Mere ~30 years after discovering the Greenhouse Effect we managed to split the atom, harnessing heretofore unimaginable amounts of energy.
Yet almost 100 years later, here we are - Oil and gas dependent, boasting an energy and climate crisis, all the while fooling regulators with worthless climate certificates, unaccountable off-shore factories and just plain rampant fraud when it comes to CO2 emissions.
Unfortunately, nuclear seems to get a bad rep from a lot of people. I suspect this is because of a mixture of things:
1. The rare instances of it going wrong look catastrophic, while the many times it does better than coal/oil/gas go ignored. Kinda like how people fear plane travel more than driving, despite the former being far safer than the latter.
2. It's more expensive to setup, so there's an economic incentive to either stick with what's there already (fossil fuels) or try and go with renewable solutions.
3. A certain percentage of the left/environmental movement seem to hate the concept, either because of subtle influencing from the fossil fuels lobby or because the idea of compromising and going with a system that isn't 'perfect' doesn't appeal to them.
We don't have a solution to the waste from fossil fuels either, so... We just ignore that.
Coal in particular results in incredible toxic waste. Even if it was inert (which it very much is not) you get enormous heaps of rock you dug the coal out of and those have to be stored forever. Typically people just leave it in a big pile as somebody else's problem until one day the wind blows and it collapses and kills a bunch of people. Oops.
But even for natural gas in the best case your waste is excess carbon dioxide, which renders your planet inhospitable so that's not great either.
All the high-level nuclear waste on Earth would fit in a 21m cube. The lower level stuff is substantially greater in volume, but overall this is one of the (IMO few) cases where nuclear proponent's arguments about energy density do actually matter.
And that means it's fine for the list of countries with a permanent nuclear storage site to be pretty short.
> As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.
What a comparison...
The worry with nuclear waste is of course that the shielding doesn't last long enough and waste then contaminates surroundings with much much higher radiation than in coal ash
We know how to store it safely though melt the radioactive material into glass ingots and store them in stainless steel barrels at the bottom of old mineshaft in geologicly stable dry areas like yukca mountain. But NIMBYs wont let us. The fear of leaking containment vessels goes back to early days of nuclear such as the Hanford site. Yes thats a horrible mess and a Superfund site. It also dates back to the Manhattan project and waste from the first nuclear pile. We have learned a bit more since the 1940's.
You didn't mention what I believe is the true reason nuclear power got its bad reputation: nuclear weapons.
(Tough you could argue that it's your item 3, since nuclear weapons and their open-air testing would be the reason the left/environmental/peace movement started to hate the concept.)
There's also the small detail of fission vs fusion. We don't currently have fusion power except from the sun, but if we could make it work (which, noted, we've been trying for quite a number of years to make it work), then we'd have rather nuclear power that is quite a bit better than what we can do today. that might be enough to move the needle on nuclear power, since it doesn't have the waste or melt down issue.
1. and 2. are closely related. High cost at least partially can be attributed to the requirement for nuclear to be in not the safest then at least safer than coal/hydro and many other currently used sources. Pretty much like people demand air travel to be the safest form of transportation. But given that without nuclear we would continue to burn coal/gas which is not risk free either may be the balance should be struck on the other point of the cost-safety spectrum.
As far as I know though, Chernobyl and Fukushima had completely different reasons and don't really clump together apart from "both were meltdowns"
Chernobyl was entirely a product of design compromises due to cost savings, combined by a totalitarian system suppressing the known impact of those design decisions. It was also a much older design.
Fukushima also seemed like a design mistake (I remember reading it that the generators or something like that were flooded with water) , but then caused by a natural disaster and flooding.
The nuclear plans (in on paper at least) we have now as a result of decades of additional knowledge, and are way more safe. Combined with the fact that we have incredible computing firepower to better simulate scenarios, all this has convinced me to feel much better about the prospect of nuclear power plants and their safety.
> As far as I know though, Chernobyl and Fukushima had completely different reasons and don't really clump together apart from "both were meltdowns"
A glass-half-empty view of that would be that there isn't a single reason which could be fixed to avoid all future issues. Fukushima AFAIK didn't have the design and operational mistakes which led to the Chernobyl incident, but that wasn't enough to prevent it from having its own incident. Which other causes we might be missing which could lead to new severe incidents in other nuclear power plants?
(And, by the way, the bad part IMO was not "both were meltdowns", but "both were explosions"; if it were just the meltdown, it would stay confined within the power plant, while the explosions are what spread the damage. Yes, they weren't nuclear explosions, but even a non-nuclear explosion in a nuclear power plant is bad.)
But nuclear power starts to look even better when you look up the death tolls and realize that as long as you are halfway competent (i.e. not Chernobyl) even the worst disasters have led to vanishingly few deaths. What is more dangerous is the irrational fear of nuclear power that led to the dangerous evacuation of Fukushima.
I'm pretty sure the Chernobyl engineers also said "this is impossible", "this is very safe design that can not fail". Only in hindsight did the failures appear.
For Fukushima. Sure, once in a lifetime earthquake. It's always something, and at some point walls can't go any higher. Seems like backup pumps should have been on higher ground. But to think nobody will do something similarly silly again, is being pretty trusting.
The difference is in Chernobyl there were mechanical safety systems to stop a meltdown. current designs are such that physics prevents it from being able to melt down. While its possible to improperly maintain safety systems causing them to fail, physics doesn't need maintenance.
Do you have link?
I am curious what this design is.
If I just randomly search, it is just hundreds of designs, everyone has a 'theory' on some design that is safe and effective. Hard to filter out the 'crack-pot' from the actual physicists.
Do you have one in-particular.
(edit, also. I ask because Chernobyl was also deemed impossible by 'physics'. Technically it did not melt down first, the reactor didn't 'fail', something else fails, then melt down happens. The risk was never a nuclear explosion, it was release of nuclear material and radiation)
to quote wikipedia which expalins it better than i can;
"When the reactor temperature rises, the atoms in the fuel move rapidly, causing Doppler broadening. The fuel then experiences a wider range of neutron speeds. Uranium-238, which forms the bulk of the uranium, is much more likely to absorb fast or epithermal neutrons at higher temperatures. This reduces the number of neutrons available to cause fission, and reduces power. Doppler broadening therefore creates a negative feedback: as fuel temperature increases, reactor power decreases. All reactors have reactivity feedback mechanisms. The pebble-bed reactor is designed so that this effect is relatively strong, inherent to the design, and does not depend on moving parts. If the rate of fission increases, temperature increase and Doppler broadening reduces the rate of fission. This negative feedback creates passive control of the reaction process."
A rupture is unlikely as most pebble bed designs use helium as the coolent. It being a noble gas it won't react chemically, and unlike water cooled designs it doesn't undergo phase change (liquidgas) so no massive pressure build up. And as there is no oxygen fire is unlikely.
