Matt_W
5857
I was a nuke trained officer on an aircraft carrier. (Fist bump @John_Doyle!)
Navy reactors, FWIW, use highly enriched weapons grade uranium, which is a major factor in their efficiency and longevity. That option isn’t available for civilian plants.
I’m not sure what policy solution you’re advocating @Timex. Even if all the liberals got on board, made nuclear the cornerstone of the Green New Deal, and somehow passed it as legislation, the most we could do would be ease up on the regulatory burden of new plant starts and maybe provide subsidies. I still think it wouldn’t be competitive against natural gas and oil, so no one would build them, particularly given the foibles of nuclear plants. (You can’t just shut them down and walk away.) When Britain privatized their nuclear industry in the 90’s the government had to give their plants away, and even then they proved ruinous to the utility that took them.
I don’t know enough about energy economics to speak with authority about them, but Germany, in 2016 produced just less than half of the energy using renewables (191 TWh) that France produced with nuclear (404 TWh.) Unlike nuclear, which tends toward cost overruns and underproduction, renewables have tended to exceed predictions over the last couple of decades. What if we just, you know, required utilities to purchase credits in order to emit carbon. We could even provide a nominal amount of these credits for free to any utility based on how much power they generate, then allow utilities that don’t need them to sell their credits to utilities that do. I’m willing to bet that by controlling the supply of credits, we could price fossil fuel plants out of existence and let the market sort out which other solutions work best.
To be clear, while I think it is unlikely people will voluntarily reduce energy consumption, a lot of energy consumption is indeed voluntary and much of that is unnecessary. So no, it isn’t literally impossible.
One could simply push the thermostat 5 degrees up in summer and 5 degrees down in winter. One could start carpooling once or twice a week. One could turn off the damned lights when they weren’t needed, and stop leaving the television on all day.
Companies could adopt 4-day work weeks to reduce commuting, or expand telecommuting. Companies could curtail travel for face-to-face meetings in favor of video conferencing. Governments could re-enter price regulation for commercial aviation, raise airfares to price in externalities and thereby reduce commercial aviation.
Americans use twice the energy per capita than do e.g. Germans or the French.
I think it is unlikely but not impossible. Note that this might be a side effect of climate change produced disruptions or otherwise not be completely voluntary.
I also think it is critical that we act as if it is possible. If nothing else slowing the rate of growth is a good thing. Perhaps more importantly the only way to change opinion on the seriousness of climate change is to act like it is serious. A high tech sailboat instead of an airplane flight was an empty gesture but it does have symbolic value.
Timex
5860
Heh, well they’re also installed in such a way that refueling them involves cutting holes through all the decks and lifting them with a crane on their 25 year overhaul.
I’m not suggesting that we use the westinghouse reactors used in the carriers though, I’m just pointing out that in 5 years we’re able to build multiple, hardened reactors mounted in a floating city, so we could pretty easily build ones on solid ground.
So you subsidize the nuclear plants. You’re gonna have to do that to get anything to compete with natural gas.
This works, except for the fact that if you don’t ease the regulatory burden involved with creating new nuclear plants, you’re still going to end up having fossil fuel plants (or just energy shortages), because only fossil fuels and nuclear can provide baseline power.
The thing to keep in mind here, is that in most cases, doing things like carbon taxes are eventually going to be passed down to the consumer, and increasing the costs of energy are not going to be well received.
Matt_W
5861
There is no climate change mitigation policy that will be well received. Energy costs are going to rise, no question. We already fucked. There is no easy way out.
Timex
5862
Subsidizing of nuclear and renewable energy production doesn’t increase the cost of energy to consumers (at least not directly), it lowers the cost of those sources compared to fossil fuels.
Certainly, overall, the costs are paid for by society through taxation, but you can at least make that collection somewhat progressive, as opposed to simply taxing energy production and making energy itself more expensive, which will essentially be a regressive tax on the population.
MikeJ
5863
A lot of the carbon tax proposals include per-capita rebates, which would tend to offset the regressive nature of the tax, though not in all cases.
