Hacker News Reader

Comment by RcouF1uZ4gsC | Hacker News Reader

This totally ignores nuclear energy. If we are really in for "catastropic" climate change, then one of the things you can do is quickly build crappy, unsafe nuclear power plants. Even if you have a Chernobyl somewhere in the world every 5 years, you are still probably better off than with catastrophic climate change.

Basically, it is this thinking that makes a lot of people suspicious about climate change. If all things that you would do to combat climate change are things the progressives/environmentalists want to do anyway (increase taxes, more government regulation of industry, more urbanization, more public transportation, etc) and nothing that they would not want to do, people on the other side of the political spectrum have their bs detector go off.

View on HN

There are a lot of people, like myself, who would love nothing more than having 100% nuclear power and understand climate change.

Unfortunately the left is as anti-science as the right when it comes to their sacred cows.

When one tries to analyze pros and contras of nuclear energy, he can get conflicting data. Some say "overall modern nuclear beats handily anything", other say "nuclear is good only if you omit externalities like problem of spent fuel". Both sides provide data which supports their point of view, without explaining the data of the other side. So it's hard to make a reasonable judgement.

> This totally ignores nuclear energy.

Yeah and it was a good comment without the us v them environmental bait. I say this as someone who supports nuclear but accepts the reality that building a new plant is essentially impossible to supply urban areas now. It has plenty of applications but we mostly live in democracies and even countries with strong nuclear support have been all cutting back after Fukushima, much to my dismay.

Small modular reactors should have a future for remote communities and a few other applications, space especially. The actual tech behind modern modular reactors is exciting[0]. Besides that the game is up for traditional nuclear plants that require decades to be built against horrendous public opposition in the face of a solar or wind farm that can be hooked up in a year for the same price. It's simply not viable anymore.

[0] https://www.nuscalepower.com/benefits/built-for-resilience

To continue what you're saying, why not put these plants in deserts and other uninhabited regions?

Russia is huge, China is 80% empty, America is sparse, Australia is 95% percent empty and India has a desert too. Power supply would be an issue but can be solved. (Numbers likely hyperbolic).

Instant solution of middle East problem. Perhaps that's why? Maybe Mideast is what stops nuclear plants, just like saudis, via Citibank, decided Obama cabinet?

Water is needed currently for nuclear power. https://nuclear.duke-energy.com/2014/01/22/importance-of-wat...

There is not enough uranium available to just switch to nuclear.

Bill Gates is trying to invent some slow wave something reactor needed to make that work but it is not working yet.

Is this a problem with the existence of ore, or a problem with the current supply chain?

It is the existence of it.

I don't see why this needs to be politicized this heavily. The facts are essentially indisputably in the side of climate disaster as likely. This shouldn't be the cause of 'progressives' (although maybe it should be the cause of 'environmentalists' -- even though I'm not sure who the heck should be an 'anti-environmentalist' in right mind), this should be just something we have to do as a species living on the planet. If 'progressives' picked it up and (some) 'conservatives' did not, I think it's an unfortunate failure of conservatives (and science communicators, and society as a whole, etc.).

I support Nuclear Energy too, but I can see it has difficulty gaining traction for a huge list of reasons, and this is across the political, social and economic spectrum. But basically the need for Nuclear is largely obsolete -- it was the only attractive option when Solar (and Wind to an extent) wasn't so cheap. Solar costs about the same or less, is available more or less everywhere, and has no contamination issues.

Also of very worthy note IMO is that the (electrical) energy supply isn't the whole picture. A good chunk of emissions are from transportation sector and some from industrial processes. There is also advocacy in those sectors (which comes off as 'progressive') simply because of consistency and necessity to achieve a reasonable climate plan. Note that nuclear energy, or solar energy, can't solely avoid incoming disasters.

Let me preface this by saying I believe in AGW, and that it's an existential risk.

> I don't see why this needs to be politicized this heavily

One huge reason is that the coincident ideologies of the left can't be taken seriously by those on the right. Or, put another way, they don't believe them.

Specifically, if one was truly serious about the urgency of solving climate change, they would not simultaneously advocate for raising the standard of living of non-Western populations to Western levels, before the carbon footprint required of said standard of living was dramatically reduced first.

Carbon emission reduction right now, with the urgency required to prevent collapse, is fundamentally incompatible with open borders. So when someone on the right sees an open-borders advocate clamoring for immediate carbon emissions reductions, the conclusion is not necessarily that they don't believe the science, it's that they don't believe you do. And the only valid conclusion is that you're motivated by politics, not by legitimate concern for the species.

Also, considering that the advocates don't seem to change their behaviors or lifestyles even marginally, the folks listening feel like the burden is being put on them. Why would I not take my family to Disneyland when I see private jets taking off ever more frequently from the private airport nearby? Cars are getting bigger, houses too, and apart from buying a Tesla, using LED lights, and a few other simple things, even the advocates don't seem to take global warming seriously. Why would average Joe panic when the celebrities, politicians, and even Gretta are traversing the world and attending fun events? Nobody seems to be sacrificing at all.

> things the progressives/environmentalists want to do anyway

Progressive/environmentalists are a smart bunch, and the movement has enough history. They figured already what's useful, why and how - now their predictions are getting more visible, have more support. To consider that bs just because somebody figured it earlier than you and now has even more arguments is sad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com