6 ms·

All 8 states are run by Democrats. The bans are ultimately motivated by Democratic Party leaders and influencers who believe a) that climate is changing, b) tha

All 8 states are run by Democrats. The bans are ultimately motivated by Democratic Party leaders and influencers who believe a) that climate is changing, b) that this change is for sure going to lead to a climate apocalypse which will kill billions of people and irrevocably destroy the ecosystem, c) that the anthropogenic component of this climate change is decisive, d) that the portion of anthropogenic change due to Co2 emissions is also decisive, and that the decisive factor in Co2 emissions comes from consumption of fossil fuels. Which are all fine. I don't know enough to question their beliefs. But I do know enough about math and engineering to know that the only realistic way to deal with the disaster they are predicting is an immediate and massive expansion of nuclear power. But instead of arguing in favor of this immediate and massive expansion of nuclear power, which Republicans would likely support, they push stuff like this.

pavlov 3y ago
If by now you don’t know enough about this topic to form any kind of opinion on whether humans are responsible for climate change, you have chosen to intentionally ignore the scientific community. Building more nuclear power is good, but it can’t be the only solution because it’s very expensive and takes so long to ramp up. Projects in the West have been decades behind schedule. And it’s far from given Republicans would support it. Why don’t Republicans take the initiative and get Democrats behind a national plan for more nuclear? Because their voters don’t care. So why would they support such a Democratic initiative? It’s a weird assumption that Republicans are somehow just waiting to do the right thing, if only Democrats would come to them with a plan. It’s never worked like that.
- andsoitis 3y ago
  From wikipedia: In the USA in April 2023 a Gallup poll had nuclear support at 54%, the highest level since 2012.[54] In August 2023 Pew Research Center conducted a survey which found that 57% of Americans favor more nuclear power plants. This is up from 43% in 2020. Support for nuclear power has increased among both Democrats and Republicans. However, Americans are still more likely to favor solar and wind power than nuclear power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_nuclear_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_nuclear_issu...
  - chris222 3y ago
    Public opinion changes if you ask someone if they want a Nuclear plant next to their house. Nuclear is extremely expensive so if you poll on the cost of energy you will also have a different outcome.
    - fdschoeneman 3y ago
      True. Nevertheless, if one believes in what many environmentalists and scientists say they believe, and one understands math, one must also support an immediate and massive expansion of nuclear power -- on their front lawns, if need be. The fact they do not is suspicious.
  - CraigJPerry 3y ago
    I have this intuition that the support is not real, I can’t justify the position but i strongly suspect the expression of support would almost entirely evaporate in the face of plans to actually build a nuclear facility in any given town. I guess I’m skeptical of the hypothetical support people claim when they have no skin in the game (I.e. no local construction plans and it’s currently obvious that no plans are possible anytime soon) On a personal level I’ve felt pro-nuclear most of my life, it’s just in the last few years I’ve become, not anti nuclear but skeptical I suppose. I just can’t see a cost benefit in today’s world given the other options available.
    - fdschoeneman 3y ago
      That is a fair analysis and a fair opinion to hold. Does this mean you do not believe in one or more of the more apocalyptic climate scenarios? Because if you do, but not in the need for an immediate and massive expansion of nuclear power, you may benefit from further research on the math around world energy production and consumption.
- willmadden 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - camdenlock 3y ago
    There is also no such thing as “the scientific community”. That’s a shibboleth deployed to shut arguments down with an ostensible show of authority.
    - pavlov 3y ago
      Yes, nobody knows anything, so it’s best to do your own research on YouTube.
    - defrost 3y ago
      There very much is, however, a global collective of everybody who has gathered atmospheric, ocean, and geophysical data and|or submitted a peer reviewed paper to a recognised peer reviewed journal. This includes people from all the G20 countries, many non G20 countries, purely academic researchers, exploration geophysicists working for transnational energy and mineral extraction companies, etc. Within this body of people that can math well, understand numerical models, deal with gravity, planetary positions, magnetic fields, atmospheric gases, radiometric backgrounds, continent drift, glacial isostatic adjustment, tides, etc. there is a documented and overwhelming consensus. https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-conse... https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/isnt-there-lot-disagreement-among-climate-scientists-about-global-warming https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/isnt-there-... People that don't understand any of that are more likely to doubt.
      - willmadden 3y ago
        Well, of course most papers claim humans cause global warming. If your research supports that claim you are awarded copious amounts of grant money and academic recognition. What about this document, signed by over 1,100 scientists including nobel prize winners? https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/WCD-version-06272215121.pdf https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/WCD-version-0...
- fdschoeneman 3y ago
