5 ms·

We have a solution to this problem, it's build more nuclear plants and electrify everything with nuclear and renewables. Unfortunately, we are shutting these p

We have a solution to this problem, it's build more nuclear plants and electrify everything with nuclear and renewables. Unfortunately, we are shutting these plants down instead of building more of them.

CuteDinosaur 4y ago
It is not the only solution though. There are several choices we can make, but only we choose not to. Simplifying everything to just nuclear power is nonsense.
- hinkley 4y ago
  Some of those choices are on the consumption side and many of us are awful.
- politician 4y ago
  Not making any decisions because we need to thoroughly review every option, even bad ones, so that everyone can feel good about themselves and all sacred cows coddled is precisely the way that we've been sitting on our asses for the past 40 years. The tech exists to solve the problem. We have 4th generation designs that cannot melt down. We fail to deploy them to the shame of all of the so-called environmentalists.
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  It would have a hugeeee impact, but definitely not everything. Especially useful would be having excess energy for renewal which thermodynamics says is a must.
- tomrod 4y ago
  Super simple and good starting place.
- nick__m 4y ago
  What are those other solution ? Nuclear, in my opinion, is the only solution that doesn't require the developed world to lower it's standard of living.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    This lists about 40 or so, doesn't seem like nuclear makes the top ten. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/figures/summary-for-policymakers/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM_Figure7.png https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/figures/summary...
  - kitkat_new 4y ago
    The IPCC gives a list with options, cost and potential emission savings: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/figures/summary-for-policymakers/figure-spm-7/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/figures/summary-for-polic...
  - blooalien 4y ago
    The "ultra-rich" and their "pocket puppet" politicians and corporate entities (who cause the "Lion's share" of the problem are the ones who most (and most immediately) need to "lower their standard of living" to combat this particular problem. They ain't gonna do it. Period. Anyone who thinks they will is just as insane as they are… Thus, we're pretty much screwed no matter what the rest of us do. Those who can improve the situation will absolutely not do it. It would cut into their "infinite profits from a finite planet" fantasy.
- H_Pylori 4y ago
  [dead]
- arcticbull 4y ago
  Except nuclear is the safest, cleanest form of energy we have and it's also zero-carbon and renewable. We know it would solve the problem and we really don't know what else would so why not?
  - CuteDinosaur 4y ago
    I, and many other, know what you are saying but the community is not aware of any of this. After the serious incidents people are still not turning their faces to the nuclear. Teaching is not a right word to use in this situation, however I think the governments should do whatever they can do. Fo example, the social media accounts of Department of Energy, Us doing good for a while.
  - qqqwerty 4y ago
    I am all for nuclear as part of the energy mix, but the amount of FUD being spread by pro-nuclear bros really makes it hard to get on board. > we really don't know what else would We absolutely can meet our needs with other clean energy sources. And unlike nuclear most of these technologies are cost competitive with fossil fuels currently, and the ones that are not are continuing to come down in costs as manufacturing scales up. > We know it would solve the problem No we don't. There are a number of places where nuclear is highly unlikely to be deployed due to geopolitical concerns or due to a lack of advanced enough economy. Those places are going to have to rely on other options whether they want to or not. Again, I am all for nuclear as part of the mix. There are absolutely places where it will make the most sense (extreme latitudes for example). And I generally agree that increasing deployment could bring costs down*. But the amount of FUD spread by the pro-nuclear crowd really makes it hard to get onboard. I think you are doing more harm then good. * Nuclear is unlikely to see the same cost reductions as renewables though, due to the difference in the drivers of the costs for each type of technology.
    - nradov 4y ago
      That is misinformation. We absolutely cannot meet our needs with other clean energy sources until we figure out how to deliver reliable, economical base load power. There are a variety of proposals for grid scale energy storage but so far none have been proven to work at scale. We certainly can't build enough batteries to keep industrial customers running through several days of minimal sunshine and wind. So the reality is that nuclear power is the only viable non-fossil fueled option to service the base load in most areas.
sharemywin 4y ago
that may have been a solution a long time ago, but it wouldn't have fixed the meat problem or the transportation problem.
diydsp 4y ago
"There are 53 nuclear reactors currently under construction around the world. Only two are in the United States" [0x3F800000] "The annual number of permanent nuclear reactor shutdowns fluctuated between 2005 and 2022. In the latter year, there were 4 shutdowns worldwide, of which three were in the United Kingdom (UK) and one in the United States (U.S.) "[0x40000000] [0x3F800000] https://spectrum.ieee.org/slow-steady-progress-for-two-us-nuclear-power-projects https://spectrum.ieee.org/slow-steady-progress-for-two-us-nu... [0x40000000] https://www.statista.com/statistics/238656/number-of-nuclear-reactors-shut-down-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/238656/number-of-nuclear...
- nick__m 4y ago
  I really like your reference numbering scheme!
  - p1mrx 4y ago
    The numbering scheme is [1], [2], ... in float32.
- nightski 4y ago
  Found the windows error code engineer.
oezi 4y ago
Why focus on a technology of the past when it all just takes continuous investment of a couple percent of GDP into renewables? Nuclear takes so long to build it doesn't help at all.
- misiti3780 4y ago
  That is a policy issue, if you want to save the world, you are going to have to drop the onerous regulations. You cant have it both ways.
- jonasdegendt 4y ago
  For those wondering, it’s about 6% of global GDP [0], annually. That’s what the world was spending on all things military during the Cold War, so it’s very doable. [0] https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-carbon-notes-3-four-trillion https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-carbon-notes-3-fo...
the_gastropod 4y ago
It's unfortunate that this is such a common belief. There is no silver bullet for solving these problems. Yes, nuclear energy has a part to play. But it's a relatively small part, and absolutely not "a solution" in itself. MIT has a really neat policy simulator called En-ROADS [1] where you can tinker with applying various policies at various levels, and estimate their impacts. Check it out, and see just how minimal nuclear energy's effects are on their own. Compare that to, for example, just "highly reducing" methane emissions. [1] https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=23.2.1 https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=23.2...
- darkmighty 4y ago
  The carbon pricing slider is very powerful in that simulation! (also surprised me the effects of deforestation and afforestation) It really seems like the straightforward solution to me, even more than carbon credits which seem to have some issues (I believe you can get paid for 'not emitting' in some cases, which of course can lead to almost-fraudulent behavior) -- taxing emissions is much more concrete and verifiable. Also deforestation and afforestation are shown incredibly powerful. It really seems to me one of the most important aspects, since it means we also get "for free" the security of our forests and habitats that are collapsing (and even expansion of wild habitats hopefully!).
jiggywiggy 4y ago
Nuclear needs such a highly complex organisation to keep it running. I really don't think that's a long term vision with the current technology. Also Ukraine just last year was close to a drama with.the fighting.
marssaxman 4y ago
That would have helped if we had started 20-30 years ago, but it is too late now. Renewables have become much cheaper, and the installations come online much more quickly; nuclear can no longer compete.

