Re: Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a Smear

On Thu, 26 Sep 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:

D <nospam@example.net> writes:

>

>

Circa 2000 a group from Princeton came up with a plan to limit the warming to
2.5C which did not involve nuclear, but also did not involve catastrophic
economic decline.  But even if we accept that this was possible then, it
isn't now.  Nuclear is a must, at least for a few decades.

>
As a scientist, do you thing SMR will see hte light of day or remain in
the darkness of research projects for another decade or two?

>
There is a lot of hype around the concept of Small Nuclear Reactors;
yet many of the regulatory issues that apply to large power stations
will continue to apply to small (soi disant portable) reactors as
well - including waste disposal, safety, proliferation and decomissioning.
>

I am also pro-hydro, which most greens oppose, though it has to be carefully
done (poorly placed reservoirs for dams can emit C02 and CH4 to such a degree
that the power is only as clean as non-fracked natural gas.  Better than
coal, but not good enough).

Oh my dear hydro! Can you imagine if sweden built out more hydro
(fiercely opposed by the swedish green party)? What an energy abundance
we would have! Hydro and nuclear for the win!

>
Hydro has several fundamental limits.  Many of the places in the
world where hydro can be cost effective have already been developed. Like
all power sources, it also has downsides (silting, effects on migrating
fish populations (e.g. salmon) and ecosystem) along with the upsides (flood
control, agricultural irrigation, at. al).
>
Leaving that aside, nuclear and hydro alone cannot supply sufficient
energy to replace the energy provided by fossil fuels at the historic
energy growth of 2.3% per annum.  Indeed, that's an exponential growth
that will eventually hit a sharp and sudden upward curve which leads
to all kinds of knock-on issues (scarcity, waste heat, etc.).  Consider
that if energy use growth continues at 2.3% per annum, in 400 years
the waste heat alone from energy generation will cause the earths
average surface temperature to exceed the boiling point of water[*].  Absurd,
perhaps, to assume that that growth rate is sustainable, but there you
are.
>
[*] Simple physics. The calculations are shown here:
>
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m#page=20
>

This has been discussed before, and I think you were proven wrong about nuclear. I am tired however, so I won't dig up the thread and will let your message stand as it is.