5 ms·
If we'd started converting coal power entirely to nuclear in the 1970s and not stopped, we'd have had a chance to avert this. At this point we can still maybe b
by api 2y ago
If we'd started converting coal power entirely to nuclear in the 1970s and not stopped, we'd have had a chance to avert this. At this point we can still maybe blunt the effect but it's too late.
The big thing is that if the US and Europe had gone fully nuclear by 2000 or so China would have copied that instead of powering its ascent mostly with coal. They're building a lot of solar, wind, and nuclear now but again too late.
Oil for land transportation had to wait until batteries were good enough for cheap practical EVs, but coal fired electricity generation is by far the largest single contributor and is the one that had to be phased out first.
- locopati 2y agoif we could have trusted companies running nuclear power plants, maybe that could have happened, but you can't combine deregulation with nuclear power and think that's going to turn out great for people.
- fsflover 2y agoThis is FUD. Even with the worst entity running nuclear (The Soviets), the death toll is lower than for other sources.
- SoftTalker 2y agoNot much point in bemoaning what wasn't done in the 1970s. (I've done it myself, but it's not really productive unless someone solves time travel and the grandfather paradox.)
- whywhywhywhy 2y agoThere is when most political groups making noise about climate are still against the technology that could have solved a lot of it.
- api 2y agoThere are really two kinds of greens: science-based types that are interested in practical solutions and understand engineering, and anti-technology or even anti-civilization types that want to use the issue to force de-industrialization and de-development. Solutions are not what the second group wants. A solution would eliminate the problem as a political and social lever. The latter are louder because crackpots are always the loudest. That principle holds everywhere in politics.
- SoftTalker 2y ago> A solution would eliminate the problem as a political and social lever. And this is a huge part of why so many social problems are never solved despite spending billions of dollars purportedly trying to solve them.
- oezi 2y agoNo point in talking about the past. What is the best way forward today? Investment in renewables seems to be the cheapest and best way to reduce Carbon emissions.
- marcosdumay 2y agoThose governments that like to spend their billions in useless climate agreements could try doing something useful for a change and work out a carbon tax with punishment for defectors instead of putting random targets on a dart board. Electricity generation is kinda of a solved issue, but a tax would really speed-up industry electrification and grid storage. It could also come with subsides for open-air capture and synthetic fuels, or maybe some direct spending on those.
- oezi 2y agoWe are at a turning point for electricity generation because electricity will be so cheap and plentiful in a couple of years during summer and during the day that we likely don't know what to do with it.
- chrsw 2y agoI'm not infomred. Why will electricity be so cheap? Also, aren't renewables going to require a lot of batteries?
- marcosdumay 2y agoReread the GP, because you are claiming it says something that isn't there. And if some question still remains, take a look at the recent trends for photovoltaic panels.
- lainga 2y agoSure there is. Many of the politicians from the past are politicians today. One of them is president (for the next 5 months).
- RandomThoughts3 2y ago> If we'd started converting coal power entirely to nuclear in the 1970s and not stopped, we'd have had a chance to avert this. At this point we can still maybe blunt the effect but it's too late. It's never too late. I don't understand why people only want to see the social part of climate change and somehow refuse to look at it from a technical point of view. I blame ecologists for that because a lot of political movements which declare themselves ecologists actually have a social agenda which is not related to ecology and there is often a weird, seemingly catholic inspired, moral overlay on top which emphasis sacrifice and suffering for redemption - completely pointless. The fact is warming happens because we have put too much greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. The obvious solution to this problem is to, first, stop adding more which is what we generally discuss, then, remove the excess - perfectly doable if costly and energy consuming today. What we need is more research into how to efficiently scrub CO2 for the atmosphere and how to do it on a large scale. Defeatism is a waste of time.