CuteDinosaur 4y ago

It is not the only solution though. There are several choices we can make, but only we choose not to. Simplifying everything to just nuclear power is nonsense.

hinkley 4y ago
Some of those choices are on the consumption side and many of us are awful.
politician 4y ago
Not making any decisions because we need to thoroughly review every option, even bad ones, so that everyone can feel good about themselves and all sacred cows coddled is precisely the way that we've been sitting on our asses for the past 40 years. The tech exists to solve the problem. We have 4th generation designs that cannot melt down. We fail to deploy them to the shame of all of the so-called environmentalists.
mensetmanusman 4y ago
It would have a hugeeee impact, but definitely not everything. Especially useful would be having excess energy for renewal which thermodynamics says is a must.
tomrod 4y ago
Super simple and good starting place.
nick__m 4y ago
What are those other solution ? Nuclear, in my opinion, is the only solution that doesn't require the developed world to lower it's standard of living.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  This lists about 40 or so, doesn't seem like nuclear makes the top ten. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/figures/summary-for-policymakers/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM_Figure7.png https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/figures/summary...
- kitkat_new 4y ago
  The IPCC gives a list with options, cost and potential emission savings: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/figures/summary-for-policymakers/figure-spm-7/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/figures/summary-for-polic...
- blooalien 4y ago
  The "ultra-rich" and their "pocket puppet" politicians and corporate entities (who cause the "Lion's share" of the problem are the ones who most (and most immediately) need to "lower their standard of living" to combat this particular problem. They ain't gonna do it. Period. Anyone who thinks they will is just as insane as they are… Thus, we're pretty much screwed no matter what the rest of us do. Those who can improve the situation will absolutely not do it. It would cut into their "infinite profits from a finite planet" fantasy.
H_Pylori 4y ago
[dead]
arcticbull 4y ago
Except nuclear is the safest, cleanest form of energy we have and it's also zero-carbon and renewable. We know it would solve the problem and we really don't know what else would so why not?
- CuteDinosaur 4y ago
  I, and many other, know what you are saying but the community is not aware of any of this. After the serious incidents people are still not turning their faces to the nuclear. Teaching is not a right word to use in this situation, however I think the governments should do whatever they can do. Fo example, the social media accounts of Department of Energy, Us doing good for a while.
- qqqwerty 4y ago
  I am all for nuclear as part of the energy mix, but the amount of FUD being spread by pro-nuclear bros really makes it hard to get on board. > we really don't know what else would We absolutely can meet our needs with other clean energy sources. And unlike nuclear most of these technologies are cost competitive with fossil fuels currently, and the ones that are not are continuing to come down in costs as manufacturing scales up. > We know it would solve the problem No we don't. There are a number of places where nuclear is highly unlikely to be deployed due to geopolitical concerns or due to a lack of advanced enough economy. Those places are going to have to rely on other options whether they want to or not. Again, I am all for nuclear as part of the mix. There are absolutely places where it will make the most sense (extreme latitudes for example). And I generally agree that increasing deployment could bring costs down*. But the amount of FUD spread by the pro-nuclear crowd really makes it hard to get onboard. I think you are doing more harm then good. * Nuclear is unlikely to see the same cost reductions as renewables though, due to the difference in the drivers of the costs for each type of technology.
  - nradov 4y ago
    That is misinformation. We absolutely cannot meet our needs with other clean energy sources until we figure out how to deliver reliable, economical base load power. There are a variety of proposals for grid scale energy storage but so far none have been proven to work at scale. We certainly can't build enough batteries to keep industrial customers running through several days of minimal sunshine and wind. So the reality is that nuclear power is the only viable non-fossil fueled option to service the base load in most areas.

