31–40 of 450 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's an absolutely crazy proposition because there are very few people who would choose to reduce their quality of life. It's far easier to switch to net-zero energy sources than it is to completely redefine society.
Some people think it's worth redefining society to protect the environment. I wouldn't agree with that absolutely either, but it's a logical and defensible position. It's not incoherent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's an absolutely crazy proposition because there are very few people who would choose to reduce their quality of life. It's far easier to switch to net-zero energy sources than it is to completely redefine society.
Some people think it's worth redefining society to protect the environment. I wouldn't agree with that absolutely either, but it's a logical and defensible position. It's not incoherent.
I keep hearing from people who think nuclear's a bad idea that "France is ramping down its reliance on nuclear power, so what does that tell you?" I wonder whether any will change their minds based on this news.
Well, France has 58 mostly old reactors and have 1 under construction and now announced 6 more. To keep their current level of nuclear production, they would have to build like 40 in the next 20-30 years.
I am skeptical to current nuclear power, would have liked Molten Salt Reactors instead. However I see leaders having to do something. Environmentalists are blocking construction of more wind power, and crisis with Russia makes gas less accessible. France has a relatively good track record on nuclear power. They may pull this off. 2035 is a really long time to wait for new power to the grid though.
>Environmentalists are blocking construction of more wind power Environmentalists really are their own worst enemies. When I was in high school near San Diego about 15 years ago, there was a huge amount of opposition to a solar power project. From environmentalists. There was a solar power plant out in Imperial County and the environmentalists were protesting the high voltage lines that would bring the power into San…
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-f...
I advise anyone not in the know to look into France's historical control of uranium mining in Niger. France's nuclear industry has long been fueled by a highly unequal neocolonial relationship with their former colony.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's an absolutely crazy proposition because there are very few people who would choose to reduce their quality of life. It's far easier to switch to net-zero energy sources than it is to completely redefine society.
Some people think it's worth redefining society to protect the environment. I wouldn't agree with that absolutely either, but it's a logical and defensible position. It's not incoherent.
Mostly these folks seem like neo-malthusians who just hate people and civilization.
I'm all for increasing bio-diversity, pulling carbon out of the air, and cleaning up waste but I don't think any of that requires us to use drastically less energy. If anything we should aim to make energy so clean and cheap that those other things become cheap and easy.
Is this that surprising given that the largest Nuclear power company (Areva) is based in France and was owned by the state?
Yes. It's not surprising that the largest nuclear power company is based in France because France has the largest share of power from nuclear of any country (>70%). However, like most Western countries, France's nuclear reactor building has largely stalled and they have been coasting on past accomplishments. If they succeed at building more reactors, it will be unusual (and imo good).
Second, Hinkley Point only went ahead when it was guaranteed an outrageously high strike price, for the electricity it will output.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't environmentalists' argument that we should reduce our power consumption, rather than destroying the environment to keep providing so much power? That's not as crazy a position as you make it out to be is it?
It's an absolutely crazy proposition because there are very few people who would choose to reduce their quality of life. It's far easier to switch to net-zero energy sources than it is to completely redefine society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Environmentalists are blocking construction of more wind power Environmentalists really are their own worst enemies. When I was in high school near San Diego about 15 years ago, there was a huge amount of opposition to a solar power project. From environmentalists. There was a solar power plant out in Imperial County and the environmentalists were protesting the high voltage lines that would bring the power into San…
> Environmentalists really are their own worst enemies. Doesn't almost everyone see themselves as an environmentalist these days? The problem is - the average "environmentalist" is not trying to maximize for anything. It's a broad bucket that almost everyone is falling into and there's almost zero common ground, no organization, etc. Of course there are going to be people that oppose almost everything that label them…
That is not a self evident claim. At least, most people do not belong to environmental advocacy groups. The largest one is the Sierra club, with 1% of the US population as members.
I advise anyone not in the know to look into France's historical control of uranium mining in Niger. France's nuclear industry has long been fueled by a highly unequal neocolonial relationship with their former colony.
Those days are long gone. France's nuclear industry is fueled by a legally-mandated diversified supply, chiefly from Kazakhstan, Australia and Canada.