So 2 mistakes in the last 50 years, each wiping out a radius of 25km from being habitable for 1000 years. I won’t trust people for not making more mistakes.
Its not likely to be a thousand years before its habitatable again. Long lived isotopes are safer as they are less radioactive and less energetic. And short lived isotopes while dangerous are short lived. Its the medium lived that are a problem 70-150 years that are the biggest problem. Secondly we dont have to wait for it to all to be gone just down to a safe background level
You mention both Cost Savings and Design Mistakes. Those are common, and will occur in future projects.
Don't think totalitarian Gov has any monopoly on hiding design problems. Every company does it.
Those are both things, drives, that the US has shown to be incapable of administering. All industry is rife with cost cutting. And "safety" is very much cut in the name of profits. It happens today, just not 'obvious'. We don't hear about it until there is a meltdown.
I do hope that new designs are better. But I am absolutely not confident that humans have learned anything and wont subvert any improved designs again for cost savings.
> Chernobyl was entirely a product of design compromises due to cost savings, combined by a totalitarian system suppressing the known impact of those design decisions.
This sounds exactly like what could happen when a private for-profit company would exploit nuclear, which is already happening
The worst designed reactor that led to 60 deaths ?
> Fukushima
As in, the reactor that was struck with a generational earthquauke and where no one died?
________
Compare this to other energy sources
Coal - 1500 [1]
Coal waste -12000[2]
You can keep going down this[3] list. Nuclear disasters are a mere blip. Only solar is any safer.
[1]April 26, 1942: Benxihu Colliery disaster in Benxi, Liaoning, China. 1,549 workers died, in the worst coal mine accident ever in the world
[2] December 1952: The Great Smog of London caused by the burning of coal, and to a lesser extent wood, killed 12,000 people within days to months due to inhalation of the smog.
I don't think you are including the deaths in following years from the radiation poisoning. Those numbers are just 'the day of'.
But also. I agree, Coal industry has a lot of deaths too. Far more year over year.
And things like settling ponds should be more regulated. Lot of deaths from coal waste holding damns failing.
So. Think you are little cherry picking stats to show Nuclear "isn't that bad", and Coals "very bad". When truth is really somewhere in middle.
Think in this, the disconnect, you are discounting the potential much higher risk potential with Nuclear.
A coal damn giving way, kills everyone in the downstream town, maybe hundreds.
But if worst case Nuclear disaster, has much higher potential, millions.
Really in Chernobyl and Fukushima, we got lucky, they turned out to be bad, close calls, but in each we were saved at the last minute, so not so bad.
Both were minutes away from much higher releases. Both could have wiped out their entire country. Potentially, Ukraine and Japan could both be gone today, not exist as countries, by the time you factor into half the country farmland gone, and major cities un-inhabitable.
That sounds dramatic. But think that is what a risk matrix would point out.
So how much risk can we tolerate? Is Climate Change risk finally in the public mind enough to overcome the Nuclear risk?
Fossil fuel is a cheat code because you neither have to pay to create it nor pay for the consequences of using it, nature is dealing with both of these. Everything you use from roads to shampoo, toilet paper, clothes, computers, buildings, bicycles, it's all either enabled by fossil or a fossil fuel derivate
At planet scale nothing will ever get better than: dig hole, pump oil, burn oil
I think you underestimate how widespread petroleum derivates are outside of energy. Construction materials, roads, tires, plastics, cosmetics, cleaning products, paints, inks, dyes, adhesives, sealants, lubricants, clothes, waterproof fabrics, batteries, fertilisers, medicine, tooth paste, shampoos, &c.
It's _the_ building block of modern life, unless you're in nature you can bet everything you lay your eyes on is at least partially made of petroleum or its derivates
Eh. We can usually use modern chemistry to instead start from natural oils or fatty acids instead of dinosaur juice for most of it. If we cannot outright replace the problematic substance.
Some energy input may be required. ( But likely on par with current diesel/gas processing.)
It's getting expensive but it used to be extremely cheap, in the middle east or even in the US you had natural oil springs where petroleum literally flowed out of the ground, same for coal before that, if we somehow fuck it up and go back 200 years in the past tech wise there will never be a new industrial revolution
Cost to lives is free here, same as cost for the future or cost to the environment. If we had to pay for these we'd be in deficit. The simple issue of old oil fields leaking methane would already render most of their operators bankrupt if they had to fix the problem
Environmental activists are almost entirely responsible for the killing of nuclear energy in the 1970s. Much of the blame for climate change lays at their feet.
I would bet most of these protests were funded by the fossil fuel industry. The chances of this many people organically being anti-nuclear are near 0%.
It’s also funny how it was the environmental activists who were the ones who were powerful/influential enough to be “entirely responsible” for killing nuclear energy as opposed to be the poor old fossil fuel industry.
They were able to kill the nuclear energy industry because the economic cost of killing it was low. The alternative to cheap, reliable nuclear was cheap, reliable coal.
They're struggling to kill off the fossil fuel industry because the alternative to cheap, reliable coal/natural gas is expensive (when accounting for energy storage + backup energy production capacity), less reliable renewables.
Ironically, they'd have a much easier if the alternative to cheap, reliable coal/natural gas was cheap, reliable nuclear energy!
> Funny how environmental activists were powerful enough to kill the nuclear energy but not the fossil one.
It's a lot harder to affect something that's so firmly embedded in how we do things as a society. Blocking new nuclear developments was a lot easier than undoing generations worth of infrastructure around fossil power.
A comparison can be drawn to the USA's short-lived attempt at prohibition of alcohol versus the long-lasting prohibition of marijuana which is only now finally calling apart.
The one our society has been at least partially built around for generations has its problems normalized and mostly disregarded until something unignorable happens, which still often gets swept under the rug, where the alternative gets constant scrutiny and has to meet standards the established norm has never been held to.
Climate activists are to blame for much of climate change because they advocated against using one risky form of energy production?
There were other options and the option of reducing energy usage (and standard of living).
So I agree that activists might be responsible for nuclear energy decline in the west, but not that they are to blame for climate change because of that.
Every theory fails to account for human factor. Oil and gas are convenient and make so much money, it is so easy to "lobby" any government for it to stay that way.
We can all be happy clappy about doing something, but it will always fail if we don't have anything to combat corruption and manage greed.
lobbying == bribing == crime. Unfortunately this equality doesn't hold in reality and on a macro economic scale is a fundamental source of corruption accelerating climate heating, sanctions impact, arms trade, human trafficking, ecosystem collapse, unemployment, etc. Nothing will ever change if we keep tolerating lobbying.
I think that carbon offsetting is a good idea in the spirit of a glass half-full. It's unrealistic to expect the world economy to quit fossil fuels cold turkey, and a system that allows those who cannot transition to externalize their ability to reduce or eliminate emissions is a way to get close to the desired result with the constraints we have right now.
