5 ms·

Three things seem true to me. 1) The debate around climate change is the worst piece of rhetorical garbage that has ever been foisted on mankind in the last co

Three things seem true to me. 1) The debate around climate change is the worst piece of rhetorical garbage that has ever been foisted on mankind in the last couple of decades. Look at the terms in this essay, which is admittedly a more balanced judgment. We have environmentalists and anti-environmentalists. Who that breathes does not like breathing? Are there folks who wish to poison themselves? Please, spare me the "rich folks are out to destroy the planet on the backs of the poor" argument. Everybody is an environmentalist, at least when it comes to being a living human. Political groups which have no logical opponents do not add productively to the public discourse. 2) The more energy and freedom poor people have, the better we all are. Poor workers with cars can drive to find jobs. Poor people without water can use energy to extract water from deep in the ground, the air, or the ocean. Poor people with cheap energy can rebuild houses, move, go to school, live a better life. More freedom and cheaper power to as many poor people as possible. 3) Intelligent carbon-based creatures that exist in dry areas of the habitable zone of solar systems will evolve into their intelligence based on the backs of millions of years of built up hydrocarbons. These creatures will release this energy by burning -- this is as natural as a fish swimming in the ocean. Is such a release part of The Great Filter? Or is such a release part of the inevitable journey from the swamp to the sky? I don't think we have enough evidence to say one way or another. I am concerned by those who feel otherwise. I think worst-case scenarios around climate change emphasize the need to productively develop all of mankind as quickly as possible. That probably means hundreds of new nuclear reactors being built. Worldwide. I see no effort anywhere for that to happen. Instead I see various proposals that always end up with expensive energy for poor people. This is only going to make the problem worse. We are going to take away the tools that poor people and nations need to grow capabilities to deal with things when they change. And while we're doing it, we're going to rob them and their children of a better future. It's a solution that's worse than the problem.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
> I think worst-case scenarios around climate change emphasize the need to productively develop all of mankind as quickly as possible. That probably means hundreds of new nuclear reactors being built. Worldwide. I see no effort anywhere for that to happen. Instead I see various proposals that always end up with expensive energy for poor people. This is only going to make the problem worse. We are going to take away the tools that poor people and nations need to grow capabilities to deal with things when they change. And while we're doing it, we're going to rob them and their children of a better future. It's a solution that's worse than the problem. I really have to disagree with you. After reading about the decline in nuclear power across the world, the inability to get traction on Thorium-based LFTRs, and so forth, nuclear is not the answer. I mean, it could be if we as a species didn't suck so terribly at managing it as an energy source. We are not that species yet (note we still keep a coal-fired generation plant operating near Congress in DC due to politics). If you'd like to debate this in depth, check my profile; my email is there. The Earth Policy Institute (holla Lester Brown) has shown how quickly China is bringing online solar and wind generation resources that already outpace their nuclear generation capacity. Bloomberg reported Friday that the US is on track to add an additional 35 percent of solar capacity this year alone. Nuclear plants, coal plants, all of these central generation facilities all require massive capital outlays, they require corporations to manage them, staff to run. Solar and wind require none of these (except utility-scale, there be a bit more work required there). It's simple, so very simple! We should be build solar and wind flat out as fast as possible, selling it to those who can afford it and giving it away to those who can't. Solar Electric Light Fund http://self.org/ http://self.org/ "SELF's mission is to design and implement solar energy solutions to assist the 1.5 billion people living in energy poverty with their economic, educational, health care and agricultural development." Wind vs Nuclear in China: http://www.earth-policy.org/data_highlights/2014/highlights45 http://www.earth-policy.org/data_highlights/2014/highlights4... Bloomberg Article I mention: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-26/solar-as-fastest-growing-u-s-power-source-rivals-shale-boom http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-26/solar-as-f... Deutsche Bank Predicts Grid Parity Of Solar Across All Fifty States in 2016: http://cleantechnica.com/2014/10/29/solar-grid-parity-us-states-2016-says-deutsche-bank/ http://cleantechnica.com/2014/10/29/solar-grid-parity-us-sta...
- orangecat 11y ago
  We might be at the point today where solar and wind are more economically efficient than nuclear. That doesn't erase the tremendous damage that "environmentalist" groups have done by spouting FUD about nuclear power for decades, the primary result of which has been to keep us on coal.
  - scarmig 11y ago
    Maybe this is just my Silicon Valley-centric, rarefied group, but I have genuinely never met a rabid environmentalist hell-bent on shutting down nuclear power. I know many environmentalists, including career activists. The worst they could be accused of is not making nuclear power their number one priority. But, abstractly at least, they all support increased nuclear power in principle. I know many people against nuclear power. They, however, don't have many political or scientific beliefs, and their intelligences lie elsewhere than scientific or conceptual thinking. None would identify as green or environmentalist. The biggest problems with nuclear power seems to be (a) the inertia of leftover regulations and bad vibes from the 60s-80s and (b) nuclear power is really, really expensive and requires a great deal of capital outlay and time to build and even to recover the energy costs of building it. People are also more sensitive to the worst case failure modes of a nuclear plant (which has happened like once in history) than they are to the failure modes of coal power (which are when they function like they're designed to).
    - barney54 11y ago
      Rebuttal: http://www.sierraclub.org/nuclear-free http://www.sierraclub.org/nuclear-free http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/ http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear... Sierra Club and Greenpeace are two of the largest and well-funded environmental groups.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    I don't disagree, but at this point, its more of a historical footnote now that solar and wind are cheaper than nuclear (similar to how Thorium was thrown under the bus in the 50s-70s by staff in the Navy).
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

