Some good news on climate

[GannonFan]

Of course we should try. But it's also going to have to be realistic. Energy production can and should rely heavily on nuclear, wind, and solar. We need to be realistic and push these nuclear options through without the steadfast resistance that has met them to date. Cars should certainly be pushing towards hybrid at a minimum and that could happen today. Going full-on electric isn't something that's feasible today (sourcing battery components is problematic, ensuring rapid charging stations nationwide are in place is far from realizable at the moment but getting there, and of course the cars just cost way too much to allow people to make the move) but could be ten years from now. Increasing mileages to over 50 mpg (and in some cases well above that) should be relatively straightforward and we're already moving in that direction. Those two things will go a long way to making the US a significantly lower emitter in the years ahead.

The real challenge now, assuming that we can convince the left to go nuclear and can convince the right to go electric with vehicles (and both groups have been stubborn to say the least before and partly why we are where we are today) is what to do with the rest of the world. Both China and India, among others, are going to be significant emitters for decades to come, as well as other collections of developing nations. It's not really feasible for them to go all nuclear nor would we really want that unless safety can be controlled by groups outside of those countries. And the population of the world is obviously an issue (people keep breathing and needing to eat) so how do we control that without going all Malthusian. Making America a net zero emitter is really the easier thing to do - but it doesn't do much for the world and for the global climate if we don't have answers for other things. Saying that we're not going to fly airplanes and never drive again or eliminate cows from the world aren't legitimate environmental policies, nor is lowering the standards of living. But everything else is on the table.

This a solid summary.

We are attached to the convenience of oil infrastructure and delicious beef. Much of the rest of the world follows suit.

And the oil infrastructure obviously goes far further than just generating electricity and providing fuel for cars and homes. Look around your desk at work or at home and count up the things that include any amount of plastics - computers, screens, tables, cubicle dividers, cords, writing utensils, headphones, electrical outlets, picture frames, etc. And even if they don't include oils in them as a final product the steps in manufacturing to some extent probably do. It's going to be hard or next to impossible to eliminate those things anytime soon. That's why power generation (go nuclear) and vehicles (go hybrid cars, and then go full electric when feasible) are the biggest areas we should target. But we need to realize the damage from the past 30-40 years is already done and we're going to feel that for decades to come, and unless we can figure out how to let the developing world lift itself up without duplicating the Industrial Revolution then we're going to have decades more damage ahead of us. We need to stop throwing paint on priceless works of art and sprinkling dust over golf courses during tournaments and really get started on those space cruise ships we all used in Wall-E.

[BDKJMU]

I don't remember her advocating for widespread nuclear power in the '80's when we could've really made gains in reducing greenhouse emissions due to power generation. The climate mess is a collective failure by all sides in politics - too much focus on politics rather than on genuine avenues for environmental improvements. Nothing we do now is going to have any significant effect on the next few decades.

Nuclear had issues in the 80s that it doesn't have today because the technology has advanced and we're more careful about stuff like building plants on earthquake faults. Small decentralized nuke plants without weaponizable waste are doable now, and should be .

See something I believe this entire board left/right/center agrees on, but has slim chance of happening in the near future because of entrenched resistance from the left.

[BDKJMU]

I don't remember her advocating for widespread nuclear power in the '80's when we could've really made gains in reducing greenhouse emissions due to power generation. The climate mess is a collective failure by all sides in politics - too much focus on politics rather than on genuine avenues for environmental improvements. Nothing we do now is going to have any significant effect on the next few decades.

Nothing?

We shouldn’t even try?

Like GF and Densedawg had already stated- Nuclear.

[BDKJMU]

We should. What will happen is that the usual crowd will start up a steady drumbeat of: "See? Nothing is changing, these ineffective restrictions are hurting bidniz and should be done away with immediately in the interest of shareholder values".

Of course we should try. But it's also going to have to be realistic. Energy production can and should rely heavily on nuclear, wind, and solar. We need to be realistic and push these nuclear options through without the steadfast resistance that has met them to date. Cars should certainly be pushing towards hybrid at a minimum and that could happen today. Going full-on electric isn't something that's feasible today (sourcing battery components is problematic, ensuring rapid charging stations nationwide are in place is far from realizable at the moment but getting there, and of course the cars just cost way too much to allow people to make the move) but could be ten years from now. Increasing mileages to over 50 mpg (and in some cases well above that) should be relatively straightforward and we're already moving in that direction. Those two things will go a long way to making the US a significantly lower emitter in the years ahead.