Its OK to use fossil fuels as chemical feedstock in manufacturing. As long as we don't literally light it on fire for energy we can deal with the resulting reaction gasses.
In 500 years the idea that we ever burned our most valuable manufacturing chemical to keep warm is going to seem crazy. Petrochemicals are incredibly useful for making things.
Cement needs lots of heat to make it - from coal too. Also, cement is made from CaCO3 (limestone, the shell of ancient microorganisms). It releases the CO2 it contains when transformed into cement.
Carbon in form of coal is currently used for three purposes in steel production:
1) Heat up the ore to high temperatures
2) Reduce iron oxide to iron.
3) Steel is an alloy of iron and carbon.
Only for the third of these carbon is essential, and that requires some tens of kilos carbon per ton of steel as opposed to more than 2 tons carbon per ton of steel. The two first ones can be replaced by electrical heating and hydrogen respectively. There are currently being built some factories in northern Sweden for doing this, using hydrogen produced by hydropower. Without sufficient tax on carbon or customers willing to pay the extra for "green steel", it is not cost competitive for now.
The coal used for reduction of iron ore to iron can be replaced with hydrogen through direct reduction. See Hybrit which has working industrial scale demonstration plant today, though at reduced capacity. Full capacity plants are planned in multiple locations by 2036.
My guess is that the coal could come from wood? The heat could definitely come from nuclear power.
However, the processing of the limestone might be more difficult. But then again, that also seems like insignificant emissions when the other ones are taken out, no?
Making cement without baking the limestone, which itself releases carbon plus the burning of gas to make the heat, is possible and is being piloted now. We just lack the will to mandate these changes.
Isaac Asimov in all his optimism predicted we'd drive cars and fly airplanes powered by tiny nuclear engines in the 50s. Foundation even solves military tensions through proliferation and shared knowledge, access to nuclear physics.
...It all seemed so obvious - we partied when we blew up the Bikini islands. Alas
> Unfortunately, we cannot pick and choose civilisational paths like a buffet meal.
In more democratic countries the denizens can indeed pick if they want a government for or against nuclear energy.
> We should make it illegal for software engineers to complain about industrialisation unless they give up laptops, gpus, air-conditioning, coffee machines and refrigerators.
What a silly needlessly polarizing sentiment. What we should make illegal is for countries that have the means and know-how to provide on-demand emission-free electricity for the grid to remain on coal and gas - lest the institutional and societal knowledge on nuclear power plants completely atrophies.
For the sake of brevity, read "countries" as "ministries of energy in countries" or "relevant public or privatized equivalents of ministries of energy in countries" - there's many modes of governance when it comes to this. A good example of "illegal for countries" in this sense would be if the EU made their member countries adopt jurisprudence in this matter through implementation via their own respective national laws.
> You can be the first to go fight those wars.
At the end of the day, a public agency can only act on the basis of laws in their respective country. (Principle of Legality) How national laws are passed however is sometimes influenced through supranational organizations - entirely without the need of a war.
> For the sake of brevity, read "countries" as "ministries of energy in countries" or "relevant public or privatized equivalents of ministries of energy in countries" - there's many modes of governance when it comes to this. A good example of "illegal for countries" in this sense would be if the EU made their member countries adopt jurisprudence in this matter through implementation via their own respective national laws.
What do you do if some countries don't want to play ball, and they turn out to be the biggest emitters?
> What we should make illegal is for countries that (...)
Your comment is self-contradicting. If you expect solutions to work at a democratic level, you cannot advocate for a solution where a random third-party is able to force it's will upon any country. For instance, where do you fit in your mental model a scenario where a democratic country decides via referendum to meet all it's energy needs with coal?
> We should make it illegal for software engineers to complain about industrialisation unless they give up laptops, gpus, air-conditioning, coffee machines and refrigerators.
By this logic, we should make it illegal for anyone to complain about anything, given that we all have benefitted in one way or another by industrialization.
Do you think debate by those that advocate change should be restricted to those that are willing to fully embrace the limiting case of the proposed change? Don't you think that would limit debate somewhat?
Scientific discoveries are not instant, but build upon earlier work.
* 1824 - effect proposed (Joseph Fourier)
* 1827/1838 - further evidence (Claude Pouillet)
* 1856 - Speculation that a high vapor atmosphere would give a warm planet (Eunice Newton Foote)
* 1859 - Demonstration that hydrocarbons had a significant effect (John Tyndall)
* 1896 - Quantification of the effect and prediction of global warming (Svante Arrhenius)
* 1901 - Greenhouse name used (Nils Gustaf Ekholm)
The greenhouse effect in itself is critically important in maintaining a liveable temperature on Earth. It's a runaway greenhouse effect causing global warming that is the problem. Anything before 1896 was about understand the basic effect, while after we began understanding that we were affecting the system by emitting gases.
I worked in climate policy for awhile. I got out of it because I lost hope. I believe our governments have lost hope also. Covid taught us that if they inflict the necessary pain to control carbon, our governments will be consumed by populist anger. Only the Chinese system appears to have any hope of controlling people’s behavior that much without riots. And what a terrifying system! Even their control began to slip after a few years of zero Covid.
We will just have to deal with the consequences while we try to innovative our way out of this mess. It’s made me a AI accelerationist. Of the two civilizational dooms, I’ll take my chances with the computers.
I think your take is giving much too much credit for "governments wanting to do the right thing" if it weren't only for those pesky populists.
Take your China example. The issue wasn't just that the government wanted to control Covid and the people pushed back. The issue was that their zero-Covid policy was extremely stupid. I kept thinking "Umm, what do they think is going to happen when they eventually open back up - of course Covid is going to ravage through the populace." And that's exactly what happened. The policy did extremely little to actually save lives in the end compared to much less restrictive policies elsewhere.
So I'm actually less pessimistic about the case for the energy transition. I do think it's particularly unfortunate that our tribal politics has led to people lining up behind "drill baby drill" even if there is no economic basis to do so. But I do think since we know the transition is possible without draconian cutbacks in standard of living that governments can help craft effective incentives to make the change more quickly.
>Take your China example. The issue wasn't just that the government wanted to control Covid and the people pushed back. The issue was that their zero-Covid policy was extremely stupid. I kept thinking "Umm, what do they think is going to happen when they eventually open back up - of course Covid is going to ravage through the populace." And that's exactly what happened. The policy did extremely little to actually save lives in the end compared to much less restrictive policies elsewhere.
According to data published by John’s Hopkins, China’s overall number of Covid deaths per 100,000 population was 7.6, compared to 341 in the United States.
You are right that degrowth is not a politically viable path to saving the climate.
Additionally, it is not effective unless you want to return to pre-industrial society.
What works is: Changing the source of the energy we consume. Solar is the cheapest source of energy now. Wind is good in some areas. Nuclear can be useful too.
