Nuclear power is the climate superhero too nervous to wear its cape
1–10 of 76 posts
Re: Nuclear power is the climate superhero too nervous to wear its cape
#2And the cape is made out of run dry riverbeds of cooling water. Not to mention that waste handling is still not a solved problem, but sure, let's put all our eggs into a single danger-basket of extinction (again) - what could possibly go wrong?
Re: Nuclear power is the climate superhero too nervous to wear its cape
#3And the cape is made out of run dry riverbeds of cooling water. Not to mention that waste handling is still not a solved problem, but sure, let's put all our eggs into a single danger-basket of extinction (again) - what could possibly go wrong?
After 40 years, perhaps the anti-nuclear movement could realize they were wrong.
Burning all that coal for the past half century was a really bad idea. In the meantime, we patiently wait for another solution. Today we could be talking about being carbon neutral by 2070 instead of 2050 but we decided to wait.
Now we need to spend money to “adapt” to climate change.
https://hbr.org/2022/08/its-time-to-invest-in-climate-adapta...
Re: Nuclear power is the climate superhero too nervous to wear its cape
#4Folks, when advocating for Atomic Power (not "nuclear", that means bombs and radiation poisoning. "Atomic" is heroic, futuristic, space-age-a-go-go!) remember to use https://xkcd.com/1162/ "Log Scale" to help make your point.
> Knuth Paper-Stack Notation: Write down the number on pages. Stack them. If the stack is too tall to fit in the room, write down the number of pages it would take to write down the number. THAT number won't fit in the room? Repeat. When a stack fits, write the number of iterations on a card. Pin it to the stack.
[[A bar chart on a sheet of paper labeled "Fuel energy density in Megajoules/kg."
Values are as follows:
Sugar: 19
Coal: 24
Fat: 39
Gasoline: 46
Uranium: 76,000,000
The bar representing Uranium is so large that it extends onto a
stack of paper taller than a human]]
Re: Nuclear power is the climate superhero too nervous to wear its cape
#5Don't tell that to the Germans. They would rather have rolling blackouts than go back to nuclear.
Re: Nuclear power is the climate superhero too nervous to wear its cape
#6And the cape is made out of run dry riverbeds of cooling water. Not to mention that waste handling is still not a solved problem, but sure, let's put all our eggs into a single danger-basket of extinction (again) - what could possibly go wrong?
After 40 years, perhaps the anti-nuclear movement could realize they were wrong. Burning all that coal for the past half century was a really bad idea. In the meantime, we patiently wait for another solution. Today we could be talking about being carbon neutral by 2070 instead of 2050 but we decided to wait. Now we need to spend money to “adapt” to climate change. https://hbr.org/2022/08/its-time-to-invest-in-climate…
After 60 years perhaps the nuke-boosters can admit that nukes were never a good idea. They have always depended on massive public subsidy to appear competitive.
Now nukes are radically more expensive than alternatives even neglecting the massive subsidies.
Each dollar diverted from renewables to nukes brings climate catastrophe nearer.
Re: Nuclear power is the climate superhero too nervous to wear its cape
#7That 3 eyed fish on the Simpsons likely caused millions of deaths at this point. Thanks a lot Harry Shearer.
Re: Nuclear power is the climate superhero too nervous to wear its cape
#8Childish title, is the content any better?
Re: Nuclear power is the climate superhero too nervous to wear its cape
#9Childish title, is the content any better?
Why don't you read it and make the judgement yourself?
Re: Nuclear power is the climate superhero too nervous to wear its cape
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
After 40 years, perhaps the anti-nuclear movement could realize they were wrong. Burning all that coal for the past half century was a really bad idea. In the meantime, we patiently wait for another solution. Today we could be talking about being carbon neutral by 2070 instead of 2050 but we decided to wait. Now we need to spend money to “adapt” to climate change. https://hbr.org/2022/08/its-time-to-invest-in-climate…
After 60 years perhaps the nuke-boosters can admit that nukes were never a good idea. They have always depended on massive public subsidy to appear competitive. Now nukes are radically more expensive than alternatives even neglecting the massive subsidies. Each dollar diverted from renewables to nukes brings climate catastrophe nearer.
No post body was provided.