The real challenge now, assuming that we can convince the left to go nuclear and can convince the right to go electric with vehicles (and both groups have been stubborn to say the least before and partly why we are where we are today) is what to do with the rest of the world. Both China and India, among others, are going to be significant emitters for decades to come, as well as other collections of developing nations. It's not really feasible for them to go all nuclear nor would we really want that unless safety can be controlled by groups outside of those countries. And the population of the world is obviously an issue (people keep breathing and needing to eat) so how do we control that without going all Malthusian. Making America a net zero emitter is really the easier thing to do - but it doesn't do much for the world and for the global climate if we don't have answers for other things. Saying that we're not going to fly airplanes and never drive again or eliminate cows from the world aren't legitimate environmental policies, nor is lowering the standards of living. But everything else is on the table.

Also the grid couldn’t handle it.

[GannonFan]

I don't remember her advocating for widespread nuclear power in the '80's when we could've really made gains in reducing greenhouse emissions due to power generation. The climate mess is a collective failure by all sides in politics - too much focus on politics rather than on genuine avenues for environmental improvements. Nothing we do now is going to have any significant effect on the next few decades.

Nuclear had issues in the 80s that it doesn't have today because the technology has advanced and we're more careful about stuff like building plants on earthquake faults. Small decentralized nuke plants without weaponizable waste are doable now, and should be .

3 mile island happened in 1979. Bhopal happened in 1984. The world of workplace safety and EHS improvements, at least in the US, has been night and day between those years and now and really by the late 80's were already vastly improved. And we never would've built a plant like Chernobyl here. We could've been doing so much more with nuclear by at least 1990, but that's already 30 years ago and we lost 30 years of environmental progress because greens on the left couldn't get past their nuclear aversions they built up in the 60's and 70's. The irony of environmentalists being one of the major causes for environmental damage today. As you say, we should be moving along with small, decentralized nuke plants, but I fear we're at least 10 years away from that right now and probably even much longer than that. We can't change the climate today or 10 years from now based on what we do today, but we're going to be paying for this inaction 20-50 years down the road and much further than we should.

[GannonFan]

Of course we should try. But it's also going to have to be realistic. Energy production can and should rely heavily on nuclear, wind, and solar. We need to be realistic and push these nuclear options through without the steadfast resistance that has met them to date. Cars should certainly be pushing towards hybrid at a minimum and that could happen today. Going full-on electric isn't something that's feasible today (sourcing battery components is problematic, ensuring rapid charging stations nationwide are in place is far from realizable at the moment but getting there, and of course the cars just cost way too much to allow people to make the move) but could be ten years from now. Increasing mileages to over 50 mpg (and in some cases well above that) should be relatively straightforward and we're already moving in that direction. Those two things will go a long way to making the US a significantly lower emitter in the years ahead.

The real challenge now, assuming that we can convince the left to go nuclear and can convince the right to go electric with vehicles (and both groups have been stubborn to say the least before and partly why we are where we are today) is what to do with the rest of the world. Both China and India, among others, are going to be significant emitters for decades to come, as well as other collections of developing nations. It's not really feasible for them to go all nuclear nor would we really want that unless safety can be controlled by groups outside of those countries. And the population of the world is obviously an issue (people keep breathing and needing to eat) so how do we control that without going all Malthusian. Making America a net zero emitter is really the easier thing to do - but it doesn't do much for the world and for the global climate if we don't have answers for other things. Saying that we're not going to fly airplanes and never drive again or eliminate cows from the world aren't legitimate environmental policies, nor is lowering the standards of living. But everything else is on the table.

Also the grid couldn’t handle it.

Yup, that's also why we can't go all electric right away. Somewhere in the 2030's? Sure, but not any sooner.

[houndawg]

Nuclear had issues in the 80s that it doesn't have today because the technology has advanced and we're more careful about stuff like building plants on earthquake faults. Small decentralized nuke plants without weaponizable waste are doable now, and should be .

