Here's a Ted Talk that says the same thing:
https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shellenberger_how_fear_of_...
To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
61–70 of 666 posts
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#62One thing that needs to be stressed is that realistically there is a rather limited amount of Uranium than can be extracted from the earth for nuclear power. That if we could magically convert to 100% nuclear power - it wouldn't last that long.
from wikipedia
"Still, the world's present measured resources of uranium, economically recoverable at the arbitrary price ceiling of 130 USD/kg, are enough to last for between 70 and 100 years"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Conventional_fue...
reactors have a life of around 60 years I think. So maybe you could double the amount of nuclear power? But it's not like the world can magically go to 100% nuclear indefinitely.
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#63When 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.wa…
Less transportation, less devices (instead of upgrading every year, how about using the same phone 5 years in a row?), don't eat meat, generally just reduce consumption.
It does not count as less consumption if you replace oil with solar. Replace it with a void. Whatever activities you were doing that required energy, just don't do those things.
We could do a lot better if we just lived like the 1600s.
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#64My 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…
Solar plus all the infrastructure required to run a wind/solar grid without fossil backup is not yet competitively priced. It looks great at low market penetration but we need to eliminate emissions, not just lower them a little. We're going to end up with plenty of mass hysteria if we don't put the brakes on climate change as fast as we possibly can, by every means available.
That's a perfectly valid complaint, but it's not necessarily a good argument for nuclear, since nuclear has similar issues, I.e. controlling production to meet demand. In particular, nuclear cannot provide more than the minimum base load without huge investments in storage and/or transmission.
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#65True or false: a nuclear reactor can create a nuclear explosion? (the answer may surprise you!)
I would expect a significant percentage of people know that nuclear explosion is not a risk of nuclear power.
I would be surprised, to be honest, if more than half the american population knew that a nuclear power plant literally cannot blow up like an atomic bomb. However, I can't find any information to support either of our gut feelings. All of the polling information is of the form "how much do you like nuclear" or "what is the best non-fossil fuel power source". I'd love to see answers to "why do you think nuclear energy is a bad idea" or something.
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#66Not all nuclear energy is the same. I encourage people to check out Thorium. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium http://energyfromthorium.com/
Thorium still has some major technical issues such as corrosion from molten salts though.
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#67When 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.wa…
> Less oil? Working on it (see: solar).
And failing at it, oil use is still going up
> Less food? Working on it (see: /r/progresspics, and all the science and journalism on this, soda bans, etc).
And failing at it, see worldwide obesity statistics
> Less cars? Working on it (see: Waze, Uber, Lyft, public transit, et al).
And failing at it, see the meteoric rise of motorization in developing countries
> Do you suggest that China didn't try population control at scale for generations?
Are you suggesting it was a success, and didn't cause a huge gender imbalance which is threatening to cause social strife?
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Germany replaced their nuclear power with new coal. It boggles the mind. https://cna.ca/news/germany-replaces-nuclear-coal-ghgs-skyro...
It sounds like this is something that's important to you. There were reasons why this is happening, regardless of whether you agree with them or that they're rational. If this is an issue you would like to be more active about, rather than remaining boggled, I encourage you to dig in to determine what those reasons are so you can effectively counteract them.
I don't know if you consider this an effective rebuttal but I live in a place (Ontario, Canada) that made the opposite move at the same time as Germany. All coal plants have been shut down and replaced with additional Nuclear, Hydro, and Natural Gas generation.
We now have some of the cheapest electricity in the world (~$0.055 per kwh residential off peak vs. something crazy like $0.30 in Berlin) and haven't had a single smog day in Toronto for nearly two years.
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#69One thing that needs to be stressed is that realistically there is a rather limited amount of Uranium than can be extracted from the earth for nuclear power. That if we could magically convert to 100% nuclear power - it wouldn't last that long. from wikipedia "Still, the world's present measured resources of uranium, economically recoverable at the arbitrary price ceiling of 130 USD/kg, are enough to last for between…
Reprocessing can massively increase utilization. All that U 238 can also be burned once it is Pu 239.
Re: To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed)
#70When 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…
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing_...
Hans Rosling has a very good argument that we need a certain minimum amount of energy usage if we want both social and population stability. Wasted energy in the developed world is an interesting discussion, but if we want to address climate change the focus has to be on the much larger population of the world that is trying to rapidly increase their energy needs.
> without confusing it with lowering the standard of living
That's precisely the problem. Any proposal that significantly reduces energy usage almost certainly involves telling a large portion of the world "no, you don't get a washing machine" or similar restrictions on the basic benefits of industrialization.