4 ms·

While acknowledging that climate change is in fact real I wish to nitpick on the choice of the word "soon" in the headline. 2053 is 31 years from now.

by tpmx 4y ago

jeffbee 4y ago
If you started right now with a civil defense-level mobilization to replace every shitty building in America with something that will survive this future climate, you might just barely get it under the wire.
- tpmx 4y ago
  Or the planet decides to go nuclear for power, instead of burning dinos.
  - falcolas 4y ago
    I highly doubt 31 years is enough time to convert the entire United States, let alone the entire world, to nuclear power.
    - tpmx 4y ago
      Well, not with that attitude. I'm pretty sure it's possible. I think it could be done in 20 years, but instead what happens is that every year we have this debate between a) liberal arts people who think nuclear power is really scary because they don't understand it, and they saw that HBO series and it got even scarier b) engineering people who know that nuclear power is the solution and what happened in Chernobyl was an abberation, and it didn't even kill a fraction of the people that coal power has killed, anyway. And every year, nothing happens, because of this stalemate.
      - falcolas 4y ago
        Of course it’s my attitude that’s going to hold us back, and not the extreme cost and the sheer time required to build and fuel enough nuclear facilities to handle our projected energy needs. Energy needs which must also include the increased demand from our migration off all gas or coal based heating and cooking. My bad. EDIT: To accommodate the total projected energy demands for the US alone, we would need to build around 600 new reactors (fewer if solar and wind take off well beyond projected values), while also ensuring that the existing reactors continue to operate (or are replaced). Each reactor costs in excess of $20B to build. As for the time required, it's been documented to take anywhere from 10 to 25 years each. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=1-aeo2019&cases=ref2019~ref_no_cpp&sourcekey=0 https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=1-aeo201...
        tpmx 4y ago
        Yes, it's your bad (with that attitude).
        tpmx 4y ago
        Re: your EDIT: Yes, it will take some time. If we stop doing oneoffs and start thinking of them as products to be massproduced it will go faster and cheaper (but still take at least maybe 15 years).
        Ekaros 4y ago
        After first 10 years we should be able to stop repeating the same mistakes. And keep sufficient standards. Just stagger the building in start with 1 year intervals and then when working processes are found ramp it up.
    - euroderf 4y ago
      Needs assembly lines. None of this custom-every-time stuff.
      - falcolas 4y ago
        It's hard to assembly line the on-site construction, materials, and labor (building the containment vessel, steam generator building, cooling towers), which accounts for about half of the costs of a modern nuclear facility.
        euroderf 4y ago
        I was thinking of the recent announcements regarding modular reactors that are factory-built. I should have made this clear in my post.
    - Ekaros 4y ago
      10 years of planning, 20 years of building. With 5-10 of ramp up. Honestly it doesn't seem so bad. There just isn't political will to force decisions through and then force the invesment.
bioemerl 4y ago
31 years is shorter than it seems
- sbate1987 4y ago
- taylodl 4y ago
  31 years ago was 1991. Doesn’t seem all that long ago, does it?
bovermyer 4y ago
The meaning of "soon" changes with context, though. On a cosmic scale, "soon" could be measured in millennia. On the scale of a global problem with civilization-level policy decisions required to avert it, a few decades seems within the scope of "soon."
- tpmx 4y ago
  On a cosmic scale, "soon" could be measured in millennia. Yes, you are technically correct.
mywittyname 4y ago
Right, but we get closer to that ever year. And we can probably assume a linear progression. So if you have a child right now, we will be more than half way there by the time they get into college.
alistairSH 4y ago
Most of us on this forum will remain alive in that time-frame. Many of you won't even be retired. For many of us, our children will be entering middle-age. If that isn't soon enough to cause major concern, we'r truly fucked as a nation and as a species.
- tpmx 4y ago
  'On a cosmic scale, "soon" could be measured in millennia.'

