71–80 of 89 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think a rapid wholesale move to nuclear power is any more pragmatic than a rapid move to cut average per capita energy consumption in half.
One solution requires the economy to stall, the other does not. Take your best guess as to which one will have better public support.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what's the point of being a production leader? Shouldn't it be left to the free market? The Oil bias is in a sense, hampering innovation in efficiency in oil-consuming machines, notwithstanding effects on other energy sources. Remember, the great efficiency drive in automobiles started after the Middle East Oil crisis in 1979, if I'm not wrong...
The point is control -- look no further than the Carter Doctrine to understand the basis of America's foreign policy in the Middle East. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_doctrine It's the reason the US Marines have their own air force -- they don't want someone else second-guessing their decisions.
Great. So now the US'll just run out relatively sooner than they would have done compared with those guys. WTG short-term thinking with finite resources. Humans are idiots.
WTG short-term thinking with finite resources. Humans are idiots. Shale and gas is added to the thinking probably, enviro issues and all. Finite but it lasts 100+ years...
Even on a human scale it's not that long. There are people alive today who are one or two degrees away from significant historical events. "Human wormholes" (http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2012/02/07/146534518/raspu...) if you will.
There were some US civil war widows still alive in the 21st century. Think about that next time you think a 100 year supply is a lot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
WTG short-term thinking with finite resources. Humans are idiots. Shale and gas is added to the thinking probably, enviro issues and all. Finite but it lasts 100+ years...
A hundred years might seem like a long time, but in terms of civilization it's the blink of an eye. Even on a human scale it's not that long. There are people alive today who are one or two degrees away from significant historical events. "Human wormholes" ( http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2012/02/07/146534518/raspu... ) if you will. There were some US civil war widows still alive in the 21st century. Think about t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A hundred years might seem like a long time, but in terms of civilization it's the blink of an eye. Even on a human scale it's not that long. There are people alive today who are one or two degrees away from significant historical events. "Human wormholes" ( http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2012/02/07/146534518/raspu... ) if you will. There were some US civil war widows still alive in the 21st century. Think about t…
A hundred years is an eternity in terms of current technological advancement. We only learned the universe is accelerating its expansion in 1997. Think about that next time you think a 100 year supply is tiny.
What if we were in year 95 of the 100 year supply? How would you feel then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's more likely? That we'll convince people to cut their energy consumption in half, or convince people to purchase higher efficiency equipment and slowly move over to cleaner forms of energy as they become available? What's needed in the climate debate is a healthy dose of pragmatism.
What do you do when "pragmatism" doesn't produce the results you need? Maybe convincing people to cut their energy consumption in half isn't in the cards. At the same time, maybe that is what is needed. The universe doesn't have to cooperate to give us pragmatic solutions. If the "impossible" solution is required, and the "pragmatic" solution isn't sufficient... why should climate scientists advocate for the latter o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A hundred years is an eternity in terms of current technological advancement. We only learned the universe is accelerating its expansion in 1997. Think about that next time you think a 100 year supply is tiny.
They say Americans should learn that 100 years is not a long time just as Europeans should learn that 100 miles it not a long distance. What if we were in year 95 of the 100 year supply? How would you feel then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nearly every prominent climate scientist disagrees strongly with you, and sees the current move towards fracking as climate suicide.
I have a minority view: Climate change is now in a positive feedback loop (thawing tundra, forests burning, ocean acidification) and ceasing human activity won't stop it. I believe we need to proactively remove atmospheric CO2. Retool our economy and industrial might for that job. To do that, we need a strong economy. I'm not saying more, cheaper fossil fuels is a good thing. I just think we should play the cards we'…
But to effectively retool our economy requires a non-CO2 source of abundant power. I am not sure that nuclear as we know it now would fit the bill, because of the various construction and infrastructure costs. Using less is probably more practical then re-inventing nuclear power (iteratively improving nuclear power would still have value).