4 ms·

> for them, it's not about solving problems, it's about atoning for the sins of humanity. Never encountered that. Maybe it exists but it's extremely rare and i

> for them, it's not about solving problems, it's about atoning for the sins of humanity. Never encountered that. Maybe it exists but it's extremely rare and irrelevant. > putting a substantial portion of GDP into building nuclear reactors and removing carbon from the atmosphere Spending lots of money, to produce lots of energy, to solve a problem we created by using too much energy... What people don't get is that environmentalists just want to solve the problem in the most cost effective way, and that is to stop destroying the environment we live in. > having electricity, heat, running water, sewage treatment, shipping, transportation, and the internet. Where in the Paris Agreement did you read we shouldn't continue having those things?

fasterik 3y ago
>Spending lots of money, to produce lots of energy, to solve a problem we created by using too much energy... How does this argument make sense? Why is producing energy inherently bad if it doesn't put carbon into the atmosphere? >What people don't get is that environmentalists just want to solve the problem in the most cost effective way, and that is to stop destroying the environment we live in. The most realistic way to stop destroying the environment is to switch to clean energy. That means spending money, and building a lot more nuclear reactors than we currently have. If the climate is truly an emergency, which I believe it is, then it's worth spending the money.
- geysersam 3y ago
  > Why is producing energy inherently bad if it doesn't put carbon into the atmosphere? Because it costs money. Just not polluting in the first place is cheaper. Nuclear is probably an important part of the future energy mix but now we discussed using nuclear energy to remove carbon from the atmosphere and I believe that would be a huge waste of resources compared to just not putting the carbon in the atmosphere in the first place. Carbon capture is a scam.
  - ericd 3y ago
    Why do you think carbon capture is a scam? It's not going to replace reduction via reducing new emissions to zero like some people seem to think, but we're also going to need to pull a lot out of the carbon cycle - net zero isn't enough. We should be pouring a huge amount of money into nuclear fission right now, it's the most straightforward way toward a zero target, and repetition/scale with large series of identical reactors and streamlined regulatory oversight will hopefully make it cost competitive with fossil fuels.
    - geysersam 3y ago
      It's a scam because the cost of removing one ton of CO2 using carbon capture (assuming we're talking about direct air capture) is so high that very few would be ready to pay the price to remove their emissions. Again, reducing how much carbon emissions we produce is way cheaper. I've got nothing against carbon capture technology in principle, but it's not a solution that will let us continue releasing carbon into the atmosphere at anywhere near the current rate.
      - ericd 3y ago
        Ah, but there are a bunch of other carbon capture solutions, DAC is usually considered among the highest cost. But yeah, not emitting is cheaper in most cases, and you’re right, we can’t just slather carbon capture on our current situation and not change anything else.
dlkf 3y ago
Those things require energy. Incremental efficiency improvements will not make a big dent. Either we continue to use the same level of energy, or we start giving things up. It’s simple arithmetic.

fasterik 3y ago

>Spending lots of money, to produce lots of energy, to solve a problem we created by using too much energy... How does this argument make sense? Why is producing energy inherently bad if it doesn't put carbon into the atmosphere? >What people don't get is that environmentalists just want to solve the problem in the most cost effective way, and that is to stop destroying the environment we live in. The most realistic way to stop destroying the environment is to switch to clean energy. That means spending money, and building a lot more nuclear reactors than we currently have. If the climate is truly an emergency, which I believe it is, then it's worth spending the money.

geysersam 3y ago
> Why is producing energy inherently bad if it doesn't put carbon into the atmosphere? Because it costs money. Just not polluting in the first place is cheaper. Nuclear is probably an important part of the future energy mix but now we discussed using nuclear energy to remove carbon from the atmosphere and I believe that would be a huge waste of resources compared to just not putting the carbon in the atmosphere in the first place. Carbon capture is a scam.
- ericd 3y ago
  Why do you think carbon capture is a scam? It's not going to replace reduction via reducing new emissions to zero like some people seem to think, but we're also going to need to pull a lot out of the carbon cycle - net zero isn't enough. We should be pouring a huge amount of money into nuclear fission right now, it's the most straightforward way toward a zero target, and repetition/scale with large series of identical reactors and streamlined regulatory oversight will hopefully make it cost competitive with fossil fuels.
  - geysersam 3y ago
    It's a scam because the cost of removing one ton of CO2 using carbon capture (assuming we're talking about direct air capture) is so high that very few would be ready to pay the price to remove their emissions. Again, reducing how much carbon emissions we produce is way cheaper. I've got nothing against carbon capture technology in principle, but it's not a solution that will let us continue releasing carbon into the atmosphere at anywhere near the current rate.
    - ericd 3y ago
      Ah, but there are a bunch of other carbon capture solutions, DAC is usually considered among the highest cost. But yeah, not emitting is cheaper in most cases, and you’re right, we can’t just slather carbon capture on our current situation and not change anything else.

dlkf 3y ago

Those things require energy. Incremental efficiency improvements will not make a big dent. Either we continue to use the same level of energy, or we start giving things up. It’s simple arithmetic.