toomuchtodo 11y ago

> I think worst-case scenarios around climate change emphasize the need to productively develop all of mankind as quickly as possible. That probably means hundreds of new nuclear reactors being built. Worldwide. I see no effort anywhere for that to happen. Instead I see various proposals that always end up with expensive energy for poor people. This is only going to make the problem worse. We are going to take away the tools that poor people and nations need to grow capabilities to deal with things when they change. And while we're doing it, we're going to rob them and their children of a better future. It's a solution that's worse than the problem. I really have to disagree with you. After reading about the decline in nuclear power across the world, the inability to get traction on Thorium-based LFTRs, and so forth, nuclear is not the answer. I mean, it could be if we as a species didn't suck so terribly at managing it as an energy source. We are not that species yet (note we still keep a coal-fired generation plant operating near Congress in DC due to politics). If you'd like to debate this in depth, check my profile; my email is there. The Earth Policy Institute (holla Lester Brown) has shown how quickly China is bringing online solar and wind generation resources that already outpace their nuclear generation capacity. Bloomberg reported Friday that the US is on track to add an additional 35 percent of solar capacity this year alone. Nuclear plants, coal plants, all of these central generation facilities all require massive capital outlays, they require corporations to manage them, staff to run. Solar and wind require none of these (except utility-scale, there be a bit more work required there). It's simple, so very simple! We should be build solar and wind flat out as fast as possible, selling it to those who can afford it and giving it away to those who can't. Solar Electric Light Fund http://self.org/ http://self.org/ "SELF's mission is to design and implement solar energy solutions to assist the 1.5 billion people living in energy poverty with their economic, educational, health care and agricultural development." Wind vs Nuclear in China: http://www.earth-policy.org/data_highlights/2014/highlights45 http://www.earth-policy.org/data_highlights/2014/highlights4... Bloomberg Article I mention: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-26/solar-as-fastest-growing-u-s-power-source-rivals-shale-boom http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-26/solar-as-f... Deutsche Bank Predicts Grid Parity Of Solar Across All Fifty States in 2016: http://cleantechnica.com/2014/10/29/solar-grid-parity-us-states-2016-says-deutsche-bank/ http://cleantechnica.com/2014/10/29/solar-grid-parity-us-sta...

orangecat 11y ago
We might be at the point today where solar and wind are more economically efficient than nuclear. That doesn't erase the tremendous damage that "environmentalist" groups have done by spouting FUD about nuclear power for decades, the primary result of which has been to keep us on coal.
- scarmig 11y ago
  Maybe this is just my Silicon Valley-centric, rarefied group, but I have genuinely never met a rabid environmentalist hell-bent on shutting down nuclear power. I know many environmentalists, including career activists. The worst they could be accused of is not making nuclear power their number one priority. But, abstractly at least, they all support increased nuclear power in principle. I know many people against nuclear power. They, however, don't have many political or scientific beliefs, and their intelligences lie elsewhere than scientific or conceptual thinking. None would identify as green or environmentalist. The biggest problems with nuclear power seems to be (a) the inertia of leftover regulations and bad vibes from the 60s-80s and (b) nuclear power is really, really expensive and requires a great deal of capital outlay and time to build and even to recover the energy costs of building it. People are also more sensitive to the worst case failure modes of a nuclear plant (which has happened like once in history) than they are to the failure modes of coal power (which are when they function like they're designed to).
  - barney54 11y ago
    Rebuttal: http://www.sierraclub.org/nuclear-free http://www.sierraclub.org/nuclear-free http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/ http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear... Sierra Club and Greenpeace are two of the largest and well-funded environmental groups.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  I don't disagree, but at this point, its more of a historical footnote now that solar and wind are cheaper than nuclear (similar to how Thorium was thrown under the bus in the 50s-70s by staff in the Navy).

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]