To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
1–10 of 666 posts
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#2When will the mainstream consider it acceptable to talk about reducing consumption (without confusing it with lowering the standard of living) and reducing the population (without confusing it with eugenics)?
We waste incredible amounts and a lower population means more goods for everyone.
I'm not saying they solve everything. I'm just asking when we can talk about these issues that are a lot easier to implement than splitting atoms.
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#3My undergrad is in Physics and I took engineering classes in Rickover Hall. I was stationed on a nuclear ship. Even after deploying for the Fukushima disaster, I am a fan of nuclear power. But I have a hard time justifying new investment in an era where solar is competitively priced. The downside of solar is approximately 0 compared to the downside of a reactor accident.
I'll even allow for the high, high likelihood that more people will die installing roof-top solar than will ever die in the lifetime of all nuclear reactors combined. The political capital lost in a reactor accident isn't worth it. The lost of faith in technology, the loss of trust in science. The mass hysteria just isn't worth it.
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#4When will the mainstream consider it acceptable to talk about reducing consumption (without confusing it with lowering the standard of living) and reducing the population (without confusing it with eugenics)? We waste incredible amounts and a lower population means more goods for everyone. I'm not saying they solve everything. I'm just asking when we can talk about these issues that are a lot easier to implement than…
Proposals that are contrary to basic human nature rarely gain much traction.
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#5When will the mainstream consider it acceptable to talk about reducing consumption (without confusing it with lowering the standard of living) and reducing the population (without confusing it with eugenics)? We waste incredible amounts and a lower population means more goods for everyone. I'm not saying they solve everything. I'm just asking when we can talk about these issues that are a lot easier to implement than…
I don't understand what you mean. What consumption shall we reduce? Less oil? Working on it (see: solar). Less food? Working on it (see: /r/progresspics, and all the science and journalism on this, soda bans, etc). Less cars? Working on it (see: Waze, Uber, Lyft, public transit, et al). Do you suggest that China didn't try population control at scale for generations? (1)
What, exactly, do you mean?
(1) https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/china-lift...
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#6When will the mainstream consider it acceptable to talk about reducing consumption (without confusing it with lowering the standard of living) and reducing the population (without confusing it with eugenics)? We waste incredible amounts and a lower population means more goods for everyone. I'm not saying they solve everything. I'm just asking when we can talk about these issues that are a lot easier to implement than…
Proposals that are contrary to basic human nature rarely gain much traction.
'Basic human nature'is a phrase that assumes a lot of things. How would you characterise this phrase in more detail, as it pertains to this topic? And how would you justify such claims?
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#7When will the mainstream consider it acceptable to talk about reducing consumption (without confusing it with lowering the standard of living) and reducing the population (without confusing it with eugenics)? We waste incredible amounts and a lower population means more goods for everyone. I'm not saying they solve everything. I'm just asking when we can talk about these issues that are a lot easier to implement than…
[deleted]
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#8When will the mainstream consider it acceptable to talk about reducing consumption (without confusing it with lowering the standard of living) and reducing the population (without confusing it with eugenics)? We waste incredible amounts and a lower population means more goods for everyone. I'm not saying they solve everything. I'm just asking when we can talk about these issues that are a lot easier to implement than…
People = economic power. Consumption = economic power.
It's very likely that China and/or India will eventually be the most powerful countries in the world. Why? The simple fact that they have the most people and will have the biggest markets.
And anyhow, if we can sustainably support double or triple the current population, then why not?
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#9When will the mainstream consider it acceptable to talk about reducing consumption (without confusing it with lowering the standard of living) and reducing the population (without confusing it with eugenics)? We waste incredible amounts and a lower population means more goods for everyone. I'm not saying they solve everything. I'm just asking when we can talk about these issues that are a lot easier to implement than…
reducing consumption (and) population
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#10Assuming nuclear can slow it, we needed it 20 years ago, not now.