It seems to me that abandoning nuclear power altogether and investing in greener technologies is the only real way forward. — thewonder

If it was only so. Still, nuclear power is a totally reasonable alternative. What's so bad in France using a lot less fossil fuel based energy production than other countries of it's size. All thanks to an investment in nuclear power.

The likely outcome is that if you ban nuclear power, you will get a lot of promises of investing in greener tech, but actually you have to resort to fossil fuels or otherwise start facing rolling blackouts.

In 1983 the bold headlines in the Newspaper read "ICE AGE COMING" — Rxspence

What newspaper? No scientific journal was saying an ice age was coming. This claim has been debunked for years. — Xtrix

Have to say what a meteorologist said about this. He firmly believed that an an ice age is coming and climate change (global warming or the greenhouse effect) is coming too. The first one in perhaps 50 000 to 500 000 years and the other one is happening just now.

If it was only so. Still, nuclear power is a totally reasonable alternative. What's so bad in France using a lot less fossil fuel based energy production than other countries of it's size. All thanks to an investment in nuclear power. — ssu

While it's true that the risks with nuclear power are not that great if we can assume a stable society and when they are treated with care. But they do need some continuous care and aftercare even after shutdown. Problem is that if society would break down, terrorism or war would become a thing again, this isn't longer all that evident... and the consequences are immense if something does go wrong, unlike with other power sources.

Have to say what a meteorologist said about this. He firmly believed that an an ice age is coming and climate change (global warming or the greenhouse effect) is coming too. The first one in perhaps 50 000 to 500 000 years and the other one is happening just now. — ssu

The claims about a coming ice age have been debunked, as I mentioned. This article is a good summary.

Despite problems with nuclear power, we need all hands on deck at this point, and nuclear emits no CO2.

The claims about a coming ice age have been debunked — Xtrix

We're presently in an interglacial period of an ice age. The glaciers will come back eventually. They're due to start coming back in the next 500-1000 years, but we'll probably miss the trigger this time. They'll be back in about 40,000 years or so.

Debunked
Df. reduce the inflated reputation of (someone), especially by ridicule.

Not proven incorrectt

generally speaking we have several options. It’s quite interesting to see how each option aligns with people’s belief as to whether we can successfully tackle such a seemingly insurmountable threat to the entirety of humanity.

Option one: the most talked about. Cut emissions, transition to renewable clean energy. There seems to be a race on towards fusion power for obvious reasons - harnessing the power of the sun on our planet will revolutionise the accessibility and abundance of power available to us as a species and its byproduct is helium and other inert and harmless compounds.

Option two: divide and conquer. Outsource to other planets. This is a bit of a “cop-out to me” as it’s more “dilutional” than “solution” based. Simply carry on activity as is but in new domains where resources are available.

Option three: cut demand. Birth control and population decline. Less people less demand. This involves bringing all countries to a first world parity where self actualisation takes precedent over reproduction and large families.

Option four: adapt. This to me is the most likely scenario. If there’s anything humans are good at it is innovating and adapting when our hand is forced and there is simply no other choice than to deal with our problems head on. This doesn’t mean climate change is avoided but rather our culture lifestyle and socioeconomic activity is slowly altered to sustain a quality of life in a changing world.

Option five: do nothing. Ignore the signs and see what happens.

Right now we’re essentially option 4. That’s the problem.

Preparation for more frequent disasters is barely beginning. Every year will see more of these wildfires and extreme temperatures from this point on, until it gets to the point where everyone has to wake up or die.

Rock bottom.

But by that point, we may not have time to turn it around. It may already be too late if we started tomorrow. That’s a hard fact to face, but it’s true. I really wish we weren’t gambling about this.

The coronavirus is an excellent parallel. The distrust in government has spread everywhere: the church, science, journalism, the media, teachers, education generally, advertising and business. They’re all treated with an equally skeptical eye, and that’s a mistake.

A particular consequence is manifested in widespread misinformation about the vaccines, a distrust of vaccinations, the medical community, the pharmaceutical industry, and even doctors.

What would you expect the outcome to be? Exactly what we’re seeing. Now what if COVID were more deadly? Then that mistrust will not only get them killed, which is sad enough, but many others as well who they infect. That’s happening now, but at a small scale. I can’t imagine what a larger one would look like. But that’s probably coming.

Climate change is slower and even less visible, and yet has the potential to be far more deadly. Far less media coverage, too. We’re gambling with this as well.

