We are still screwed: the coming climate disaster


I agree with some of what you said, but the anti-GMO crowd is directly responsible for the slow roll out of life (and vision) saving crops. Their constant and fiction-based fear-mongering has led to public outcries against safe foods in developed and developing countries.


Hinkley has a rated production of 3200 megawatts.

The current construction cost of a natural gas power plant is around $965 per kilowatt.

So that means you would pay 3.088 billion for the same production capacity in natural gas. Sounds like a pretty good deal. You’re paying 20 billion extra for the nuclear plant.

But the nuclear plant also includes 35 years of nuclear fuel in that cost. So what is the cost of natural gas for fueling 35 years of 3200 MWe production? I’d have to dig more, but I’m guessing it’s pretty expensive, and it’s gonna get more expensive.


In terms of risk, if natural gas goes up or down, you can only operate when the price is profitable and you save a lot of your costs (due to fuel fluctuations or to high-demand times of day) The nuclear plant is a 35 year bet that your local power market will be there decades later wanting to buy the electricity for the same cost.


Bear in mind the UK government has also guaranteed an off take price for Hinkley way above the wholesale price


And the fear about nuclear contamination has directly lead to projects to shut down reactors in Germany and other European countries, even though the real potential damage of nuclear power stations pales in comparison to the direct (human health) and indirect (impact on climate) of traditional energy sourced. That fear is directly created through anti-nuclear discourse (AND public ignorance, but that’s always a given in these subjects).

I do agree with some of the @MrGrumpy comments, though, but there is a line of blame here that we need to acknowledge.

BTW, that was a great link (the GMO screed)!


Solar accounted for two-thirds of net power generation installation in 2016


Public ignorance? Did you somehow miss the events at Tchernobyl and the fact that Tokyo, with a more unfavorable wind direction, nearly became nuclear wasteland just like the areas around Fukushima. The cost of this latest incident are now estimated at nearly 200 Billion Dollars.


And currently we have global climate change which can be linked to a no small amount of death and destruction, not to mention well poisonings in Pennsylvania, and mines that destroys ecosystems. As a person that gets power from three mile island, I do wish we had a few more power plants of that are fission in nature, as opposed to coal or gas.


Explain how you think this is relevant.


Because our modern reactor designs are the same as 1970s-era Soviet technology.


Exactly. Also Fukushima did not happen. Fortunately nuclear energy is practically dead. “We” won, and nuclear lobbyists did not.


So we, and the environment lost then.

Because how many people died after Three Mile Island? Or how many died in West Virginia when their river got poisoned by ash. Hmmm…


That depends on your definition of loosing. Our grandchildren will thank us later.


There was a great study out there that looked at perception of risk and specifically nuclear power. It was interesting because it looked at how people often conflated likelihood and scale of a disaster.

Anyway, in the study, people were given one of two articles about nuclear power. One emphasized the benefits (less pollution, stable source of energy and over all less radio active waste then a coal power plant let out). The other emphasized the scale of what a disaster would look like if it occurred. Neither talked about the odds of occurrence, but it was found that emphasising the disaster caused people to over estimate the chance of an occurrence, while emphasizing the benefits caused people to under estimate the occurrence of a disaster. Basically, people confounded chance of an event with it’s benefits or it’s costs.
Anyway, you see it all the time in life, people focusing on the positives (like winning the lottery) more likely to predict a good outcome regardless of the chances, and of course the opposite is true as well.

Anyway, as some opposed to radioactive waste being in the atmosphere, I do prefer fission to coal plants, that do release small amounts of it all the time.


You know what else is happening? Pollution, carcinogens, global warming, and poisoning of our water supply. Just because those don’t happen in one big event like Fukushima doesn’t mean they aren’t happening.


Yep. That was bad. I’m just glad that’s an outdated design and modern reactors aren’t susceptible to the same issues.

Exactly. Every disaster and bit of damage incurred by man’s quest for energy adds up. The fewer we make, the better off those grandchildren of ours will be. Nuclear leads to fewer (note I’m not saying “none”). Non-nuclear has led to losses of entire towns, as well as widespread damage to the ecosystem.


You realize that he was making fun of you, right?

I mean, obviously you don’t. But lol.


When they can’t grow crops and the coasts have been lost to the oceans?

Yeah, they’ll be thrilled.


Yep, they may thank the US electorate. Also lol @ Timex.


Good news, everyone! We may have bigger things to worry about than carbon emissions.

OK, I know, volcano prediction is basically at the Magic-8-ball level of rigor. But if it does happen, a Yellowstone caldera eruption would be one hell of a climate impact. As for taking steps to prepare…I’d be pretty shocked if anything significant was done.

The Mother 'Effin WEATHER Thread