  I know enough about what you call the scientific community writ large, and the scientific method, and the specific people who call themselves climate scientists to say that a) I don't pay very much attention to science unless it's falsifiable, b) there is no consensus on which climate models by which environmentalists have predictive value, c) the IPCC has been consistently wrong in its predictions for as long as I've been reading them, and d) that science is not decided by a majority vote. It's pretty easy to figure out whether or not Republicans might support an immediate and massive expansion of nuclear power. Since you don't sound like you tolerate Republicans, let alone like you are on speaking terms with enough of them that you could ask, I'd recommend you consult some polls of Republicans on the question. According to one study by Pew, 2/3rds of them support the construction of new nuclear plants. Which is to say, Republicans are more likely to support what you call the right thing than Democrats. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/18/growing-share-of-americans-favor-more-nuclear-power/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/18/growing-s...
andsoitis 3y ago
The good news is that electricity from nuclear, as well as other sources, can power EVs.
CraigJPerry 3y ago
>> I do know enough about math and engineering to know that the only realistic way to deal with the disaster they are predicting is an immediate and massive expansion of nuclear power Would it not be cheaper, whilst also being realistic, to pursue renewables + natural gas? AIUI renewables LCOE is around 5x cheaper than nuclear and natural gas is often (including right now) sold at negative prices in the US because it is almost a waste product from far more lucrative shale oil operations (accounts for around 80% of gas production). Add to this gas is a near perfect complement to renewables given its fast response times to demand changes unlike nuclear. Natural Gas is also the cleanest of the fossil fuels, modern generation facilities are far more efficient than e.g. petrol or diesel engines. I’m failing to understand why nuclear would be the only game in town? Those construction costs make it look unviable. Not to mention the NIMBY aspect which means nuclear is simply off the table in terms of options thanks to citizen desires.
- timbit42 3y ago
  Natural gas doesn't pollute much less than coal or oil. The CO2 is less but there is also the methane. Natural gas is methane gas. It's not a transition fuel. Calling it 'natural' is a scam to sell methane gas.
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    so what? Its just being used as a peaker plant since the renewables cant scale effectively or at all. Just put a co2 sequestration plant nearby and youre good to go.
- fdschoeneman 3y ago
  It might be. Probably. I don't know. All I know is that if people who do believe in the climate apocalypse say that CO2 generation from lng would make the problem worse, not better; whether that's true or not, I don't know, but I accept that they genuinely do believe it to be true. And so, if I do take them at their word, and use their logic, and assume they understand math, then they must also support an immediate and massive expansion of nuclear. If they do not argue for an immediate and massive expansion, I'm forced to conclude they either a) are lying about what they call the science, b) are lying about their belief in apocalyptic scenarios, c) don't understand math, or d) some combination of a, b, and c.
flo123456 3y ago
Unfortunately nuclear power is by no means free from CO2. Especially if you need to build new plants, massive amounts of CO2 are released because of all the concrete that is needed.
- timbit42 3y ago
  Does that really mean much when it's factored over the lifetime of the plant? Wind has to be replaced much more often so you're causing CO2 repeatedly.
chris222 3y ago
Renewables plus storage is already cheaper than Nuclear. It also is safer and much faster to build. There are some next generation reactor designs that are worth investment but for immediate generation capacity wind and solar is much better.
- timbit42 3y ago
  Where do you store solar and wind energy for when the sun is down and the wind isn't up?
  - skinner927 3y ago
    Chemical batteries, potential (pumped water) and kinetic (flywheel) batteries.
    - timbit42 3y ago
      Chemical batteries wear out and can be toxic. Few places are suitable for pumped water. Flywheels are a nice idea but terrible in practice.
- fdschoeneman 3y ago
  That seems like a circular argument. Solar and storage are cheaper because of massive subsidies, they don't adequately account for externalities like the environmental impact of lithium mining, and benefit from streamlined zoning and aggressive variances. Nuclear is expensive and takes a long time to stand up at least in part because the state doesn't favor it. The state can absolutely reduce costs and speed up plant construction in a way that is safe, and which is less vulnerable to bad weather, and which does not create as many energy storage problems. Pursue wind and solar at the same time if you like, but the math climate scientists claim to understand requires them to also push for an immediate and massive expansion of nuclear. I find it suspicious that they do not, and that they never have.
hoerensagen 3y ago
I don't think a massive expansion of nuclear power is the only way. Sure it might play a role but why would it be the only way. Look at this study for example. https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/100-percent-clean-electricity-by-2035-study.html https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/100-percent-clean-electricity-...
- fdschoeneman 3y ago
  It doesn't have to be the only solution. But any proposed solution that does not include, in addition to some expansion of wind and solar energy production, an immediate and massive nuclear expansion is suspicious to me when it comes from somebody who purports to simultaneously believe in one or more of the apocalyptic climate scenarios.
dalyons 3y ago
You don’t know enough to have an opinion on climate change, but somehow do know enough to be SURE that nuclear is the only solution? It’s an example of some strange outdated internet meme that someone posts on any energy thread - to come in and say “actually guys nuclear is great you are all just not smart enough to know”. Despite the totally insurmountable arguments of time and cost - if we started today it would take 15+ years for one plant, and it being the most expensive major form of new power we know of. I wish the meme would either die, or folk would brush up on their arguments.

