Rant

[loopers]

So for the past couple weeks, I've been tossing around the idea that somebody (maybe me, if I had more time) should start a site based on the discussion of environmentalism based on science, economics, and engineering. The rationale behind this is that while I consider environmental issues to be extremely important, there are a huge number of

Comments

[hyuga]

I like this idea. On a side note, I've been wanting to write a book meant to educate lefties on the benefits and need for nuclear power. But I don't personally have the credentials to be credible on something like that, and it would require a lot of research. I need to find someone with actual relevant experience to write such a book with (not that I couldn't do it myself, but again, no credibility).

Sorry, that's just my pet peeve. That and the anti-GMO thing. There are good arguments on the side against it, but those arguments tend to be applied too broadly, and reactionary.

[loopers]

My dad works in the nuclear power industry, so I hear quite a few rants on that subject myself.

I'm pretty moderate on nuclear fission myself: I don't see nuclear power as ideal and think (and hope) renewables will supplant it in the long-term, but I think it is absolutely necessary in any sane approach to climate change for the next 50 years or so. The Greenpeace folks who think they can oppose nuclear and fossil fuels simultaneously and magically expect renewables to replace them both are living in a fantasy world. In reality, I think a mix of renewables when possible and nuclear when necessary, minimizing fossil fuels as much as possible, is the best viable strategy.

[hyuga]

Exactly. It's not a perfect solution either, but the downsides of fission are very, very localized problems compared to global climate change. Wind, solar, geothermal, and wave power are all great where available. But they're nowhere near enough to meet our energy needs, which are only going to increase, no matter how much we try to conserve.

[loopers]

Well, saying "nowhere near enough" isn't really correct. It would be more accurate to say they can't meet our needs with the current technology, economics, infrastructure and political climate. In discussion of nothing but quantity, they're actually vastly much more than enough.

For instance, the main thing stopping wind power right now is actually that wind turbine manufacturers can't keep up with the rapidly increasing demand for wind turbines. There are other issues, such as intermittence, grid distance issues and cost competitiveness, but they're mostly solvable. It is entirely possible to meet 100% of our energy needs through renewables, eventually.

It'll just take a very long while.