See something I believe this entire board left/right/center agrees on, but has slim chance of happening in the near future because of entrenched resistance from the left.

right on time...

..the fossil fuel industry lobbies, lavishly, against allalternative sources of energy - using money from the billions we give them in subsidies. They take the profits you "subsidize" the loss.

[BDKJMU]

See something I believe this entire board left/right/center agrees on, but has slim chance of happening in the near future because of entrenched resistance from the left.

right on time...

..the fossil fuel industry lobbies, lavishly, against allalternative sources of energy - using money from the billions we give them in subsidies. They take the profits you "subsidize" the loss.

So you’ve missed all the liberal opposition to nuclear energy the last 40 years..

[GannonFan]

right on time...

..the fossil fuel industry lobbies, lavishly, against allalternative sources of energy - using money from the billions we give them in subsidies. They take the profits you "subsidize" the loss.

So you’ve missed all the liberal opposition to nuclear energy the last 40 years..

They were just pawns of the oil industry apparently. They were playing checkers and the oil industry was playing chess.

[houndawg]

This a solid summary.

We are attached to the convenience of oil infrastructure and delicious beef. Much of the rest of the world follows suit.

And the oil infrastructure obviously goes far further than just generating electricity and providing fuel for cars and homes. Look around your desk at work or at home and count up the things that include any amount of plastics - computers, screens, tables, cubicle dividers, cords, writing utensils, headphones, electrical outlets, picture frames, etc. And even if they don't include oils in them as a final product the steps in manufacturing to some extent probably do. It's going to be hard or next to impossible to eliminate those things anytime soon. That's why power generation (go nuclear) and vehicles (go hybrid cars, and then go full electric when feasible) are the biggest areas we should target. But we need to realize the damage from the past 30-40 years is already done and we're going to feel that for decades to come, and unless we can figure out how to let the developing world lift itself up without duplicating the Industrial Revolution then we're going to have decades more damage ahead of us. We need to stop throwing paint on priceless works of art and sprinkling dust over golf courses during tournaments and really get started on those space cruise ships we all used in Wall-E.

It does, but fossil fuels are where we could have the most impact the quickest - your point about the damage already done is crucial because the (negative) slope of that curve is continually increasing such that going forward we're quickly going to see larger increments of change over smaller increments of time.

[houndawg]

right on time...

..the fossil fuel industry lobbies, lavishly, against allalternative sources of energy - using money from the billions we give them in subsidies. They take the profits you "subsidize" the loss.

So you’ve missed all the liberal opposition to nuclear energy the last 40 years..

See above about advances in technology, etc. 40 years ago the nuclear industry was much different and climate-wise we're just along for the ride now

[UNI88]

So you’ve missed all the liberal opposition to nuclear energy the last 40 years..

See above about advances in technology, etc. 40 years ago the nuclear industry was much different and climate-wise we're just along for the ride now

Both of you are working really hard to avoid responsibility for "your side".

Ganny got it right. Both sides share blame. The left for continuing to be against nuclear even after it became much safer and the right for protecting and subsidizing the fossil fuel industry.

[GannonFan]

So you’ve missed all the liberal opposition to nuclear energy the last 40 years..

See above about advances in technology, etc. 40 years ago the nuclear industry was much different and climate-wise we're just along for the ride now

The thing is I don't think we're any closer to championing nuclear energy now than we were any time in the past 40 years (and really we've been able to make safe nuclear plants pretty close to the start of that 40 years). Who here really thinks we're going to have any significant investment in nuclear energy in the next 10, or even the next 20 years, that results in any significant increase in nuclear power generation? And while we bicker about it for the next 10-20 years, we'll keep burning fossil fuels because we don't have any better achievable alternative for sustained power. Wind and solar are great and very useful, but they can't satisfy 24 hour, point demand all the time, and we're going to need a lot more energy to do the second thing, which is to go all-electric with most vehicles.

[houndawg]

See above about advances in technology, etc. 40 years ago the nuclear industry was much different and climate-wise we're just along for the ride now

Both of you are working really hard to avoid responsibility for "your side".