The amazing thing is that solar is so cheap now, there is basically no way stopping it. We may still want to burn gas and oil in the off-hours, but it will be expensive and consumption will be much lower than today.
To decarbonise transport storage needs to massively increase. There are 30 million cars in the UK, that alone is 3TWh of storage, which isn't far off a day's total energy use. If we can make 3TWh then it's reasonable that we can make 2 or 3 times that much.
It won't be financially viable to operate a nuclear plant for the few days a year that the wind and solar and storage and imports can't cover the use, better to simply increase storage and production a bit more.
Solar generation is much, much lower in the winter than in the summer, so we need to massively overbuild solar to have reasonable generation in the winter. And there are many times when there’s very little generation for a week or more because of weather, so you need to massively overbuild storage, too. Combined, it’s not cheap to reliably replace base load power.
Edit: I should note that one proposal I’ve seen to mitigate some of this is to improve long distance transmission, since it’s never cloudy everywhere, and taken to an extreme, you could, for example, put lots of solar in the Sahara to power the UK, or even send power from the hemisphere in summer to the hemisphere in winter. But then, besides the huge capital costs for building out transmission infra, you run into energy independence issues/trust issues between governments. But maybe within large political blocs like the EU, Italy/Southern Spain could sell solar power to the more northern European countries, with less risk.
Or hydrogen. On windy days (or sunny in the southern US) you use the excess electricity to generate hydrogen, and then when there's a shortfall you convert it back to electricity.
This is true, however at the end of the day - this would work out to a per kwh cost of overbuilt infrastructure. Is there a reliable study of what this kwh cost is?
In New England we pay upwards of 14 cents per kwh or higher. My understanding is that this would buy a substantial overbuilt, it's likely that energy prices upwards of 30 cents per kwh would be politically viable provided there were guardrails to keep heat/hot water cheap.
Right, you can just wrap it into the cost. I'm not sure, I'm not an expert in this, but my impression is that permitting and labor are a really big portion of the cost in the US, rather than eg panels being the driving cost. There are also a lot of blockages in getting projects approved because there's not enough transmission capacity in many places, and many places require that the new producer fund the new transmission infrastructure, rather than that cost being shared, which is insane.
Transmission capacity does seem to be the main problem with expanding the grid in several countries - a problem that applies equally to new nuclear (which can't be where older coal/gas/oil plants are as they tend to need things like large amounts of water)
Last time I worked the numbers on nuclear vs storage, I came up with… for the same amount of money and for the same amount of generation capacity, battery storage could provide about 4 hours of electricity before needing to recharge while nuclear could provide about 24 months without needing to shut down for a few days for a fuel change.
Pumped hydro storage was better, if you have the water resources and elevation change nearby. Lots of places don’t.
I’m interested in details.
Nuclear is very expensive and not going down, while batteries are.
So with your analysis, it could be possible to estimate how low batteries have to go before meeting nuclear… It could be irrealistic but let’s see !
On the nuclear side I was looking at a GE BWRX-300 (SMR) because my province is currently looking at building a few of them.
Specs: 300MWe, nominally $1B first-of-a-kind build cost and $675M next-of-a-kind build cost. Runtime between fuel changes is 18-24 months.
--
On the battery side I was looking at the Tesla Megapack 2 XL, since our neighbouring province has a bit of capacity installed.
Specs: 979kW output per pack, 3.9MWh capacity. For 300MW output capacity we need 306 units => $425M. The total capacity from fully-charged to fully-discharged is 1193MWh. Total time from full-charge to full-discharge: 3.9h.
In the middle of winter we have 8h of daylight and 16h of night/twilight. To provide 300MW overnight on a calm day we need 4.02x the storage capacity (16h runtime/3.9h discharge). That gives us 1231 units for a total cost of $1.7B.
--
Yes, the nuclear plant will be more expensive to run (trained staff, security, disposal, etc). On the other hand, the $1.7B cost doesn't include any of the devices that would actually be charging the battery packs either.
That’s interesting.
The quotes for the nuclear power plant are really low though.
France, which has a lot of knowledge and trained workforce for nuclear, is slowly building a reactor of 1.2gwe for like 20B euros.
If you use those numbers… it looks very different.
And that’s at least not idealistic price since it’s they are completing the construction.
Yeah, I'm really curious to see how the SMR thing shakes out over time. It does make sense to me that the costs between large bespoke reactors and smaller modular reactors would not necessarily be a linear scaling by MWe. Another factor that affects the price significantly is whether or not the reactor is being built at an existing site that is already licensed or whether it's a scratch-build at a new site.
https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/8... talks about the Shin Kori 3 and 4 reactors (brought online in 2016 and 2019) costing $6.4B USD for the pair (after a 32% cost overrun), if I'm reading correctly. Those ones are 1416MW and 1418MW, or $2258/kW which is right in line with GE's estimate of a next-of-a-kind SMR build (spec sheet says $2250/kW)
That’s 2M per MW. We can spend 10, an over capacity of 5x !
And that is not accounting for the price of money, it takes very long time to build a nuclear power plant, and you will have your PV plant in the year, probably a couple for mega pack due to demand.
I’m assuming you’re looking at the Flamanville Unit 3? Reading through the history of that build is pretty bad for sure. I’m maybe jaded enough now to expect construction projects to go over budget by maybe 20-30% but lol 580% over budget is not normal at all.
Water magazines and elevation change is required for pumped storage. But why not build that together will already existing hydro plants?
The magazines will be full at times, but when they are not, it should be possible to just pump the water back up again and thereby store excess wind and solar power.
I live in Sweden, and yeah, flooding large amounts of new land will be impossible by now.
The indigenous (Sami) people will say no and file lawsuits. And rightly so, they just didn't had that option 100 years ago.
But there is an abundance of existing magazines that can be used this way. They are full around November but after that they start to drain.
So make it easier for individuals to convert cars, build and sell them, by removing barriers to the market. Move away from corporate monopoly thinking in infrastructure. Enable many individual solutions, and allow them to stand or fail on their own merits; Grass roots vs. Top down. Implement tax-breaks instead of subsidies.
I don't think it's that realistic; nuclear simply takes way too long to build. For instance, the most recent nuclear reactor under construction near where I live has been under construction for 40 years and it's still not complete. In the meantime, the amount of added solar, wind, and hydro has been several times the power that single reactor will have once it's finally done.
Degrowth is really about scaling back on the over-the-top way we live. It's about finding a sweet spot where people live well but not at the expense of everything else. It’s cool and useful that solar is cheap, but degrowth means chill on the endless buying and using and discarding stuff, be sustainable and make sure everyone gets a fair shake, not just those who can afford it.
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but if solar is cheaper, why isn't it the dominant energy source today?
Seems like a win win, people get cheaper energy all without force. Generally the market chooses the best product, which is why we replaced horses crapping all over our cities with cars. It wasn't legislation or some global consortium of governments that phased out the horse, it was a better product. What am I missing here?
