5 ms·

"Fossil Future" is an interesting book on this topic that argues we need to use more fossil fuels instead of less. And it makes me kind of agree with the author

"Fossil Future" is an interesting book on this topic that argues we need to use more fossil fuels instead of less. And it makes me kind of agree with the author, since I learnt that solar and wind only makes sense to use where it can offset the carbon footprint that it created when it was manufactured. I totally vote for nuclear, and I hope that it picks up, but we'll need fossil fuels for multiple industries anyway besides energy. And if we say "let's expand R&D to find alternatives" even that probably requires more fossil fuels and not less. Disclaimer: I don't deny global warming. I'm just not sure what the objectively realistic options are that don't include massively reducing global population and at the same time sinking millions into poverty due to lack of energy. We can go green, but we can't go green and have everyone maintain their living standards at the same time we also grow and perform R&D on multiple areas.

savingsPossible 4y ago
> We can go green, but we can't go green and have everyone maintain their living standards at the same time we also grow and perform R&D on multiple areas. I would hope (at least at a physics level, politics would be hard, of course) that cutting down on yatchs and maybe flights might be enough... (i.e.: only cutting for the 1% or maybe 5%)
- midasuni 4y ago
  Nowhere near enough. Cut out every flight and every yacht in existence and you’re talking about a 10% reduction
- mrleinad 4y ago
  > I would hope (at least at a physics level) I think that's all this movement has: hope, but without anything real to back it up. Virtue signaling seems to be their solution. I'm all for grounding Bill Gates to use a train to go anywhere, but I think we should have a serious discussion on the subject, with facts and not just "let's hope this works".
rootusrootus 4y ago
> solar and wind only makes sense to use where it can offset the carbon footprint that it created when it was manufactured IIRC, PV panels become (on average) carbon neutral after three years of operation. Given the lifespan, this suggests that there are very few locations you can put them where they won't more than pay back the carbon emitted in their production. I'm a former nuclear fan. In anything like its current form it is a dead end, and it is past time we move on.
- ravenstine 4y ago
  > I'm a former nuclear fan. In anything like its current form it is a dead end, and it is past time we move on. Could you further elaborate on this take? I'm not interested in challenging you or anything, but the anti-nuclear position is often out of fear of catastophe, so it's refreshing to hear an opinion that it's a dead end.
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    I don't know that any of my opinions are particularly refreshing, but I'm happy to share them anyway. It's certainly never stopped me in the past ;-). All current reactor designs, even the most recently approved ones, are bespoke. Incredibly expensive, slow to build, relying on a lot of one-off manufacturing and a dwindling number of experts in the technology. We could overbuild wind & solar on breathtaking scales and still spend a good bit less. I suspect we will find an energy storage solution for solar (EVs is a reasonably good bet IMO) before we'll figure out how to make economical nuclear a reality. I don't worry much about catastrophe. The worst ones we have seen so far were practically non-events compared to the ongoing damage we do just with coal alone. Both of the big disastrous nuclear events have straightforward engineering solutions (and in the case of the first, we already have done that engineering). Aside from it being a bit of an eyesore, I'd happily live in close proximity to a current generation nuclear plant. I think we'd need to see a fundamental shift in our approach to nuclear before we could make it viable. Maybe something like shifting to smaller floating reactors that we could churn out in quantity. I doubt we could make it directly cost competitive with wind & solar, but maybe we could find a way to make it valuable enough to keep as an alternative. We'd also need a cultural shift, of course -- people already fear nuclear power plants and have forced them to close prematurely as a result. That's a non-trivial problem, and I don't have a solution for that. Humans aren't rational, even if we like to pretend otherwise.

savingsPossible 4y ago

> We can go green, but we can't go green and have everyone maintain their living standards at the same time we also grow and perform R&D on multiple areas. I would hope (at least at a physics level, politics would be hard, of course) that cutting down on yatchs and maybe flights might be enough... (i.e.: only cutting for the 1% or maybe 5%)

midasuni 4y ago
Nowhere near enough. Cut out every flight and every yacht in existence and you’re talking about a 10% reduction
mrleinad 4y ago
> I would hope (at least at a physics level) I think that's all this movement has: hope, but without anything real to back it up. Virtue signaling seems to be their solution. I'm all for grounding Bill Gates to use a train to go anywhere, but I think we should have a serious discussion on the subject, with facts and not just "let's hope this works".

rootusrootus 4y ago

> solar and wind only makes sense to use where it can offset the carbon footprint that it created when it was manufactured IIRC, PV panels become (on average) carbon neutral after three years of operation. Given the lifespan, this suggests that there are very few locations you can put them where they won't more than pay back the carbon emitted in their production. I'm a former nuclear fan. In anything like its current form it is a dead end, and it is past time we move on.

ravenstine 4y ago
> I'm a former nuclear fan. In anything like its current form it is a dead end, and it is past time we move on. Could you further elaborate on this take? I'm not interested in challenging you or anything, but the anti-nuclear position is often out of fear of catastophe, so it's refreshing to hear an opinion that it's a dead end.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  I don't know that any of my opinions are particularly refreshing, but I'm happy to share them anyway. It's certainly never stopped me in the past ;-). All current reactor designs, even the most recently approved ones, are bespoke. Incredibly expensive, slow to build, relying on a lot of one-off manufacturing and a dwindling number of experts in the technology. We could overbuild wind & solar on breathtaking scales and still spend a good bit less. I suspect we will find an energy storage solution for solar (EVs is a reasonably good bet IMO) before we'll figure out how to make economical nuclear a reality. I don't worry much about catastrophe. The worst ones we have seen so far were practically non-events compared to the ongoing damage we do just with coal alone. Both of the big disastrous nuclear events have straightforward engineering solutions (and in the case of the first, we already have done that engineering). Aside from it being a bit of an eyesore, I'd happily live in close proximity to a current generation nuclear plant. I think we'd need to see a fundamental shift in our approach to nuclear before we could make it viable. Maybe something like shifting to smaller floating reactors that we could churn out in quantity. I doubt we could make it directly cost competitive with wind & solar, but maybe we could find a way to make it valuable enough to keep as an alternative. We'd also need a cultural shift, of course -- people already fear nuclear power plants and have forced them to close prematurely as a result. That's a non-trivial problem, and I don't have a solution for that. Humans aren't rational, even if we like to pretend otherwise.