5 ms·

I find it perplexing that some people can accept the 2-million-year recovery time for coral reefs, yet outraged due to Chernobyl's 24,110-year recovery [1]. If

by Elyra 3y ago

I find it perplexing that some people can accept the 2-million-year recovery time for coral reefs, yet outraged due to Chernobyl's 24,110-year recovery [1]. If we had switched to nuclear we would be in much better shape. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future

atleastoptimal 3y ago
In climate change policy, perfect is the enemy of good.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
renewiltord 3y ago
It's a classic case. The unimaginative always come up with solutions that don't work. "If only everyone would agree, we could have nuclear power plants" / "If only everyone would agree, we could have universal masking and vaccination" / "If only everyone would agree, we could have better public transit". Well, face it, everyone isn't going to agree. That's why solutions like EVs and wind+solar win: their success is not conditioned on an impossible fact. Instead, wins can be incremental and progressive. You can put one EV on the road, and then two, and then more. You can put a few windmills in one place and more in another. It doesn't require you to convince everyone.
- _hypx 3y ago
  That's pure delusion. People will reject your solution just like they reject nuclear. Even more so, since millions of people can't afford them.
  - renewiltord 3y ago
    They didn't. EVs and Wind+Solar exist and are expanding at a much faster rate than nuclear in terms of installed and generating capacity.
    - _hypx 3y ago
      That is only true right now. There will be opposition to those ideas in the future, not to mention fundamental limitations of those ideas. There will be a return to nuclear power simply because it is a good idea and the anti-nuclear worldview is just outdated fearmongering.
HDThoreaun 3y ago
People don't live in coral reefs, so they don't really care about them.
throwaway72762 3y ago
Even if nuclear were built as fast as possible it can't replace fossil fuels fast enough to mitigate before major feedbacks kick in. We're left with significant decrease in energy use as the main thing that has to be done and that there's no will to do.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  We need to get generation to carbon neutral within ~10 years. Nuclear can't do it on that timeframe, and conservation can't reduce to 0. OTOH, wind and solar can reduce emissions by 70% and save money over the long term while doing so. Wind + solar + short term storage can reduce emissions by 99% and save money over the long term while doing so. Getting from 99% to 100% will be hard and will require likely either long term storage or carbon capture, which will be expensive. But don't let that get in the way of getting to 99%.
  - trenchgun 3y ago
    Realistically, we probably need energy all of efficiency, renewable boom and nuclear, and more. We should get going as fast as we can, but definitely will not be done in ten years. It is not just electricity that needs to be got off fossil fuels, but also transportation, industry, heating etc. Very likely nuclear power will have roles to play too. PS. I live in Finland, our electricity is already mostly clean, in large parts thanks to nuclear. Next we will need to clean up heating and industry, probably with a combination of electrification (heat pumps), storage (heat storage, hydrogen), renewables and nuclear.
    - bryanlarsen 3y ago
      We're going from 10% to 25% wind and solar in three years. And those projects were committed without the incentives of the IRA. A decade is very feasible for the electricity generation part of the problem, which is what I was referring to. Other industries may take longer.
  - Incipient 3y ago
    What grid scale storage are you referring to? The only one I know is pumped hydro, and that's quite iffy efficiency wise, can be expensive, and you need the landscape to do it (I'm personally in a very flat area with nothing for a good thousand miles). Legit question too. I know we have a bunch of nascent tech, but haven't heard of anything at scale.
mrguyorama 3y ago
Nuclear would only have been the answer back in the 70s. We just cannot build enough of it fast enough while also convincing all the dumb (and less dumb) people that, no, a nuclear reactor has nothing to do with a nuclear bomb and CANNOT go critical and the damage from chernobyl wasn't even a nuclear explosion. Meanwhile California adds about 5 gigawatts of solar power every year.

by Elyra 3y ago

atleastoptimal 3y ago

In climate change policy, perfect is the enemy of good.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

renewiltord 3y ago

It's a classic case. The unimaginative always come up with solutions that don't work. "If only everyone would agree, we could have nuclear power plants" / "If only everyone would agree, we could have universal masking and vaccination" / "If only everyone would agree, we could have better public transit". Well, face it, everyone isn't going to agree. That's why solutions like EVs and wind+solar win: their success is not conditioned on an impossible fact. Instead, wins can be incremental and progressive. You can put one EV on the road, and then two, and then more. You can put a few windmills in one place and more in another. It doesn't require you to convince everyone.

_hypx 3y ago
That's pure delusion. People will reject your solution just like they reject nuclear. Even more so, since millions of people can't afford them.
- renewiltord 3y ago
  They didn't. EVs and Wind+Solar exist and are expanding at a much faster rate than nuclear in terms of installed and generating capacity.
  - _hypx 3y ago
    That is only true right now. There will be opposition to those ideas in the future, not to mention fundamental limitations of those ideas. There will be a return to nuclear power simply because it is a good idea and the anti-nuclear worldview is just outdated fearmongering.

HDThoreaun 3y ago

People don't live in coral reefs, so they don't really care about them.

throwaway72762 3y ago

Even if nuclear were built as fast as possible it can't replace fossil fuels fast enough to mitigate before major feedbacks kick in. We're left with significant decrease in energy use as the main thing that has to be done and that there's no will to do.

bryanlarsen 3y ago
We need to get generation to carbon neutral within ~10 years. Nuclear can't do it on that timeframe, and conservation can't reduce to 0. OTOH, wind and solar can reduce emissions by 70% and save money over the long term while doing so. Wind + solar + short term storage can reduce emissions by 99% and save money over the long term while doing so. Getting from 99% to 100% will be hard and will require likely either long term storage or carbon capture, which will be expensive. But don't let that get in the way of getting to 99%.
- trenchgun 3y ago
  Realistically, we probably need energy all of efficiency, renewable boom and nuclear, and more. We should get going as fast as we can, but definitely will not be done in ten years. It is not just electricity that needs to be got off fossil fuels, but also transportation, industry, heating etc. Very likely nuclear power will have roles to play too. PS. I live in Finland, our electricity is already mostly clean, in large parts thanks to nuclear. Next we will need to clean up heating and industry, probably with a combination of electrification (heat pumps), storage (heat storage, hydrogen), renewables and nuclear.
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    We're going from 10% to 25% wind and solar in three years. And those projects were committed without the incentives of the IRA. A decade is very feasible for the electricity generation part of the problem, which is what I was referring to. Other industries may take longer.
- Incipient 3y ago
  What grid scale storage are you referring to? The only one I know is pumped hydro, and that's quite iffy efficiency wise, can be expensive, and you need the landscape to do it (I'm personally in a very flat area with nothing for a good thousand miles). Legit question too. I know we have a bunch of nascent tech, but haven't heard of anything at scale.

mrguyorama 3y ago

Nuclear would only have been the answer back in the 70s. We just cannot build enough of it fast enough while also convincing all the dumb (and less dumb) people that, no, a nuclear reactor has nothing to do with a nuclear bomb and CANNOT go critical and the damage from chernobyl wasn't even a nuclear explosion. Meanwhile California adds about 5 gigawatts of solar power every year.