Momentum, installed base, established interests, changing uses.
Foolishly reductionistic model: at the instant that solar becomes defacto cheaper, if everyone immediately changed, you'd need at least [total world power consumption / solar panel production rate] years to change over.
2022 world electricity consumption was about 25000 TWH. That envelope-backs to about 2800 GW if the sun is always directly overhead everywhere and there are no transmission losses.
In 2022, we installed about 228GW of solar panels. Assuming constant production (HAH!) that says it should take more than a decade to replace the existing demand. Which will of course stand still for us.
Apply whatever multiplication factors you like about what percentage of the year a given real solar cell will generate power; about how quickly folks are convinced to change; about the construction of projects which were planned before this price threshold was passed; about the impact of using grid power to do transportation work which was previously done by pumping dead dinosaurs...
The confounding factors abound. But that's an ignorant sideline answer to why. :)
> if the sun is always directly overhead everywhere [...] Apply whatever multiplication factors you like about what percentage of the year a given real solar cell will generate power
A simple but useful back-of-the-envelope estimate would be 25%. Half of the day, there's no sun, so you have 50%; the other half, it increases gradually until the middle of the day, then decreases gradually until the sun sets. Simplifying this to a linear increase and decrease, if you plot it into a graph you'd have a pair of isosceles right triangles, which cover half of the area, so you have another 50% over that first 50%, and the end result is 25%.
(IIRC, the real result for the single-axis trackers you'd find on grid-scale power plants is something like 30%, showing how good that simple back-of-the-envelope estimate is.)
Here in the northeastern US, the permitting process for adding new power plants to the grid is long and cumbersome in a way that is usually the long pole in adding new generation to the grid when the new generation is as quick to put up as solar. We have more solar power in the process of getting approval than we currently have installed.
Because money is the wrong thing to use for decision making, we should be tallying resources and energy expenditure. Money is an imperfect proxy for something akin to human labour and related activity, and does not encode information about physical resources being used
> Additionally, it is not effective unless you want to return to pre-industrial society.
Still needed to some extent even in your optimistic scenario. Because growth is increasing so is demand. New sources of energy are not displacing old ones. Just covering new demand.
Sorry I forgot to include some data that motivated me to post it.
If we are talking about coal, for example this graph [0]. There it seems that coal is actually growing.
You have a point. China is going wild on call. In industrialised countries, coal is being pushed out though. (Your graph shows the US and Germany.)
So it's do-able, but we haven't quite reached the tipping point yet in China.
The thing is: I am confident that Solar will push out Coal, even in China.
China is building a lot of new factory capacity for PV modules. Factory capacity is proportional to the acceleration of PV power production: It's a second derivative. The more battery capacity gets added, the faster PV capacity will start growing. The more PV capacity grows, the more clean power will be produced, competing with coal.
I feel the same. The entire planet enacted a total reorganization of society in a matter of weeks! Oil is worthless if we aren't all consuming, governments can give generous payments to those who need it without nonsense about how we will pay for it, it was a frightening but honestly optimistic time, we had problems but they can be solved, its only a question of willpower.
Now we can see that vast quantities of people in the first world think not being able to go to Arbys is a human rights violation, and worse still the friendless losers who were pining to back into the office.
If sitting indoors is too much of a sacrifice for people, what happens when they need to make real changes to their lifestyles?
> I feel the same. The entire planet enacted a total reorganization of society in a matter of weeks!
I'm not sure what this refers to but it's not COVID response. At least where I live (the USA), outside of the major metro areas, nothing was enforced except school closures. The Stay At Home "mandates" (more like suggestions) and business "closures" were all pretty much unenforced and widely ignored. Even if our government, by some miracle, manages to enact effective climate rules and legislation, it will be ignored if not enforced. You can't just write a law or set a mandate and then say "Well, our job is done!"
> We will just have to deal with the consequences while we try to innovative our way out of this mess.
We've already innovated our way out of this mess. We have all the technology available now to decarbonise the economy (well, mostly; we're still a bit limited in a few areas; but we can get a lot of the way there).
Covid is a good example. In most of the liberal democracies people accepted the restrictions their governments argued were necessary to combat Covid. I think these restrictions were significantly greater than what is needed from individuals to combat climate change.
"We have all the technology available now to decarbonise the economy (well, mostly; we're still a bit limited in a few areas; but we can get a lot of the way there)."
Then why can't we?
The answer is that it would take some Government mandates, and we are back to the original post, that if the Government mandates anything, it will hurt some sector, and then there is popular uprising. At least in US, 50% of country is ready to go to war anytime someone sneezes and merely forgets to say 'bless you'.
How do you fight climate change, even if technology is available, if 50% of the country literally believes in a real physical hell (not just a concept), and that the other side are demons here to steal the blood of their children. How does the committee organize rolling out a technology when half is praying and citing versus and that is the starting point for any technology roll out plan.
You can’t just shut down the fossil fuel industry before you have alternative green energy infrastructure in place, this is a multi decade project. Otherwise the price of oil shoots up and you get inflation which affects most people’s ability to get by. “Populist anger” might be justified if people have a hard time paying their bills.
> “Populist anger” might be justified if people have a hard time paying their bills.
If the costs of current living standard wasn't externalized to future generations (to the detriment of the environment), they couldn't afford those bills to begin with.
Unfortunately, it's very hard to reduce people's living standards once they got used to it. So yes, the end result is what you're saying - however, I think it's a very important nuance. It was always a card house; we just chose to ignore the issue and continued to build on top of it.
Exactly. Too few people understand economics, that current costs are being brought down by offsetting future costs.
The same with any pollution in any industry. If the industry is allowed to follow bad practices, and cause pollution but not deal with it, then they are not bearing the brunt of the full costs of generating that pollution. Someone has to clean it all up eventually, typically the government, then people complain about taxes.
You can complain about taxes, but you just voted for someone to cut regulations on industry which then causes the pollution which needs tax dollars to clean it up.
(I know CO2 is not a 'pollutant' technically, it is just another example of the 'cost' to the environment is not being allocated correctly to the producer. I feel need to be correct since even using the word 'pollutant' is a right wing argument point on why climate change advocates don't know what they are talking about.).
I guess the great thing about putting the problems off into the future is that I/we'll be dead by then (though I suppose it depends on how fast moving the whole thing is). What confuses me about that whole thing is that most people seem to want to have children and want a better future for them.
"Thus, even if solar or nuclear technologies were to be considered viable alternatives, they would not really displace fossil fuel energy for next 40 to 50 years, and CO2 growth would have to be estimated based on realistic market displacement of the fossil fuel technologies."
This was 42 years ago. Maybe it is time for “Non-Populist anger” now.
Solar panels didn’t really take off until 10-15 years ago because their efficiency was very low and didn’t make much economic sense. Battery technology is still a big hurdle.
