We can't let nuclear distract us from the goal, which is preventing more serious warming.
---
[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/09/humans-have-...
First, the time it takes to build a nuclear plant is not an unalterable law of nature. Second, when people were saying that we should build more plants 20 years ago, a common objection was that it would be useless because it would take 20 years and by then everything would be powered by clean renewables. I'm similarly unconvinced that wind and solar will provide everything we need by 2040.
Have you actually looked at the numbers for renewable energy installations, or is this just based on personal incredulity?
While the nuclear industry has been shouting about how we need nuclear, the US has installed about 20GW worth of renewable generation in one year. That is equivalent to about ten nuclear power plants (in the US, most plants are 1-2GW; a few are 3-3.5.)
40% of our installed capacity over the last 2 years has been renewable energy sources, and both wind and solar installed capacity is growing at a nearly logarithmic scale. The only thing cheaper than wind is solar, and both are continuing to get cheaper.
Those figures, by the way, are for utility/grid scale projects and do not include residential systems.
Utilities already consider this a solved problem and have now shifted focus to storage technology.
There is a strong online PR effort by the nuclear industry because they are desperate to stay in business I'm not exaggerating when I say that the blog of a guy who runs such a PR consulting firm has been featured more than once here on HN.
The nuclear waste problem is solvable but has not yet been solved in the US. Nuclear power plants are decade-scale projects and even once they sync up to the grid, it takes them another decade just to offset the carbon impact of their construction.
Nuclear power plants have very high OPEX and very deep/complex/exacting supply chains when we're seeing lots of supply chain issues due to climate change.
Reactor vessels require very high grade metal and specialized firms, and those firms have years if not decades long waiting lists. We can't just snap our fingers and create more reactor vessel manufacturers.
No wind farm or solar farm has caused a catastrophe of any sort, much less one that renders thousands of square miles of land uninhabitable for a century.
Wind and solar do not generate material that is extremely lethal and weaponizable.
The list goes on and on.
Boy, that sure sounds promising
Should we avoid particularly large climate changes? Well, yes, mostly for Chesterton's Fence reasons. But I'm far from panic.
Time will tell who wins out.
Then you haven't read much.
I suggest looking into the North Atlantic current, ENSO, ocean acidification, and long term forecasts of glacier formation, drought, fire, flooding, tropical storms, heat waves, and other extreme weather phenomena. Just skimming through the first few pages of the -- extremely conservative -- IPCC report should upend your current notion that global warming "may well end up being a net benefit".
Global warming does not simply mean the world uniformly heats up a degree. It means more energy is injected into the atmosphere, adding additional chaos and instability to an already chaotic and unpredictable system. This will mean more extreme weather, steep reduction in fish stocks and agricultural productivity that will shock the food system, and mass migrations of people unlucky enough to be born in those regions most badly affected.
To believe that global warming -- literally a global problem -- isn't "a particularly large problem" is akin to saying covid is "a bit of a cold". That statement spectacularly underestimates the scope and scale of the threat, and ignores the chorus of experts who have spent the last half-century being depressingly accurate (or even conservative) in all their forecasts.
You are "ok with 1.5C" because you don't understand what it means.
There are quite a lot "pretty bad" things out there.
Now consider that almost every previous cycle of the IPCC report has missed its forecasted marks because it was too conservative.
The IPCC report is the toned down, let's-not-rock-the-boat version of the scientific community's view regarding the unfolding climate disaster. It is an optimistic set of forecasts, with loads of hedging.
One thing particularly strange about climate change alarmists is that they are just so damn sure of all these horrible outcomes that are absolutely sure to happen.
You're forecasting, dude. You don't have a crystal ball. Yet your statements, and those of all the alarmists, are those of the totally cocksure.
I live near Glacier National Park. In the early 2000s, some climate change model predicted the glaciers would be gone by 2020. All the entrance signs were modified to state this to every single visitor: Enjoy 'em while they last, friends, but climate change will render these glaciers puddles by just 2020!
Well, come 2020, the glaciers are still right there. A bit smaller. But also nowhere near gone.
Failed predictions and shrill screeching forecasting failures stack up over and over from all the alarmists and yet still they, as you do here, fail to have any humility, any sense that, hey, maybe you don't know it's the end of the world for sure.
It's a shame you didn't quote more of my first sentence there. Let me help: "This will mean more extreme weather..."
Guess what 2021 featured? A 1000 year heat wave in the oh-so-temperate Pacific Northwest, at temperatures previously considered physically impossible in that region. And a few months prior? Record-setting cold wiped out the grid in Houston and plunged a big chunk of Texas into survival mode.
If you're looking for an all-at-once calamity to herald the coming of Climate Doom, you're gonna have to watch the movies. Because what all the science clearly indicates is a gradual, inexorable increase in extreme phenomena.
> You're forecasting, dude. You don't have a crystal ball. Yet your statements, and those of all the alarmists, are those of the totally cocksure.
I mean, we're having an informal discussion on the internet, where scientific jargon and careful discussion of error bars gets in the way of clear communication. But I can still be pretty damn confident of those predictions because climate change isn't some far-off future possibility. It's unfolding all around us, as we speak. The increase in extreme weather? It's been going on for 50 years.
Rising temperatures? Droughts? Floods? Fires? They're all on the upswing and have been for long enough that it's impossible at this point to attribute them all to some statistical anomaly.
Let's put it another way. If you catch me playing with matches on the couch and exclaim, "You'll burn the house down!", I probably have some cause to accuse you of being overly dramatic. If, on the other hand, the house is already on fire, my protestations that "You can't be so cocksure it'll be uncomfortable to live in the house" sound pretty ridiculous.
> I live near Glacier National Park.
Cool. That's an anecdote. Not data. Do you have any actual data to support your stance that climate scientists -- climatologists, meteorologists, geologists, etc -- the world over are "alarmists"?
> Failed predictions and shrill screeching forecasting failures stack up over and over from all the alarmists and yet still they, as you do here, fail to have any humility, any sense that, hey, maybe you don't know it's the end of the world for sure.
Straw man. Nobody's claiming it'll be the end of the world. The planet will be just fine. Humans will simply find it a more inhospitable place in which to live. Which is what I said. And all those "shrill screeching forecasting failures" from the last 30 years have, on average, been too conservative, forecasting slower warming.
You just haven't noticed because you don't want to believe it might be true. I understand the emotional reaction. It's the same thing that compels people to refuse to believe that covid exists or vaccines work. Doesn't mean it's a logical or accurate stance, though.
The historical lag time comes from the period of rapid technological improvement and regulatory change where projects had to be redesigned multiple times mid project.
If you think grid scale solar and wind are just as susceptible to bad regulation, NIMBYs, graft, and bureaucratic nonsense then you may not be paying attention. Note the lack of offshore wind in the US.
Existing nuclear power tech could displace natural gas and coal without the need for storage or much land. We also wouldn’t need to overhaul the grid.
Also, USA might take 30 years, but then USA is infamous for having trouble building any infrastructure these days. Global warming and energy scarcity is a global problem.
Yes, and I also didn't say that. Again, do not put words in my mouth. I'm getting really tired of your disingenuous, bad faith non-arguments.
We could store hydrogen in those caverns instead.