LockerK
5865
Nuclear “supporters” are doing a good enough job pissing people off here in Ohio that politically it’s going to be an even greater uphill battle. House Bill 6 was recently passed here, adding a couple of fees to all electric customers in the state to bailout two nuclear and two coal plants (one of which isn’t even in Ohio) - and also lowering the state’s requirements for renewable usage going forward. Of note, the fees to bailout the coal plants are nearly twice as much and for almost twice as long. Part of the reason the plants need bailed out is because natural gas plants are able to provide much cheaper energy.
An opposition group is trying to get a referendum on next year’s ballot but still needs a few hundred thousand signatures. Well, the beneficiaries of this bailout didn’t take too kindly to that. So far they’ve deployed some fearmongering attack ads:
A mailer that’s such a hilariously over the top lie it’s a wonder how it’s legal:
And hired goons to dissuade people from signing the petition:
The goons are already paying off!
To reiterate, this is simply a petition to allow a vote. What could have been a law that kept the nuclear afloat and explained the positives it provides while we transition more towards renewables instead is a backwards looking bailout that’s going to leave a bad taste in Ohioans’ mouths when they think of nuclear in the future.
JDSIDD
5866
That thing is sitting on my kitchen table and I was wondering the same thing. This was a pretty huge mass mailing that probably hit every house (or close to it) in my area or NE Ohio. I deliver a lot of Republican propaganda, most of which looks like blatant lies on the surface, because I work in a very conservative city. Usually with this sort of thing I can find at least some kernel of truth that’s been blown way out of proportion but for this one I’ve found nothing.
Timex
5867
Subsidizing the nuclear plants has a purpose… they are clean power providers.
But why on earth would they subsidize COAL plants?
Rightbug
5868
Until it doesn’t. Our life times have been marked by development and growth, technological, economic and population. And while the history of human kind and civilization has been marked with setbacks, the general trend has been forward. It’s easy to imagine that this trend projects endless into the future, that development and growth are inevitable, but that’s literally impossible. Nothing lasts forever — No civilization, no species.
Our innovation and tenacity has helped us to temporarily overcome a lot of the natural checks against excessive growth built into the system but the system always wins in the end. Like a virus that burns too hot, we may temporarily flare out of control but eventually we’ll burn out.
Limiting ourselves to climate solutions that will be well received has a certain practical appeal in that it gives us hope that those options might be politically viable (spoiler: they still won’t be) but it falls into the trap of framework by the climate crisis and its potential solutions within the framework we’ve operated in our entire lives. If we do not choose to dispose of that frame work ourselves, it will be done for us. Greta Thunberg put it best speaking before parliament earlier this year:
"You don’t listen to the science because you are only interested in solutions that will enable you to carry on like before. Like now. And those answers don’t exist any more. Because you did not act in time.”
It’s hard to let go of what we’ve always known but we’re going to have to do it anyway. The question is whether we do it voluntarily or involuntarily.
KevinC
5869
To reward lobbyists and campaign donors? :)
I’m a strong supporter of nuisance/direct action on the streets of the cities to raise awareness, but flying drones around airports risks hundreds of lives and could well be considered terrorism and is just stupid and counterproductive.
It’s so stupid I’d consider them agent provocateurs for climate change deniers. The reputational damage they bring hurts us all.
Just one data point but I can’t help but think that we’re all gonna fucking burn (DC edition!)
Tim_N
5873
Just a counterpoint, you’re comparing an individual year with a series of averages. Even in a stable climate there will be hot and cold years, so the graph says nothing to me beyond that it’s a hot year.
Agreed, just one data point. I do believe I saw an article today though saying it was the hottest summer on record (not sure whether worldwide or just in the US).
Edit: Found the tweet, it’s just the northern hemisphere:
Tim_N
5875
I’m not trying to be annoying, but my point wasn’t that it was only one observation. It is that even without climate change there will be hot and cold years, and so any hot year before industrialization could easily look exactly like the graph you just posted. Comparing one year with an overall average says nothing about climate change. To say something about climate change there needs to be a string of years significantly above average (which the second graph you posted shows very well), or the severity of the heat needs to be put into proper context (which you did by mentioning it’s the hottest on record).
Again, not trying to have a go at you specifically, I just think clear and properly interpreted graphs is an important thing for the WP to provide.
I’m thinking I should have posted this in the weather thread hahaha. My bad - I am duly chastened and edified :)