> “Populist anger” might be justified if people have a hard time paying their bills
I do agree that finding alternatives quickly is crucial. However, when all is said and done, our financial concerns and even our personal well-being don't matter as much in the grand scheme of things.
There are ways to reduce carbon emissions drastically without incurring populist anger. It's not so much the population that would be angry from these measures as the corporate interests that supply carbon fuels and products that use them.
I've tended not to worry about the warming much partly on the basis that AI/acc and similar tech will fix it all.
Reasoning: Intelligent robots and AI will be able to build all sort of stuff and even without that solar + wind nuclear will probably overtake fossil fuel shortly. We can have the bots cover the Sahara with solar and run carbon capture. Also fusion may work although I'm not so sure about that one.
Our governments are so dysfunctional and corrupt our only hope is that AI will actually be benevolent and can help guide us and solve problems. Because, as the comic, and thousands of other examples show, our governments aren't actually capable of leading and solving problems, even when the problems are blatant. Same when the solution is easy, but it will cause the wealthy to lose money, see US health care and taxation systems.
I know which one you mean, as I'm sure we all do, but it always amuses me that we refer to her as just 'Cleopatra' because... basically every queen of Egypt in that dynasty was named Cleopatra. They named the vast majority of the boys Ptolemy and the girls Cleopatra. Her mother's name is Cleopatra V Tryphaena. Her daughters name is Cleopatra Selene II. Her Fathers name is Ptolemy XII, she has brothers named Ptolemy XIII and Ptolemy XIV, one of her sons is named Ptolemy.
It should be the least useful mononym possible, but its totally not. Its perfectly understood.
Much like there wasn't one "Caesar", since it's a title (still kicking in Proto-West Germanic derivatives branching off "kaisar"), but many "normal" people (not history nerds) would still use only the title to refer to Gaius Julius Caesar.
Also fun fact -- if you're a history nerd -- "Julius Caesar" is almost equally nonsensical to just "Caesar" since "Julius" is not his name, but refers to his family ("gens"). The first Caesar from that family, that we know of at least, was Sextus Julius Caesar in around 200 BC, 300 years before Gaius Julius Caesar was born.
The entire Western pop cultural canon of ancient Egypt was created by a culture that ground mummies up for soup. It's not surprising that a lot of complexity and subtlety got lost in translation.
Well, the part about grinding up mummies is true enough. Natural resources get processed.
"The Western pop cultural canon of ancient Egypt" seems to be a red herring, though; Cleopatra is not part of or associated with ancient Egypt. She would be at the tail end of the Hellenistic period or the beginning of the Roman Empire. The New Kingdom ended a thousand years before she came to power.
Being fair to krapp and their comment above, I don't think the popular western notion of Egypt that started with the mystic of mummies and proceeded through tomb raiding as "archeology" and included stories of Anthony & Cleopatra, milk baths and asps really didn't clarify much between truly ancient Eygpt and the later era under Rome.
Some people care, of course, and many are better informed today, but there's a body of "common knowledge" out there that just runs it all together in a melange of pyramids and funny walks.
That's not even close: the first XKCD was published closer to Intel's release of the 386SX than today.
18 years before XKCD, a 386-based PC capable of running Doom would have set you back $6,000–$10,000.
Imagine a game released today that has a 64-core CPU and a 4090 as minimum requirements, and that's roughly what Doom's system requirements would have looked like in 1987.
Yeah, but those are so well known that they show up in every reddit thread. Therefore, not that interesting. Whereas the one linked is new (and isn't merely trivia).
I find it surprising that the 1896 answer of warming estimates closely match modern estimates.
Back then:
- They didn't have electronics, radio was barely being discovered
- They didn't have airplanes, they just discovered the upper atmosphere, with the very first weather balloons
- They knew about atoms, the periodic table was 30 years old, but nucleus wasn't discovered yet
Climate science is a notoriously difficult topic, with countless feedbacks, positive and negative. Nowadays, we run simulations on supercomputers based on satellite data, decades of precise historical data, geological data, etc... They didn't have that at the time.
Maybe he got the precise value by chance. Sometimes it happens. For example it is said that Eratosthenes (240 BC) calculated the Earth circumference with great accuracy (<1%) and no one managed to get a better estimate until modern times. In fact, many later estimates were off by more than 10%. The technology available at the time wasn't capable of such accuracy, but by chance, it turned out to be spot on (but they didn't know it was).
The 1896 warming estimates that were accurate were not estimating future CO2 emissions. They were of the form: if we emit X tons of CO2 a year, the greenhouse effect will be Y. The greenhouse effect of CO2 can be studied in a literal greenhouse, and the effect can be extrapolated to the earth with methods we teach in high school today. They didn't predict at what year we would be at a tipping point, but at what the effects would be with a given level of CO2.
The greenhouse effect and how CO2 affects it is actually quite complicated and not what happens in an actual greenhouse, and most of what happens that is relevant to climate change actually happens in the upper atmosphere (which cools!).
And there are other effects, like how CO2 get absorbed in the oceans, clouds, water vapor, etc... That CO2 has an effect on temperature is "easy" to realize, quantifying it is much, much harder. And I am just talking about short term effects, long term effects (including a potential tipping point) is yet another layer of complexity.
I read somewhere that if you take a simple model based simply on the extra heat trapped by CO2 in the atmosphere and the black body emission from earth to space as a function of temperature it comes as close to reality as all the elaborate models. Or probably closer as the elaborate models can easily produce extreme results if you assume a lot of positive feedback and so far the real world results have been closer to feedback free results.
Meanwhile, half of CO2 emissions from human causes since the industrial revolution have happened in about the last 40 years or so. Every time we mash the snooze bar for another decade the problem just gets that much harder to solve.
As this brilliant cartoon points out, we've had 128 years of warnings about human-induced climate change, and over all those years, humanity did not change course.
That's because warnings and exhortations rarely accomplish anything.
Things tend to change only after there's no other choice, i.e., when there's a crisis.
There's an insightful quote from Milton Friedman on this:
"Only a crisis -- actual or perceived -- produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable."[a]
I disagree with Friedman on many things, but on this, I think he was right.
It is only now, when we find outselves in the early stages of crisis (unprecedented heat waves, perpetual giant fires, etc.), that the work of all those scientists and engineers who have been documenting, predicting, and warning about climate change for the past 128 years is finally being put to good practical use.
> Warnings and exhortations never accomplish anything.
Except that warnings and exhortations did accomplish the result of causing nations to begin banning CFCs back in 1987, well before the hole in the ozone layer became a global crisis.
I agree, and if you could magically go back during the industrial revolution and show everyone what would happen to the world, I doubt there would be a difference.
The increase in the then-current living conditions increased so much that not doing it wouldn't make sense to them.
Same as if our future selves came from 128 years from the future and told us to all stop doing something, it would be near impossible.
