate less cooperative answer is no. 'Renewables' as a concept are not the answer. Biofuel is renewable but causes climate change and air pollution while nuclear is low carbon and low pollution but not considered renewable. Furthermore, nuclear fuel on earth can power 100% of our primary energy for 4 billion years using the known and demonstrated technology of breeder reactors. This is just as long as the nuclear fusion fuel that powers solar, wind, hydro, bio will last, and so nuclear is just as renewable as those.