At this point if you are opposing nuclear power, you aren't taking climate change seriously, even if you say you are.
I think people get too focused on any one particular solution, and cannot see that a mixture of things probably is best. Nuclear for places that can tolerate it plus wind or solar for peak times. Hydro and solar/wind for places that can't.
I have heard for years, and at various times expounded myself, of the virtues of nuclear. But the public in most industrialized countries cannot stand the thought of it near them, so looking at a more balanced approach makes sense.
I agree that a mixture is necessary. With that being said, the examples you give are entirely technological, which I think is likely insufficient to solve climate change. I think we need a combination of technological, psychological, and political approaches.
For example, as a cyclist, I'm continually disappointed by the reasons people tell me they'd never be able to adopt cycling for transportation. I'm told that they wouldn't be able to do X, Y, or Z, or that they'd feel very restricted, etc. But when I tell them that most cyclists do X no problem and they could rent a car if they wanted to do Y and Z (which are done infrequently), they aren't convinced. It seems to me that many people face a false dilemma here because they see cycling as far more difficult than it actually would be. If you design your life to make cycling possible, it's perfectly acceptable, even preferable in my case because I want the exercise. Most people pick where they live based at least in part on their driving commute, so it would only be fair to do the same for a cycling commute.
Population reduction is another area which you could mention as part of a combination of solutions. In my experience those conversations are often counterproductive. But it seems clear to me that population can't keep increasing if we only have one planet, and we might prefer to have less people with a higher quality of life. (My views on population ethics are not fully formed for what it's worth.)
My view is that climate change is a lost cause, so instead I'm focusing on adaptation to the new normal.
I hate this attitude. You may be doing everything possible as an individual to prevent further climate change, but the majority of people I hear spouting this attitude do not.
It's based on the premise that there will actually be some sort of "new normal" that is worth surviving for. The ongoing impact of our actions is indeterminable - we could end up with something so inconceivably bad that all your adaptation efforts are pointless, or that you simply cannot live a life of any value when compared to the early 21st century.
Also, it smacks of "F*ck you, I've got mine". You assume that the impact of climate change are survivable, apparent by the fact that you want to focus on adaptation, but this attitude ignores the fact that there are billions of other people on the planet. Maybe climate change can be survived by us in our situation with all our first world advantages, but there are millions, possibly billions, who don't have that choice.
Focus on adaptation for all you like, but please don't forget that prevention is greater than cure and that it's not too late.
1) Exponential improvements with wind solar and batteries. They are all getting like 50% better / year. Project that and you can fix things
2) Re the confusion over different approaches, we have a solution and its called the market. Just have a global $50/ton tax/credit on emissions/sequestration. Politically hard but otherwise would likely fix rising CO2.
You're projecting. Parent's attitude is completely rational.
> prevention is greater than cure and that it's not too late
Not sure exactly what you think it's not too late for, however it is delusional to believe we will stabilise, let alone reduce, greenhouse gas levels.
* very cheap energy
* a somewhat effective way to sequester carbon
I don't know if this is possible. But we should at least try. Currently our lack of carbon pricing isn't giving us full incentive to try.
My money is not on goverments or companys here. My money is on some plague drastically reducing the number of humans capable to produce carbon dioxide. It looks containable now, but contain something like Ebola with millions on the move and the UN-Institutions collapsing under this circumstances.
You can not enforce quarantine, if a whole country decides to walk.
I don't like it either, but I think it's intellectually honest.
I live a fairly low carbon life, probably in the bottom 20% for people in the US. My main contribution is probably from flying a few times a year, which I don't intend to maintain long term. I don't own a car, avoid eating meat, and generally try to use less power when I have the opportunity.
From the left I hear a lot about how climate change is a major issue, but I see few efforts being made to actually address the problem. I don't count planning, by the way. We need action now, and we're not seeing it. And I also don't count efforts to make other people change their lifestyles when those promoting those efforts won't change themselves. That reeks of hypocrisy.
> It's based on the premise that there will actually be some sort of "new normal" that is worth surviving for.
No, it's not. It's based on the premise that the expected return for my effort would be higher for adaptation than trying to convince others to change their habits, making new technology to "solve" climate change, etc. That's not to say that the situation will be good in either case, just that one is better than the other.
I have little to no control over what others do, but I can control my own situation. I fully recognize that others may suffer enormously, but as far as I can tell I have few options to change much of that.
In focusing on adaptation, by the way, I'm thinking about things like offering engineering solutions to our changing world. This is not necessarily geoengineering, which by large won't work best I can tell. It might be things like flood resistant buildings, for example. As a mechanical engineer, I can help design things that will help others.
> prevention is greater than cure
I agree completely.
> that it's not too late.
This is debatable. As far as I'm concerned, the climate will change independent of any efforts I make. Some analyses suggest we're already beyond the point of no return. Even if that's not true, as far as I can tell there's been no practically significant slowing of greenhouse gas emissions, just mostly talk. Talk is cheap.
1) the situation now is that, as longterm as nuke waste is, it pales in comparison to the long-term of coal and natural gas extraction, transport, and burning.
2) renewables are great and where we want to go...but the tech is not at a place where we can get 100% yet and we have no efficient way to transmit power long distances nor store power, so we can't have solar in a desert in Arizona power Fargo Minnesota.
Why do you think nuke power likely doesn't make sense anymore?
I have not done the math but it seems that it would be faster, and more politically tenable to use decentralised solar virtual power plants and wind such that individual households become largely responsible for their own power and act in concert as the grid supplier and battery.
The main thing preventing this seems to be capital investment, regulation and political will.
Historically, nuclear power plants take years or decades to build, and at great cost. The risk to investors is so high that they only proceed with some kind of state-funded insurance.
If there really was a modern nuclear reactor design that would compete in the energy market with wind and solar, everyone would be building them already.
Given the lower ppp of Indian consumers, the Solar panels still aren't cheap enough (add to it the cost of wiring/batteries/accessories) and the government isn't providing enough subsidy (especially on imports). I can only hope that some Silicon Wafer manufacturing lands in India soon; otherwise the Energy transition will take forever.
edit: i cant reply so quickly due to rules so to clarify for what you asked me in response, I'm talking about being a certain radius away from a killzone. You need more information to verify this.