sharemywin 4y ago

that may have been a solution a long time ago, but it wouldn't have fixed the meat problem or the transportation problem.

diydsp 4y ago

"There are 53 nuclear reactors currently under construction around the world. Only two are in the United States" [0x3F800000] "The annual number of permanent nuclear reactor shutdowns fluctuated between 2005 and 2022. In the latter year, there were 4 shutdowns worldwide, of which three were in the United Kingdom (UK) and one in the United States (U.S.) "[0x40000000] [0x3F800000] https://spectrum.ieee.org/slow-steady-progress-for-two-us-nuclear-power-projects https://spectrum.ieee.org/slow-steady-progress-for-two-us-nu... [0x40000000] https://www.statista.com/statistics/238656/number-of-nuclear-reactors-shut-down-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/238656/number-of-nuclear...

nick__m 4y ago
I really like your reference numbering scheme!
- p1mrx 4y ago
  The numbering scheme is [1], [2], ... in float32.
nightski 4y ago
Found the windows error code engineer.

oezi 4y ago

Why focus on a technology of the past when it all just takes continuous investment of a couple percent of GDP into renewables? Nuclear takes so long to build it doesn't help at all.

misiti3780 4y ago
That is a policy issue, if you want to save the world, you are going to have to drop the onerous regulations. You cant have it both ways.
jonasdegendt 4y ago
For those wondering, it’s about 6% of global GDP [0], annually. That’s what the world was spending on all things military during the Cold War, so it’s very doable. [0] https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-carbon-notes-3-four-trillion https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-carbon-notes-3-fo...

the_gastropod 4y ago

It's unfortunate that this is such a common belief. There is no silver bullet for solving these problems. Yes, nuclear energy has a part to play. But it's a relatively small part, and absolutely not "a solution" in itself. MIT has a really neat policy simulator called En-ROADS [1] where you can tinker with applying various policies at various levels, and estimate their impacts. Check it out, and see just how minimal nuclear energy's effects are on their own. Compare that to, for example, just "highly reducing" methane emissions. [1] https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=23.2.1 https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=23.2...

darkmighty 4y ago
The carbon pricing slider is very powerful in that simulation! (also surprised me the effects of deforestation and afforestation) It really seems like the straightforward solution to me, even more than carbon credits which seem to have some issues (I believe you can get paid for 'not emitting' in some cases, which of course can lead to almost-fraudulent behavior) -- taxing emissions is much more concrete and verifiable. Also deforestation and afforestation are shown incredibly powerful. It really seems to me one of the most important aspects, since it means we also get "for free" the security of our forests and habitats that are collapsing (and even expansion of wild habitats hopefully!).

jiggywiggy 4y ago

Nuclear needs such a highly complex organisation to keep it running. I really don't think that's a long term vision with the current technology. Also Ukraine just last year was close to a drama with.the fighting.

marssaxman 4y ago

That would have helped if we had started 20-30 years ago, but it is too late now. Renewables have become much cheaper, and the installations come online much more quickly; nuclear can no longer compete.