But they do need some continuous care and aftercare even after shutdown. — ChatteringMonkey

Absolutely. But the when actual alternative is energy production THAT KILLS PEOPLE ALL THE TIME EVERY DAY, it's a no brainer.

Let's take an example. Yes, for ages people and especially women cooked food with open fires and that smell of burning wood is at least to me very nice and calming. For a Finn immediately comes to mind that someone is warming a sauna, which is nice. Yet to cook with an open fire and inhale that smoke daily, many times during the day is simply a health hazard. Far more dangerous one fallout from a Chernobyl accident that happened over 1000km or more away from you.

I remember very well when Chernobyl happened. Just before it happened on Sunday there was a very small demonstration against nuclear power in front of our Parliament, but as nothing happens here actually, the main TV channel news was covering the demonstration. Even the activists were wavering in the effectiveness of their cause.

And then a warning came on the radio and TV. The Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK) that supervises radiation and nuclear safety in Finland announced that the radiation levels had risen, yet the level wasn't yet so dangerous to active safety precautions (like shelter inside). Only after that came the announcement that there had been a nuclear accident in Ukraine. Then for the next two weeks, the radiation levels went lower day after day.

And that summer there were far less butterflies than before. Only now (thanks to global warming) there are again a lot of butterflies. This of course isn't a scientific conclusion about the butterflies.

But that's it. The world worst nuclear accident, that put radiation into the atmosphere far more than all the nuclear test done above aground (which is equivalent of Pakistan and India having an all out nuclear war). That's nuclear energy at it's worst. A proper question would be, how many people has nuclear energy killed compared to coal energy?

Problem is that if society would break down, terrorism or war would become a thing again, this isn't longer all that evident... and the consequences are immense if something does go wrong, unlike with other power sources. — ChatteringMonkey

Yeah well, notice just what you are referring to. Starting from the fact that I wouldn't be communicating with you @ChatteringMonkey, I guess it wouldn't be our biggest concern then.

I'm certainly not prima facie or ideologically against nuclear power,... under stable conditions it does have somewhat of an overblown bad rep because of the few accidents, it's actually reasonably safe it seems.

I think it should be considered as a replacement for fossil fuels, certainly because carbon is the biggest problem right now. Nuclear waste would become a problem long term eventually, but short term that could be managed.

What does give me pause is that nuclear power only has been used in the relatively stable post WWII-period. That kind of stability is historically far from a given. And I think given climate change and other technological and societal challenges that are coming, things could get rough for a while. The numbers for death rate per watts don't capture that eventuality.

The question is do we really want to rely on something that potentially has disastrous consequences if things do go south? Maybe it's still better then the alternative, but it's something to consider I think.

There are about 60 nuclear power plants within 1000km from where I live, so you know, if any of them would meltdown, it probably would be quite bad.

It's at least worth a minute to see what they have to say, rather than exclusively trust and listen to what you would call "skeptics" (and I would call denialists). — Xtrix

By the way, in 1986 I was teaching Exploring Technology and 1996 Science.
This was part of the curriculum and we discussed scientific articles in Class.

What we need to do is to do to those who run the show what they have done to us: We need to harness them like work horses and put them to work for us. Subject them to the "human resources department" like they have done to us. Milk them for all they are worth. Trickle up, not trickle down. Stimulate those who actually do all the work and who will actually spend the stimulus stimulating. If those at the top want it to trickle up, then they can work for it. And work hard and smart for it. Working for the people, instead of the other way around. Pay a god damn tax for crying out loud.
— James Riley
So (if you still have the time to respond, or respond later) just what are you just exactly implying? More transfer payments in taxes? To whom are where? Just who works for whom? — ssu

I'm sorry, but I didn't think I was implying anything. I thought I spelled it out pretty clearly.

What does give me pause is that nuclear power only has been used in the relatively stable post WWII-period. That kind of stability is historically far from a given. And I think given climate change and other technological and societal challenges that are coming, things could get rough for a while. The numbers for death rate per watts don't capture that eventuality. — ChatteringMonkey

Let's just think here just why nuclear energy is seen as so dangerous while as coal is simply forgotten. If you say that far more, many multiple times more people die because of coal, people just shrug. Why so?

- When people think about nuclear energy, nuclear weapons and Hiroshima and Nagasaki come to mind. With coal or burning wood such thoughts don't come into mind.

- Radiation doesn't smell and cannot be fealt. People usually don't have any idea of what is a dangerous amount of radiation.