pavlov 3y ago

If by now you don’t know enough about this topic to form any kind of opinion on whether humans are responsible for climate change, you have chosen to intentionally ignore the scientific community. Building more nuclear power is good, but it can’t be the only solution because it’s very expensive and takes so long to ramp up. Projects in the West have been decades behind schedule. And it’s far from given Republicans would support it. Why don’t Republicans take the initiative and get Democrats behind a national plan for more nuclear? Because their voters don’t care. So why would they support such a Democratic initiative? It’s a weird assumption that Republicans are somehow just waiting to do the right thing, if only Democrats would come to them with a plan. It’s never worked like that.

andsoitis 3y ago
From wikipedia: In the USA in April 2023 a Gallup poll had nuclear support at 54%, the highest level since 2012.[54] In August 2023 Pew Research Center conducted a survey which found that 57% of Americans favor more nuclear power plants. This is up from 43% in 2020. Support for nuclear power has increased among both Democrats and Republicans. However, Americans are still more likely to favor solar and wind power than nuclear power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_nuclear_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_nuclear_issu...
- chris222 3y ago
  Public opinion changes if you ask someone if they want a Nuclear plant next to their house. Nuclear is extremely expensive so if you poll on the cost of energy you will also have a different outcome.
  - fdschoeneman 3y ago
    True. Nevertheless, if one believes in what many environmentalists and scientists say they believe, and one understands math, one must also support an immediate and massive expansion of nuclear power -- on their front lawns, if need be. The fact they do not is suspicious.
- CraigJPerry 3y ago
  I have this intuition that the support is not real, I can’t justify the position but i strongly suspect the expression of support would almost entirely evaporate in the face of plans to actually build a nuclear facility in any given town. I guess I’m skeptical of the hypothetical support people claim when they have no skin in the game (I.e. no local construction plans and it’s currently obvious that no plans are possible anytime soon) On a personal level I’ve felt pro-nuclear most of my life, it’s just in the last few years I’ve become, not anti nuclear but skeptical I suppose. I just can’t see a cost benefit in today’s world given the other options available.
  - fdschoeneman 3y ago
    That is a fair analysis and a fair opinion to hold. Does this mean you do not believe in one or more of the more apocalyptic climate scenarios? Because if you do, but not in the need for an immediate and massive expansion of nuclear power, you may benefit from further research on the math around world energy production and consumption.
willmadden 3y ago
[flagged]
- camdenlock 3y ago
  There is also no such thing as “the scientific community”. That’s a shibboleth deployed to shut arguments down with an ostensible show of authority.
  - pavlov 3y ago
    Yes, nobody knows anything, so it’s best to do your own research on YouTube.
  - defrost 3y ago
    There very much is, however, a global collective of everybody who has gathered atmospheric, ocean, and geophysical data and|or submitted a peer reviewed paper to a recognised peer reviewed journal. This includes people from all the G20 countries, many non G20 countries, purely academic researchers, exploration geophysicists working for transnational energy and mineral extraction companies, etc. Within this body of people that can math well, understand numerical models, deal with gravity, planetary positions, magnetic fields, atmospheric gases, radiometric backgrounds, continent drift, glacial isostatic adjustment, tides, etc. there is a documented and overwhelming consensus. https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-conse... https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/isnt-there-lot-disagreement-among-climate-scientists-about-global-warming https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/isnt-there-... People that don't understand any of that are more likely to doubt.
    - willmadden 3y ago
      Well, of course most papers claim humans cause global warming. If your research supports that claim you are awarded copious amounts of grant money and academic recognition. What about this document, signed by over 1,100 scientists including nobel prize winners? https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/WCD-version-06272215121.pdf https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/WCD-version-0...
fdschoeneman 3y ago
I know enough about what you call the scientific community writ large, and the scientific method, and the specific people who call themselves climate scientists to say that a) I don't pay very much attention to science unless it's falsifiable, b) there is no consensus on which climate models by which environmentalists have predictive value, c) the IPCC has been consistently wrong in its predictions for as long as I've been reading them, and d) that science is not decided by a majority vote. It's pretty easy to figure out whether or not Republicans might support an immediate and massive expansion of nuclear power. Since you don't sound like you tolerate Republicans, let alone like you are on speaking terms with enough of them that you could ask, I'd recommend you consult some polls of Republicans on the question. According to one study by Pew, 2/3rds of them support the construction of new nuclear plants. Which is to say, Republicans are more likely to support what you call the right thing than Democrats. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/18/growing-share-of-americans-favor-more-nuclear-power/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/18/growing-s...

andsoitis 3y ago

The good news is that electricity from nuclear, as well as other sources, can power EVs.