In response to all the nuclear power discussion in this thread, see thorium molten salt. We have had the technology since Oak Ridge in the 70s. We ignored it because the existing refinement infrastructure is conveniently "dual use" for nuclear weapons.
It must be emphasized that solar panels, wind turbines and batteries are products of carbon-burning industry. They have their place but we don't have the metals to repair and replace them in the long term, and we don't yet know if a fully electric industrial society is even possible. E.g. how do you reach the necessary temps in a blast furnace without melting your heating element?
Electrifying civilization as we know it is politically palatable, but the feasibility studies are few, and those that have been done are sobering. Any analysis which ends without a serious look in the mirror is likely serving some special interest. To expect that modernity can continue in the same mold, with hydrocarbons swapped out for something else, smacks of nostalgia or naivete. Alternative energy sources are needed, absolutely; but even more important is to transform the way we relate to each other, to other life forms, to natural resources, and to this generation ship we call a planet.
We could switch to regenerative agriculture and yeet most of the carbon back out of the air[1] and back into the soil where it belongs, but that might hurt Monsanto's profit margin, so it's unlikely to happen.
PSA:
Your personal experience of climate change resulting in
"We are all going to live horribly in the future"
is quite dependent on the definition of "we"
The sad reality is that the humanity probably needs some type of big climate-related event that would act as a wake up call when it comes to the urgency of climate change.
We need something that people can relate to with their senses or emotions. Data by itself can only get us so far.
Apocalyptic fires in California, NE Canada, Australia; harder and stronger storms; record heat waves and cold waves every year.. What more visual, personally affecting climate events do we need? Like for Africa or India to quite literally become unlivable?
In my opinion the only solution is a drastic drop in number of human beings. Thankfully we wont have to do much since nature will do it for us when the droughts begin and the crops start failing. Its fun to think of how we will science ourselves out of this as we go over 8 billion people who all desire an ever increasing standard of living. However the only science we will science ourselves with are going to be fully autonomous suicide drones patrolling our borders for any straggling climate refugees and also drones inside our ruined cities patrolling for dissent.
That's my take on the thing at least
Individual demand for consumption is unbounded. You can depopulate out of this problem, unless your depopulation is extremely targeted at the wealthiest, and the definition of "wealthiest" broadens as overall consumption grows.
Its not even about the elites, its about human nature and incentives. And nobody is going to take my hamburger out of my hand just because some people in a third world country are starting to suffer from climate change. This mindset is genetically encoded
Human nature does not make these WEF/Davos "elites" do the things they do. They are so rich that they can move anywhere and do anything. They want us to eat bugs and have zero kids, before euthanizing us at an early age. If they can't do that, they'll find a way to start a world war to kill us off.
This response is totally unrelated to my post however it does bring up a good point. There is this narrative where we are all victims of the elites and everything bad is because of the elites and so on and so forth. This is just a means to cope and protect our ego because we basically arent doing anything to help our current situation so we need a scapegoat. It's common human nature
It's not a coping mechanism. These guys meet at least annually to imagine new ways to screw us. If anyone has an ego it's them, trying to tell us stupid shit about how to live our lives. They aren't scapegoats, they're wolves in sheeps clothing.
I guess it's the logic behind the vaccine mandate fearmongering. If one would want to reduce the population maybe the easiest method would be a stochastic approach by injecting at random a malicious agent affecting health or reproduction globally. Of course it would mean we do have such an agent and we know how to control it, which I doubt, but it's sound (and kinda painless).
Oil is a hell of a drug for civilization, and I'm not sure how we will willingly tune off of it, unless we chose a radically different economical organization.
But as many I am kind of hopeless as it seems competition, which fuel this need, is at the core of mankind (or at least the leading West)'s mentality.
While we have a socio-economic that values market and profit over social benefits we will keep this going just because it's cheaper. (and also because there is some big people gaining lots of money with it)
As with most large scale changes...there are winners and losers. New species and extinctions. High CO2 is great for plants in my greenhouse...I suppose that's why it is called a greenhouse gas. Anyone longing for lower CO2 levels in our entire atmosphere is basically an anti-Canadian Agriculture bigot. Seriously though sometimes the cure is much worse than just handling the issues one at a time as we transition to a beautiful warm catastrophe/boon. Historically the planet has gone through all sorts of things before. Perhaps we should be looking more at how to successfully terraform our planet. Why are we still predicting weather when we should just be making it?
The problem is timing: the past shifts were spread out over many thousands of years, which gave ecosystems time to adjust, and humanity has made many ecosystems less resilient with our expansion and pollution. We also have the practical problem that we have billions of people now living – it does not help someone in Africa getting unprecedented droughts to know that a farmer in Canada is seeing 20% better yields, especially since lost income means they can’t afford to import that extra food.
Similarly, the trending on peak heats means that there are places where many people live which are becoming less survivable. Theoretically India could migrate people to Siberia but the political implications of something like that are orders of magnitude worse than reducing emissions.
CO2 is actually not so nice for breathing, if you ever monitored a CO2 ppm meter indoors, where the air gets stuffy when too much CO2 from breathing accumulates. With the current trajectory, by the end of the century, opening the window won’t get you what we now consider fresh air anymore, the air will feel stuffy all the time. We already get less fresh air now than 50 years ago, where CO2 base levels were around 300 ppm, vs. 400 ppm now.
It's one of the bonkers things to me that the air my parents breathed as children is measurably different from the air we breathe today. (Sort of like how boomer infants had measurable radionuclides in their teeth due to surface testing of atomic weapons, which helped convince the world to ban the practice.)
I've also heard that the total mass of the carbon we've injected into the atmosphere exceeds all the mass of our built world on the surface, which is sort of awesome to think about, but not in the good sense of the word.
Obviously, as I won’t be alive anymore by the end of the century. I was responding to your suggestion of a “beautiful warm catastrophe/boon” due to high CO2 levels. I don’t see the boon.
Even if we solve the political and technical aspects of the problem, most of the Earth's habitable history has been at mich higher mean temperatures. Either finding ways to adapt to that, or modify it should definitely be on our todo list. Just because we don't slam ourselves directly into planet-sterilizing feedback loop, doesn't mean we aren't going to hit elevated temperatures in the future. We maybe only have half a billion years until increased irradiance kills everything, so having a parasol before then would be nice. Could get the planet another couple billion years of habitability.
> Seriously though sometimes the cure is much worse than just handling the issues one at a time as we transition to a beautiful warm catastrophe/boon.
This is a disgusting attitude. I'm sure you'll be safe in Alberta while Bangladesh drowns. Your ancestors benefitted from the industrial revolution, and now you want to reap all the benefits of climate change?
I don't live in Alberta you insensitive clod, and while I said those things somewhat tongue in cheek, you can choose to be disgusted or learn to stop worrying and love the change.
