3 ms·

Indeed, yes, nothing is certain... The other part, which is about certain, is that we'll have been dealing with the fallout of this particular meltdown for 30 t

Indeed, yes, nothing is certain... The other part, which is about certain, is that we'll have been dealing with the fallout of this particular meltdown for 30 to 40 years, or more.

belorn 2y ago
The third part that is also about certain is that we'll be dealing with climate change, since we are not stopping burning fossil fuels. Instead we are building new fresh power plants fueled by fossil fuels with planned operational life times far into the future.
- odyssey7 2y ago
  I guess in listing other milestones, I might have alluded to an ongoing debate? Whether to build new fission reactors or to wait for new fusion tech? My intention was only to indicate the scale of the harm in this particular instance. However, it’s still tempting for me to respond to this fission-prevents-global-warming claim with my own appraisal. You’re right, it is certain that we’ll still be using fossil fuels. I’ve given up worrying about fossil fuels and global warming. It’s something I can’t do anything about, and I think it will be fine: the people who make the macro decisions decided decades ago that we didn't really need to / weren’t going to risk economic growth by suddenly reducing fossil fuel use as much as the scientists said would be needed. It was really a masterwork: the same political groups eager to go to war in the Middle East and hungry for tax breaks were kept more than eager to keep buying gas, effectively sending their money to the Middle East about once or more a week in many cases. There are some nuances that undermine the reasoning expressed in my last sentence, but I’m sure that those particular nuances weren’t the justification, as much of the public has indicated that they support bombing even Agrabah. [0] Why didn’t we do enough? Well, lately it has turned out that geo-engineering was taboo only to indicate as an option, not to actually do when the time came. [1] It looks like the plan all along has been geo-engineering, while keeping the public on-edge about that to justify projects like fission plants. Fission research has long been an avenue to develop knowledge essential for nuclear weapons R&D. In the context of international relations and international nuclear treaties, the cover story of saving the planet makes even more sense as an essential. The Secretary of Energy was in Congress just the other day discussing compensation for victims of Manhattan Project radiation [2], a topic which has nothing to do with nuclear energy, unless nuclear energy is sometimes a codeword for nuclear weapons. Fission isn’t really important to stop global warming if we’re just going to implement geo-engineering. [0] https://www.snopes.com/news/2015/12/18/agrabah-aladdin-republican-poll/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2015/12/18/agrabah-aladdin-repub... [1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/weather/2024/05/24/can-geoengineering-help-solve-climate-change-the-excerpt/73843579007/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/weather/2024/05/24/can-g... [2] https://m.youtube.com/live/Xwx5pLoDXIg?t=66m50s https://m.youtube.com/live/Xwx5pLoDXIg?t=66m50s
  - belorn 2y ago
    It is less that fission-prevents-global-warming, but that removal of nuclear plants has a very strong positive relationship with the construction of new fossil fueled power plants. Sweden as an example did not use fossil fueled power plants, but in the aftermath of decommissioning of their most southern power plant there is now one oil fueled power plants operating almost 24/7, and a additional new gas powered plant being building built. This in times where emissions need to go down rather than up. Its also a fairly common story in other countries where nuclear power plants get decommissioned and hastily get replaced with newly constructed fossil fueled power plants. Sweden did have a nuclear program but it was decommissioned in 1966. The program instead went exclusively into civilian energy production, with nuclear power plants being built from 1969 until 1980. The military did not show any interest since 1970, with nuclear weapons deemed way to expensive, ineffective, and the civilian research and military research diverging too much in order for continued cooperation. Geo-engineering is interesting, but like nuclear weapons it is also a tool for mass destruction and warfare on a scale that even dwarf the largest nuclear weapons in existence. The R&D for geo-engineering in order to address global warming is indistinguishable from using it as a weapon. It order to make sure that geo-engineering does not cause mass destruction, it is essential to know what could trigger mass destruction.

Indeed, yes, nothing is certain... The other part, which is about certain, is that we'll have been dealing with the fallout of this particular meltdown for 30 to 40 years, or more.

belorn 2y ago

The third part that is also about certain is that we'll be dealing with climate change, since we are not stopping burning fossil fuels. Instead we are building new fresh power plants fueled by fossil fuels with planned operational life times far into the future.

odyssey7 2y ago
I guess in listing other milestones, I might have alluded to an ongoing debate? Whether to build new fission reactors or to wait for new fusion tech? My intention was only to indicate the scale of the harm in this particular instance. However, it’s still tempting for me to respond to this fission-prevents-global-warming claim with my own appraisal. You’re right, it is certain that we’ll still be using fossil fuels. I’ve given up worrying about fossil fuels and global warming. It’s something I can’t do anything about, and I think it will be fine: the people who make the macro decisions decided decades ago that we didn't really need to / weren’t going to risk economic growth by suddenly reducing fossil fuel use as much as the scientists said would be needed. It was really a masterwork: the same political groups eager to go to war in the Middle East and hungry for tax breaks were kept more than eager to keep buying gas, effectively sending their money to the Middle East about once or more a week in many cases. There are some nuances that undermine the reasoning expressed in my last sentence, but I’m sure that those particular nuances weren’t the justification, as much of the public has indicated that they support bombing even Agrabah. [0] Why didn’t we do enough? Well, lately it has turned out that geo-engineering was taboo only to indicate as an option, not to actually do when the time came. [1] It looks like the plan all along has been geo-engineering, while keeping the public on-edge about that to justify projects like fission plants. Fission research has long been an avenue to develop knowledge essential for nuclear weapons R&D. In the context of international relations and international nuclear treaties, the cover story of saving the planet makes even more sense as an essential. The Secretary of Energy was in Congress just the other day discussing compensation for victims of Manhattan Project radiation [2], a topic which has nothing to do with nuclear energy, unless nuclear energy is sometimes a codeword for nuclear weapons. Fission isn’t really important to stop global warming if we’re just going to implement geo-engineering. [0] https://www.snopes.com/news/2015/12/18/agrabah-aladdin-republican-poll/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2015/12/18/agrabah-aladdin-repub... [1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/weather/2024/05/24/can-geoengineering-help-solve-climate-change-the-excerpt/73843579007/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/weather/2024/05/24/can-g... [2] https://m.youtube.com/live/Xwx5pLoDXIg?t=66m50s https://m.youtube.com/live/Xwx5pLoDXIg?t=66m50s
- belorn 2y ago
  It is less that fission-prevents-global-warming, but that removal of nuclear plants has a very strong positive relationship with the construction of new fossil fueled power plants. Sweden as an example did not use fossil fueled power plants, but in the aftermath of decommissioning of their most southern power plant there is now one oil fueled power plants operating almost 24/7, and a additional new gas powered plant being building built. This in times where emissions need to go down rather than up. Its also a fairly common story in other countries where nuclear power plants get decommissioned and hastily get replaced with newly constructed fossil fueled power plants. Sweden did have a nuclear program but it was decommissioned in 1966. The program instead went exclusively into civilian energy production, with nuclear power plants being built from 1969 until 1980. The military did not show any interest since 1970, with nuclear weapons deemed way to expensive, ineffective, and the civilian research and military research diverging too much in order for continued cooperation. Geo-engineering is interesting, but like nuclear weapons it is also a tool for mass destruction and warfare on a scale that even dwarf the largest nuclear weapons in existence. The R&D for geo-engineering in order to address global warming is indistinguishable from using it as a weapon. It order to make sure that geo-engineering does not cause mass destruction, it is essential to know what could trigger mass destruction.