CraigJPerry 3y ago

>> I do know enough about math and engineering to know that the only realistic way to deal with the disaster they are predicting is an immediate and massive expansion of nuclear power Would it not be cheaper, whilst also being realistic, to pursue renewables + natural gas? AIUI renewables LCOE is around 5x cheaper than nuclear and natural gas is often (including right now) sold at negative prices in the US because it is almost a waste product from far more lucrative shale oil operations (accounts for around 80% of gas production). Add to this gas is a near perfect complement to renewables given its fast response times to demand changes unlike nuclear. Natural Gas is also the cleanest of the fossil fuels, modern generation facilities are far more efficient than e.g. petrol or diesel engines. I’m failing to understand why nuclear would be the only game in town? Those construction costs make it look unviable. Not to mention the NIMBY aspect which means nuclear is simply off the table in terms of options thanks to citizen desires.

timbit42 3y ago
Natural gas doesn't pollute much less than coal or oil. The CO2 is less but there is also the methane. Natural gas is methane gas. It's not a transition fuel. Calling it 'natural' is a scam to sell methane gas.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  so what? Its just being used as a peaker plant since the renewables cant scale effectively or at all. Just put a co2 sequestration plant nearby and youre good to go.
fdschoeneman 3y ago
It might be. Probably. I don't know. All I know is that if people who do believe in the climate apocalypse say that CO2 generation from lng would make the problem worse, not better; whether that's true or not, I don't know, but I accept that they genuinely do believe it to be true. And so, if I do take them at their word, and use their logic, and assume they understand math, then they must also support an immediate and massive expansion of nuclear. If they do not argue for an immediate and massive expansion, I'm forced to conclude they either a) are lying about what they call the science, b) are lying about their belief in apocalyptic scenarios, c) don't understand math, or d) some combination of a, b, and c.

flo123456 3y ago

Unfortunately nuclear power is by no means free from CO2. Especially if you need to build new plants, massive amounts of CO2 are released because of all the concrete that is needed.

timbit42 3y ago
Does that really mean much when it's factored over the lifetime of the plant? Wind has to be replaced much more often so you're causing CO2 repeatedly.

chris222 3y ago

Renewables plus storage is already cheaper than Nuclear. It also is safer and much faster to build. There are some next generation reactor designs that are worth investment but for immediate generation capacity wind and solar is much better.

timbit42 3y ago
Where do you store solar and wind energy for when the sun is down and the wind isn't up?
- skinner927 3y ago
  Chemical batteries, potential (pumped water) and kinetic (flywheel) batteries.
  - timbit42 3y ago
    Chemical batteries wear out and can be toxic. Few places are suitable for pumped water. Flywheels are a nice idea but terrible in practice.
fdschoeneman 3y ago
That seems like a circular argument. Solar and storage are cheaper because of massive subsidies, they don't adequately account for externalities like the environmental impact of lithium mining, and benefit from streamlined zoning and aggressive variances. Nuclear is expensive and takes a long time to stand up at least in part because the state doesn't favor it. The state can absolutely reduce costs and speed up plant construction in a way that is safe, and which is less vulnerable to bad weather, and which does not create as many energy storage problems. Pursue wind and solar at the same time if you like, but the math climate scientists claim to understand requires them to also push for an immediate and massive expansion of nuclear. I find it suspicious that they do not, and that they never have.

hoerensagen 3y ago

I don't think a massive expansion of nuclear power is the only way. Sure it might play a role but why would it be the only way. Look at this study for example. https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/100-percent-clean-electricity-by-2035-study.html https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/100-percent-clean-electricity-...

fdschoeneman 3y ago
It doesn't have to be the only solution. But any proposed solution that does not include, in addition to some expansion of wind and solar energy production, an immediate and massive nuclear expansion is suspicious to me when it comes from somebody who purports to simultaneously believe in one or more of the apocalyptic climate scenarios.

dalyons 3y ago

You don’t know enough to have an opinion on climate change, but somehow do know enough to be SURE that nuclear is the only solution? It’s an example of some strange outdated internet meme that someone posts on any energy thread - to come in and say “actually guys nuclear is great you are all just not smart enough to know”. Despite the totally insurmountable arguments of time and cost - if we started today it would take 15+ years for one plant, and it being the most expensive major form of new power we know of. I wish the meme would either die, or folk would brush up on their arguments.