[PREV - BELL_BOTTOM_FUTURES] [TOP]
RADIOACTIVE_GREENS
May-July 2020
Must of us-- let's call my side the
"radioactive greens" for now (you don't want
me in charge of your marketing)-- aren't
actually completely hostile to wind and
solar, we just get pushed into this position (I keep toying with calling
by the overreach of the solar and wind the opposition "the rennies",
faction. but that's my flair for naming
things at work again...)
For years now it seems
like the attitude of
technological optimists The "Ted talk" debate between
has been that whatever Stewart Brand and Mark Z. Jacobsen
virtues advanced nuclear shows this well.
power might have there's
no point in thinking NUCLEAR_GALLUP
about it because wind and
solar are going to save
us all any day now.
To summarize the position:
Climate change is indeed a bad problem--
and it could easily be even worse than we
currently imagine.
Reducing our GHG emissions (CO2 *and* methane)
is critically important to slow climate change.
Burning coal remains public enemy number one.
Anything else is an improvement.
Burning any hydrocarbons (including natural gas) With the
is a bad idea-- *possible*
exception of
Solar and Wind are doing well, but that "biomass".
progress has often been exaggerated.
We have yet to make much of a dent in GHG
emissions.
Shutting down nuclear power plants because you
expect to get to solar/wind utopia real soon
is grossly short-sighted.
We almost certainly should be constructing new
nuclear capacity-- the objections to doing so
are answerable even with half-century old
technology, and we can do better now.
Research and Development of new nuclear designs
should be accelerated.
--------
[NEXT - RENNIE_REVIEW]