Ganny got it right. Both sides share blame. The left for continuing to be against nuclear even after it became much safer and the right for protecting and subsidizing the fossil fuel industry.

Bullshit. I stated exactly why I have changed my opinion about nuclear power.

You're the one thats trying too hard with your "everybody but me is a hypocrite" schtik. You must be the life of the party wherever you go.

[houndawg]

See above about advances in technology, etc. 40 years ago the nuclear industry was much different and climate-wise we're just along for the ride now

The thing is I don't think we're any closer to championing nuclear energy now than we were any time in the past 40 years (and really we've been able to make safe nuclear plants pretty close to the start of that 40 years). Who here really thinks we're going to have any significant investment in nuclear energy in the next 10, or even the next 20 years, that results in any significant increase in nuclear power generation? And while we bicker about it for the next 10-20 years, we'll keep burning fossil fuels because we don't have any better achievable alternative for sustained power. Wind and solar are great and very useful, but they can't satisfy 24 hour, point demand all the time, and we're going to need a lot more energy to do the second thing, which is to go all-electric with most vehicles.

The same people that would be foolish enough to think that the fossil fuel industry wouldn't fight against it tooth and nail and spend whatever it took to deep six such competition? No?

[GannonFan]

The thing is I don't think we're any closer to championing nuclear energy now than we were any time in the past 40 years (and really we've been able to make safe nuclear plants pretty close to the start of that 40 years). Who here really thinks we're going to have any significant investment in nuclear energy in the next 10, or even the next 20 years, that results in any significant increase in nuclear power generation? And while we bicker about it for the next 10-20 years, we'll keep burning fossil fuels because we don't have any better achievable alternative for sustained power. Wind and solar are great and very useful, but they can't satisfy 24 hour, point demand all the time, and we're going to need a lot more energy to do the second thing, which is to go all-electric with most vehicles.

The same people that would be foolish enough to think that the fossil fuel industry wouldn't fight against it tooth and nail and spend whatever it took to deep six such competition? No?

They don't even need to try very hard to do that - they still have the enviro whackos on the far left who think anything nuclear is the devil's work. How the fossil fuel industry has been able to coopt the far left to do its bidding to keep us away from clean nuclear power is nothing short of amazing.

[houndawg]

Also the grid couldn’t handle it.

Yup, that's also why we can't go all electric right away. Somewhere in the 2030's? Sure, but not any sooner.

Bringing the grid up to snuff for the future is a big project obviously, but also obviously something well within our ability to accomplish. The thing that isn't within our ability to accomplish is to envision a planet-wide grid that harvests energy 24/7

[houndawg]

The same people that would be foolish enough to think that the fossil fuel industry wouldn't fight against it tooth and nail and spend whatever it took to deep six such competition? No?

They don't even need to try very hard to do that - they still have the enviro whackos on the far left who think anything nuclear is the devil's work. How the fossil fuel industry has been able to coopt the far left to do its bidding to keep us away from clean nuclear power is nothing short of amazing.

"Amazing"?

You need to get out more.... its a simple case of politics makes strange bedfellows - two groups opposed to nuclear power combine forces to fight a common enemy. The enemy of my enemy is my friend...nothing "amazing" about it.


The "enviro whackos on the left have shit for political power and are easily brushed aside, as they are every time there is enough profit to be taken. They do make for a great scapegoat - all the little old ladies in tennis shoes bringing commerce to a halt because of a tiny fish somewhere

[kalm]

They don't even need to try very hard to do that - they still have the enviro whackos on the far left who think anything nuclear is the devil's work. How the fossil fuel industry has been able to coopt the far left to do its bidding to keep us away from clean nuclear power is nothing short of amazing.

"Amazing"?

You need to get out more.... its a simple case of politics makes strange bedfellows - two groups opposed to nuclear power combine forces to fight a common enemy. The enemy of my enemy is my friend...nothing "amazing" about it.


The "enviro whackos on the left have shit for political power and are easily brushed aside, as they are every time there is enough profit to be taken. They do make for a great scapegoat - all the little old ladies in tennis shoes bringing commerce to a halt because of a tiny fish somewhere

Truth be told, we should all be enviro “whackos”.