- People don't know that there is totally normal radiation in our environment. For example here in the Finnish capital there is so much radioactive Radon gas in the ground that special notice has to be taken in venting underground cellars and storage spaces.

- People can understand that inhaling smoke isn't good. If you inhale too much smoke, you will die. However, we have burnt wood and used coal for example for a really, really, long time.

The question is do we really want to rely on something that potentially has disastrous consequences if things do go south? Maybe it's still better then the alternative, but it's something to consider I think. — ChatteringMonkey

Actual alternatives and actual effects have to be what we base our decisions. Not lofty promises.

Running down or banning nuclear power is stupid if and unfortunately when it leaves to more use of fossil fuels. Only in the last years I think finally have renewables become competitive alternatives as the prices have come down.

I agree keeping nuclear power is probably necessary now because we can't transition to carbonfree energy fast enough as it is.

I agree keeping nuclear power is probably necessary now because we can't transition to carbonfree energy fast enough as it is. — ChatteringMonkey

That's a good and simple way to put it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/26/climate/tennessee-flood-damage-impact.html

Another example both of how capitalism encourages short-term thinking and lethal stupidity when it comes to climate change.

West Virginia creates jobs farming lavender at former coal mines

No reason this can't happen elsewhere.

https://www.newsweek.com/pope-francis-pleads-world-listen-cry-earth-climate-change-fight-1626788

Pope, along with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church, all put out this statement. That's a big deal.

Some other interesting current reading:

Climate Change Is The Greatest Threat To Public Health, Top Medical Journals Warn

Weather Disasters Have Become 5 Times As Common, Thanks In Part To Climate Change

Climate change should be the top story, daily, in every newspaper in the world.

Australian climate change politics has been a national and international disgrace and embarrassment since about 2010, largely due to the malign influence of mining interests and the reactionary knuckle draggers of the incumbent Conservative party, supported by the reactionary Murdoch press.

Finally the Murdoch media outlets in Australia have been directed to change their editorial tune, which has been vehemently denialist for decades. Scientists welcome the change, but say it’s too little, too late.

On a more positive note, read about the proof-of-concept factory in Iceland built to sponge CO² from the atmosphere. Long way to go, but it’s a start.

Yes. Also, some more good news: Harvard University, after 9 years of student activism, has finally divested their 42 billion dollar endowment from fossil fuels.

https://www.npr.org/2021/09/10/1035901596/harvard-university-end-investment-fossil-fuel-industry-climate-change-activism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL9aJcqrtnw

Adam McKay tackles climate change. Looks like a decent cast.

Trivia : My Scandinavian home country had a national referendum 1980 on whether Nuclear Power was to be allowed here. All the discussions here on the last page, I do remember(Just barely not old enough to actually vote) from the discussions leading up to that referendum. If something, better discussions, since the late 1970's-early 1980´s was a time(at least here) when political agendas were on a low for sexual appeal.
Global Warming was definitely a part of the discussions.

CO2 scrubbers

Artificial photosynthesis



Let's say climate activists haven't been able to make the case for global warming. Basically, we don't know if climate change is real/not.

Humans pride themselves as great strategists, we've even established a discipline that studies strategizing (game theory) and let's not forget to mention how much we praise good planning whether in the civilian or military sector.

What's the best gameplan for us given that we don't know the truth about climate change? Should we assume climate change is real or should we assume it isn't and act accordingly?

It seems that the whole issue of climate change is a problem in game theory. Go figure.

Basically, we don't know if climate change is real/not. — TheMadFool

???? It's VERY real!

Basically, we don't know if climate change is real/not.
— TheMadFool

???? It's VERY real! — SoftEdgedWonder

I have my doubts. Firstly, is it real? Secondly, have we found its cause, are humans to blame?

That said, my point is, let's give the naysayers their due and meet them halfway by admitting we aren't sure but then they'll have to come up with a strategem to deal with this unknown. Which is the best course of action - assume climate change is real or assume climate change isn't real? Game theoretically speaking.

Basically, we don't know if climate change is real/not. — TheMadFool

oh please. We haven't discovered America yet. We don't know how to kindle fires yet. We don't know if germs cause disease yet.

I have my doubts. Firstly, is it real? Secondly, have we found its cause, are humans to blame? — TheMadFool

Yes.

Yes.

I have my doubts. — TheMadFool

You have zero reason to doubt climate change, other than the misinformation you've been fed.

You have zero reason to doubt climate change, other than the misinformation you've been fed. — Olivier5

:up: