You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

4
49

[–] 51rH0n3y84d93r 4 points 49 points (+53|-4) ago 

So, can we roll out massive nuclear power? No? OK, OK, how about renewable like hydro-power? No?

Instead you want to remove the hydro-electric dams and invent a convoluted scheme of carbon credits? I'm not sure I follow your reasoning...

[–] [deleted] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

2
0

[–] Hipophoralcus 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

There is a problem with that.Big areas where the forests were cut down the soil is not capable of supplying nutrients to a new forest.The old forests could live there because the big trees dropped leaves,branches etc.Without that,a desert is in making.

4
6

[–] HAPPYBEN 4 points 6 points (+10|-4) ago 

There's been few times where government has had reasoning worth following.

2
4

[–] Antipodes 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago 

Dropping a few billion into fusion research? No? Hey, how about adding some SO2 to the atmosphere, simulating a volcanic eruption, which can easily drop the planet's temperature by a good degree or more, since that's what Krakatoa did back in 1883? No? Right then...

1
2

[–] Crashmarik 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Fusion has been a rat hole. I have been hearing how it was right around the corner for the past 50 years by the people making grant proposals, the people doing the work are don't hold your breath.

What you see with the current research is too many people bet on the Tokomak and now they can't admit it isn't a winner.

0
1

[–] tame 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

"Nobody knows who started the war between us and the machines. We do know that it was us who scorched the sky."

1
0

[–] mamwad 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

The fight against nuclear was funded by the petroleum industry. Combine that with the fact that political activists are often scientifically illiterate, environmentalist groups fought nuclear to an irrational extent. It was a huge mistake on the part of the green movement to reject nuclear as a major way to combat rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

But, that is slowly changing. More environmentalists are realizing that wind and solar cannot currently produce enough power to meet demands, and are softening their stance on nuclear. Even first generation nuclear plants are far less harmful to human populations than oil, gas, or coal. And from what I understand "next generation" nuclear plants can actually use old nuclear waste as fuel. At this point, I think that any environmentalist that doesn't suggest nuclear as the major path forward is not intellectually respectable as an environmentalist.

As for hydro, I disagree. While renewable, it reeks havoc with ecosystems. If we transition to modern nuclear technology, we won't need it anyway.

1
0

[–] 51rH0n3y84d93r 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

We have a winner! Hydro would be a preferred option if nuclear was blocked. IE: If anthropogenic climate change will kill off numerous species, cause global droughts, and cause global starvation, hydro is better than nothing. (I'm still a fan of hydro in certain circumstances, but nuclear breeder reactors are the best option.)