[houndawg]

"Amazing"?

You need to get out more.... its a simple case of politics makes strange bedfellows - two groups opposed to nuclear power combine forces to fight a common enemy. The enemy of my enemy is my friend...nothing "amazing" about it.


The "enviro whackos" on the left have shit for political power and are easily brushed aside, as they are every time there is enough profit to be taken. They do make for a great scapegoat - all the little old ladies in tennis shoes bringing commerce to a halt because of a tiny fish somewhere

Truth be told, we should all be enviro “whackos”.

calling somebody that doesn't agree with continuing to poison the atmosphere an "enviro-whacko" speaks volumes on its own



We will be after its too late

[houndawg]

The same people that would be foolish enough to think that the fossil fuel industry wouldn't fight against it tooth and nail and spend whatever it took to deep six such competition? No?

They don't even need to try very hard to do that - they still have the enviro whackos on the far left who think anything nuclear is the devil's work. How the fossil fuel industry has been able to coopt the far left to do its bidding to keep us away from clean nuclear power is nothing short of amazing.

.... your near-continual contention, over many threads for many years, that its the Greens and the Left that are slowing our transition from fossil fuels and then one day assert that they were coopted by Big Oil......thats like...wow...

[GannonFan]

"Amazing"?

You need to get out more.... its a simple case of politics makes strange bedfellows - two groups opposed to nuclear power combine forces to fight a common enemy. The enemy of my enemy is my friend...nothing "amazing" about it.


The "enviro whackos on the left have shit for political power and are easily brushed aside, as they are every time there is enough profit to be taken. They do make for a great scapegoat - all the little old ladies in tennis shoes bringing commerce to a halt because of a tiny fish somewhere

Truth be told, we should all be enviro “whackos”.

I agree, if we could separate the anti-nuke position from the rest of the enviro-whacko agenda.

[GannonFan]

They don't even need to try very hard to do that - they still have the enviro whackos on the far left who think anything nuclear is the devil's work. How the fossil fuel industry has been able to coopt the far left to do its bidding to keep us away from clean nuclear power is nothing short of amazing.

"Amazing"?

You need to get out more.... its a simple case of politics makes strange bedfellows - two groups opposed to nuclear power combine forces to fight a common enemy. The enemy of my enemy is my friend...nothing "amazing" about it.


The "enviro whackos on the left have shit for political power and are easily brushed aside, as they are every time there is enough profit to be taken. They do make for a great scapegoat - all the little old ladies in tennis shoes bringing commerce to a halt because of a tiny fish somewhere

Sure, I agree that it's similar interests that have resulted in losing 40 years of environmental progress due to not adopting nuclear power on a large scale.

As for "shit for political power", come on, you can't be serious? We don't get the Clean Air Act, OSHA, and a whole host of other really fantastic legislation and policies if we didn't have significant push for this from the environmental lobby. There's real power there, whether it's in Wash DC or in the various federal courts throughout the country. They should get a lot of credit for those groundbreaking achievements, just as much as they should get the scorn for, consciously, completely blocking nuclear power as a real option and letting fossil fuels be burned at large quantities for the past 40 years.

[GannonFan]

Truth be told, we should all be enviro “whackos”.

calling somebody that doesn't agree with continuing to poison the atmosphere an "enviro-whacko" speaks volumes on its own



We will be after its too late

If you can't handle a little name calling in this world then you should get back under the sheets you woke up under this morning and try again tomorrow. Maybe even order some big boy pants from Amazon and see if that helps. The adults here can certainly continue the conversation in your absence.

[UNI88]

Both of you are working really hard to avoid responsibility for "your side".

Ganny got it right. Both sides share blame. The left for continuing to be against nuclear even after it became much safer and the right for protecting and subsidizing the fossil fuel industry.

Bullshit. I stated exactly why I have changed my opinion about nuclear power.

You're the one thats trying too hard with your "everybody but me is a hypocrite" schtik. You must be the life of the party wherever you go.

As Ganny said, nuclear has been much safer for the past 40 years but you didn’t come around until recently because it "wasn’t safe". That’s an excuse. You walked in lockstep with the left for many of those 40 years until you finally opened your eyes.