We’ve had a decent amount of discussion in this thread about nuclear power as a clean energy source. As part of the reading challenge thread, I just read a book by Gregory Jaczko, former head of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and it’s really disturbing. To the point that I no longer think nuclear power is really a viable alternative in its current form.
I wrote more at the links up there, but here’s the quick summary: the nuclear power industry owns the regulators, through political and economics pressure. That means safety is taking a back seat to profit. Nuclear power fail states are at best extremely dangerous and at worst massive disasters, so this is a really dangerous situation. Correcting this would require either significantly different (and much more expensive) reactor designs, or the political will to fix the regulatory system…and neither of those is anywhere close to reality. Until that changes, nuclear power should be off the table.
Nesrie
4916
Yeah but I agree with this:
If we’re just pushing the worse case scenario sooner, we just need to make sure other options have been considered fully first. I mean when you the answer to what do we have to lose, we’re at that last moments right, is well the very thing we’re trying to avoid… that’s not something to do until you’re as sure as you can be, not so much as the results of the medicine so much as that other medicine has been fully considered.
KevinC
4918
I don’t know anything about Happer, but I have no problem with skepticism in science, as long as that is based on real research and real science (as opposed to a paid flunky for the oil and gas industry, for example).
Is anyone familiar with this guy’s background? I plan to RTFA article when I get back home, I just can’t get to it for a couple hours.
Clay
4919
One tidbit: he has public stated that, as a climate change skeptic, he is being persecuted like Jews during the Holocaust.
Atomic physicist, which means he’s likely got as much formal education in the pertinent fields as your average PubG player (slight correction - he probably has a better understanding of fluid dynamics). In that respect, basic skepticism is fine; he should know what he doesn’t know as ask for clarity to get a better understanding instead of just hand-waving along the claims of others. But of course that’s not what he’s doing. He’s turned into a caricature, claiming climate science is akin to a cult, touting the wonders of CO2 and how we should really want more of it, etc…
At least he doesn’t deny there was a Holocaust.
KevinC
4923
Ohhhh, I didn’t know the name but I’m familiar with the guy. Thanks. Seems to be a perfect fit for the Trump administration.
The Professor must have been edumacating this guy.
We understand that fighting climate change will only be taken seriously if it’s a way to make people rich or once it’s obvious that something must be done? I’m talking having Flat Earth people going “Yeah, we need to do something about the climate”. As long as fighting climate change is a money loser, it’s going to be too “difficult”.
I think it’s inevitable that someone will turn to these risky geoengineering measures, they’re cheap enough that a Musk can do it for fun, or any not particularly rich country once it’s desperate enough.
CraigM
4926
Say you’re the Seychelles. You give a call over to the Maldives and the Bahamas. Say:
‘Hey guys, we’re going to be wiped off the map here in a few years. We got a few hundred mil in tourist money, and if we do this it may prevent our entire countries from disappearing. So what do you say we each throw a quarter mil into the kitty, and shoot up some salt. If it fails, our countries are fucked anyhow. If it succeeds we can keep our countries from going away completely, and we’re tropical so any unintended consequences probably won’t matter to us’
If you’re then, aren’t you at least floating that idea?
RichVR
4927
Isn’t it already obvious? Or do you mean “my house is under water” obvious?
CraigM
4928
For some, this is literally what it takes.
But if you are already rich and powerful, there is always someplace not ruined yet you can move to. This won’t be solved by avoidance, by running away from the problem. It may take running TOWARDS the problem, by attacking it as something you can make more money from.
When I was a kid, my dad hit a cow beef animal with his truck. It was horrible. Blood and grass everywhere.
Nesrie
4931
New rule, we must send school children on field trips to butchers. Some of them may never eat meat again, but they will certainly not leave there believing if you cut up a cow, grass pops out.
KevinC
4932
I just… I just don’t even.
You know what they were trying to say, but it’s pretty funny how badly they managed to mangle it.
The Uninhabitable Earth makes the point that the climate on Mars is a millions times worse than the worst case scenario here on Earth, plus, it’s really far away. (I know you were in jest but…) Which got me thinking about why colonizing Mars seems like a viable and perhaps the preferred escape route for people like Elon Musk and I realized it’s because of what Mars doesn’t have which is billions of poor people whose lives are being destroyed.
Of course, a well positioned bunker here on Earth would be cheaper and more viable but then, Elon Musk is convinced we live in a computer simulation because if it’s theoretically possible it must inevitably have happened because the arc of technology, like the arc of history, bends ever forward or some such shit.