While acknowledging that climate change is in fact real I wish to nitpick on the choice of the word "soon" in the headline. 2053 is 31 years from now.

by tpmx 4y ago

While acknowledging that climate change is in fact real I wish to nitpick on the choice of the word "soon" in the headline. 2053 is 31 years from now.

jeffbee 4y ago

If you started right now with a civil defense-level mobilization to replace every shitty building in America with something that will survive this future climate, you might just barely get it under the wire.

tpmx 4y ago
Or the planet decides to go nuclear for power, instead of burning dinos.
- falcolas 4y ago
  I highly doubt 31 years is enough time to convert the entire United States, let alone the entire world, to nuclear power.
  - tpmx 4y ago
    Well, not with that attitude. I'm pretty sure it's possible. I think it could be done in 20 years, but instead what happens is that every year we have this debate between a) liberal arts people who think nuclear power is really scary because they don't understand it, and they saw that HBO series and it got even scarier b) engineering people who know that nuclear power is the solution and what happened in Chernobyl was an abberation, and it didn't even kill a fraction of the people that coal power has killed, anyway. And every year, nothing happens, because of this stalemate.
    - falcolas 4y ago
      Of course it’s my attitude that’s going to hold us back, and not the extreme cost and the sheer time required to build and fuel enough nuclear facilities to handle our projected energy needs. Energy needs which must also include the increased demand from our migration off all gas or coal based heating and cooking. My bad. EDIT: To accommodate the total projected energy demands for the US alone, we would need to build around 600 new reactors (fewer if solar and wind take off well beyond projected values), while also ensuring that the existing reactors continue to operate (or are replaced). Each reactor costs in excess of $20B to build. As for the time required, it's been documented to take anywhere from 10 to 25 years each. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=1-aeo2019&cases=ref2019~ref_no_cpp&sourcekey=0 https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=1-aeo201...
      - tpmx 4y ago
        Yes, it's your bad (with that attitude).
      - tpmx 4y ago
        Re: your EDIT: Yes, it will take some time. If we stop doing oneoffs and start thinking of them as products to be massproduced it will go faster and cheaper (but still take at least maybe 15 years).
        Ekaros 4y ago
        After first 10 years we should be able to stop repeating the same mistakes. And keep sufficient standards. Just stagger the building in start with 1 year intervals and then when working processes are found ramp it up.
  - euroderf 4y ago
    Needs assembly lines. None of this custom-every-time stuff.
    - falcolas 4y ago
      It's hard to assembly line the on-site construction, materials, and labor (building the containment vessel, steam generator building, cooling towers), which accounts for about half of the costs of a modern nuclear facility.
      - euroderf 4y ago
        I was thinking of the recent announcements regarding modular reactors that are factory-built. I should have made this clear in my post.
  - Ekaros 4y ago
    10 years of planning, 20 years of building. With 5-10 of ramp up. Honestly it doesn't seem so bad. There just isn't political will to force decisions through and then force the invesment.

bioemerl 4y ago

31 years is shorter than it seems

sbate1987 4y ago
taylodl 4y ago
31 years ago was 1991. Doesn’t seem all that long ago, does it?

bovermyer 4y ago

The meaning of "soon" changes with context, though. On a cosmic scale, "soon" could be measured in millennia. On the scale of a global problem with civilization-level policy decisions required to avert it, a few decades seems within the scope of "soon."

tpmx 4y ago
On a cosmic scale, "soon" could be measured in millennia. Yes, you are technically correct.

mywittyname 4y ago

Right, but we get closer to that ever year. And we can probably assume a linear progression. So if you have a child right now, we will be more than half way there by the time they get into college.

alistairSH 4y ago

Most of us on this forum will remain alive in that time-frame. Many of you won't even be retired. For many of us, our children will be entering middle-age. If that isn't soon enough to cause major concern, we'r truly fucked as a nation and as a species.

tpmx 4y ago
'On a cosmic scale, "soon" could be measured in millennia.'