The world is a wild place in reality. Life isn't really fair. Sometimes seeds fall on rocks or clay and will never sprout. If you set your sights on what could go right, things might go better for you. Life isn't about what happens to you, but what you actually do about it. As an individual, I can show the world I care by being somewhat responsible in my consumption, but I can't really control the rest of the world and their choices. If I did live in Bangladesh and I knew the ocean is rising in the next 50 years, I would consider other options.
For anyone who's curious, here's an explanation of how the greenhouse effect works -- it's not just that some infrared radiation escapes from earth to space, while some other infrared radiation gets trapped. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqu5DjzOBF8
And people keep wondering why climate protesters are not asking things "nicely" anymore, and resort to blocking traffic and defacing paintings. They tried the nice way... they tried for many decades.
I'd prefer to see them damage fossil fuel infrastructure, but they aren't actually damaging these paintings. They're specifically targeting works with glass over them. It's more of a symbolic defacing.
That doesn't sound fair to me either. The subset of people who have benefitted from polluting won't have to foot the clean-up bill. So those who want lush, temperate, and healthy surroundings may have to take charge, even though it isn't fair. I certainly feel grumpy about those who benefit from polluting, when others have to deal with the effect. It would be nice if they were more responsible, so we didn't have to figure this all out. I gave up on that happening, and instead have started to change my own part in this. It's a shift from the justice model to the effectiveness model.
A quick Google search suggests ~350g CO2 per KWh in Germany vs. ~400g in the US. Looks plausible to me. Germany uses coal but also has a very substantial share of renewables. Another quick search also shows that 60% of electricity in the US is from fossil fuels. The rest is nuclear and renewables in about equal amounts.
In 1991 Germany closed a finished but not operational power plant in Kalkar[0]. Nowadays it's a theme park built by Dutch entrepreneur Hennie van der Most, who is famous for these kinds of projects. I've visited the plant as a kid with my dad and uncles when it was open for public but barely any work had been done on the demolition or transforming into a theme park. For me it was the most awesome theme park I ever visited. You could go into the control room and press all the (buttons), look inside the reactor, see all the technology that went inside this plant, peruse the entire complex and visit almost every building as almost nothing was off limits except for what was used by the park staff for office/storage. I still regret not having a camera at that time to capture everything I saw. Nowadays it's 'just' a theme park with an all-in formula.
When we have people who cannot house and feed themselves, why do we expect them to care abotu what will happen to the planet in another century? We have a hopelessnes crisis.
The propaganda of capitalism has also been widly successful. Many people believe in the myth of meritocracy or that somehow markets will solve all problems or that Jeff Bezos having $200 billion instead of $100 billion while Amazon warehouse employees work in dire conditions are all good things. At the same time, very few of those people can define capitalism but will defend it anyway.
There is no fixing the climate crisis without fixing wealth inequality and giving people dignity and hope for the future. And no, I don't mean some communist utopia where everyone has the same (b3cause that's the usual straw man argument people jump to). I simply mean it has to be way less extreme than it is today.
Capitalism created this problem. Capitalism perpetuates this problem. And it won't be solved until you deal with capitalism.
I don't personally care about wealth inequality (or more specifically, I don't care that Jeff Bezos has more money than me - if he suddenly became poor, my standard of living wouldn't change).
For me the bigger issue is not that the elite have so much money, its that they have egregious carbon footprints, while telling the little people they need to sacrifice their standard of living to save the planet.
Read the other day, Jeff Bezos yacht, even if it is sitting idle for the entire year, has a bigger carbon footprint than 80,000 people using a gas mower to mow their lawn for a season. And of course, it doesn't sit idle all year, so the carbon generated could be multiple times more than that.
Until the elites and politicians actually start sacrificing, they have no right to lecture me on what I need to give up. I already have a carbon footprint 100's of times smaller than Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Bill Gates Jeff Bezos - they can all go pound sand if they want to tell me I need to dump my propane stove or gas lawnmower to save the planet.
However if a Billionaire did have the largest carbon footprint, would you still criticize if they bought credits to offset to be net 0? Or some other real practice to become net 0?
No, carbon credits are like beating your wife and then donating money each month to a battered women's shelter - virtue signaling at its worst.
No matter how many credits they buy, they are still disproportionately polluting the environment - donating money so that 'maybe' somebody else doesn't pollute as much, hardly undos the damage.
But I don't see the advantages over the desktop version, as the images are not made to fit the width, so I need to zoom out of this mobile page to see the image.
"""In a speech in 2002, Crichton coined the term "Gell-Mann amnesia effect" to describe the phenomenon of experts reading articles within their fields of expertise and finding them to be error-ridden and full of misunderstanding, but seemingly forgetting those experiences when reading articles in the same publications written on topics outside of their fields of expertise, which they believe to be credible."""
Newspapers may have said that, scientists did not, and would not have done. I mean the maximum is about 70m rise if everything melted, and while that would mess all the coastal cities, the adjective "costal" is important. Also the worst case heating isn't expected for a while yet, and the "ice age" discussion that sometimes gets mentioned was on the scale of millennia, not decades.
> Newspapers may have said that, scientists did not, and would not have done
True, but most people's information to access about the issue is from the media. Most people do not have subscriptions to journals, or any decent subsitute.
~32 years ago I was in grade school and our class went to the Museum of Natural History in NYC. There was an exhibit there depicting Manhattan under water due to global warming. It gave some year - I don't remember exactly which, but remember calculating that it would be before I would be "old".
It was very impressive, and left an impression on me which I still carry. And yet, it doesn't match reality or anything close to it.
And yes, you can argure that it was not setup by scientists - after all it was in the "Natural History" museum, which is probably not the ideal venue. But you get quickly into "No true Scotsman" territory when you discount every source that is found afterwards to be false.
> Most climatologist from 1950 till 1980ties predicted new ice age.
Not the scale of "by 2024" they didn't, and you're just flat out wrong to assert any of them thought any city, let alone all, would be under a mile of ice by now even the ones who ignored anthropogenic effects.
"A mile" requires continuous light to moderate precipitation for all 74 years from 1950. It should be obvious no scientist would have ever made such a claim.
The planet is warming more than 20X the rate of warming seen through natural processes. There is a unplanned, uncontrolled, planetary scale experiment underway with the chemical and thermal properties of the atmosphere and oceans of the only planet available to us for our survival. The burden of proof is on anyone who wants to continue that experiment to demonstrate that it's safe.
Yes, but the rest of the context of that statement is that earth was a hothouse with no ice, more deserts, and sea levels 550 feet higher than they are now.
Also global warming at natural rates would be less of a concern. This human caused global warming is happening more than 20X faster than natural rates of climate change. Not good if you like your ecosystems intact. Good if your favorite thing about dinosaurs was the mass extinction event.
Yet almost 100 years later, here we are - Oil and gas dependent, boasting an energy and climate crisis, all the while fooling regulators with worthless climate certificates, unaccountable off-shore factories and just plain rampant fraud when it comes to CO2 emissions.