On behalf of environmentalists, I apologize for the scare

[Huskie87]

Thought this was an interesting read:

https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2020/6/29/on-behalf-of-environmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare#disqus_thread

[sherr]

I would not put too much faith in this sourcless, factless book ad. Several of the things he claims are just obviously, laughably, flat out wrong, like:

* 100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%
* Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4%

This sounds a lot more like someone trying to cash in than it does an honest grappling with the problems of environmentalism.

[zolotiyeruki]

I would not put too much faith in this sourcless, factless book ad. Several of the things he claims are just obviously, laughably, flat out wrong, like:

* 100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%
* Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4%

This sounds a lot more like someone trying to cash in than it does an honest grappling with the problems of environmentalism.

(tongue planted firmly in cheek) The author's book contains 100 pages of citations.  Where are yours? I'm more inclined to not put too much faith in your sourceless, factless response...

[sherr]

I would not put too much faith in this sourcless, factless book ad. Several of the things he claims are just obviously, laughably, flat out wrong, like:

* 100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%
* Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4%

This sounds a lot more like someone trying to cash in than it does an honest grappling with the problems of environmentalism.

(tongue planted firmly in cheek) The author's book contains 100 pages of citations.  Where are yours? I'm more inclined to not put too much faith in your sourceless, factless response...

You really believe that switching to 100% of renewable would require the use of 50% of our land?! Okay. Here is a source that says to power the WHOLE WORLD, we'd need a solar farm the size of Arizona.

Is that a really big solar farm? Sure. In reality would it be less then that because realistically there's an awful lot of wasted roof space that can be covered in solar panels? Also yes. Is that anywhere near 50% OF ALL THE LAND ON EARTH?! No, it is many orders of magnitude off.

Also, I'm not trying to sell you something, so I'm inherently more trustworthy than a book ad. :)

[Sibley]

Have you read the book, or just the ad/comments on the ad? Because those are very different things. Very rarely have I seen book summaries that don't distort the book in some way.

The guy behind it, Michael Shellenberger, has been around a while and has several books it seems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shellenberger

[sherr]

Have you read the book, or just the ad/comments on the ad? Because those are very different things. Very rarely have I seen book summaries that don't distort the book in some way.

The guy behind it, Michael Shellenberger, has been around a while and has several books it seems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shellenberger

Just the ad. Which is what I assumed that OP was talking about, but that may have been a bad assumption. Also it's an ad for his book, written by him, on his website, so if it's a distortion he has no one but himself to blame.

I did look him up too. He seems to be a pro-nuclear lobbyist / fanboy, which for the record I agree with him on that.

But there's just sooo much about the ad that sets off alarm bells for me. Not only the laughably-false bits quoted above, but the whole conspiratorial "fake news" "everyone else is evil bad guys out to get you" "I alone will tell you the truth" tone to it too.

[bacchi]

Here are some facts few people know:
* Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003

Here are some facts that even fewer people know:

* The number of fires hasn't declined 25% since 2003 but, rather, the number of square km burned has dropped 25% since 2003.

To put it another way, he misquoted his source in that bullet list.

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/a-look-at-two-decades-of-wildfires-globally-in-just-30-seconds

[Barbaebigode]

I would not put too much faith in this sourcless, factless book ad. Several of the things he claims are just obviously, laughably, flat out wrong, like:

* 100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%
* Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4%

This sounds a lot more like someone trying to cash in than it does an honest grappling with the problems of environmentalism.

(tongue planted firmly in cheek) The author's book contains 100 pages of citations.  Where are yours? I'm more inclined to not put too much faith in your sourceless, factless response...

You really believe that switching to 100% of renewable would require the use of 50% of our land?! Okay. Here is a source that says to power the WHOLE WORLD, we'd need a solar farm the size of Arizona.

Is that a really big solar farm? Sure. In reality would it be less then that because realistically there's an awful lot of wasted roof space that can be covered in solar panels? Also yes. Is that anywhere near 50% OF ALL THE LAND ON EARTH?! No, it is many orders of magnitude off.

Also, I'm not trying to sell you something, so I'm inherently more trustworthy than a book ad. :)

This 50% figure sounds like a number from someone trying to replace all fossil fuel consumption for crop based biofuels. If that's the case, is a strawman from the noughties.

[NorthernMonkey]

I would not put too much faith in this sourcless, factless book ad. Several of the things he claims are just obviously, laughably, flat out wrong, like:

* 100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%
* Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4%

The UK is known for its shitty climate and small houses. Over here, covering the roof in solar covers about 1/2 your electricity need. I'm sure big houses much further south than the 55degrees we are here would easily meet your home energy need

This sounds a lot more like someone trying to cash in than it does an honest grappling with the problems of environmentalism.

(tongue planted firmly in cheek) The author's book contains 100 pages of citations.  Where are yours? I'm more inclined to not put too much faith in your sourceless, factless response...

You really believe that switching to 100% of renewable would require the use of 50% of our land?! Okay. Here is a source that says to power the WHOLE WORLD, we'd need a solar farm the size of Arizona.

Is that a really big solar farm? Sure. In reality would it be less then that because realistically there's an awful lot of wasted roof space that can be covered in solar panels? Also yes. Is that anywhere near 50% OF ALL THE LAND ON EARTH?! No, it is many orders of magnitude off.

Also, I'm not trying to sell you something, so I'm inherently more trustworthy than a book ad. :)

[sherr]

The UK is known for its shitty climate and small houses. Over here, covering the roof in solar covers about 1/2 your electricity need. I'm sure big houses much further south than the 55degrees we are here would easily meet your home energy needs.

Right, and windmills/hydro also exist. My point was not to prescribe a one-size-fits-all solar power solution to the world, merely to demonstrate how drastically off the author's numbers were. As in, so insanely off that it sounds like straight up propaganda.

[MasterStache]

An author shilling for his book doesn't seem very interesting to me. I suppose we are all different though. He is pretty obsessed with nuclear and using phrases like "climate alarmism." I mean, if you only care about facts, then just post facts. Don't try to window dress it.

In terms of going full nuclear here you go: (Word of caution, it is very "science-y")
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6021978

And in terms of the Breakthrough Institute, with which he co-founded, they have their own set of oh let's call them "funding issues." They promote industrial agriculture, which is highly dependent on fossil fuels, and processed foodstuffs while also accepting donations from the Nathan Cummings Foundation, whose board members have financial ties to processed food companies that rely heavily on industrial agriculture. These days they keep their donor list private.

They have also allied themselves with anti-climate science organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute.

So yeah, not really interested in the book. But hey have at it. A nuclear utopia sounds horrible. I mean, what could go wrong?

[marty998]

The fact my local ignorant climate change denying politician has jumped all over this tells me everything I need to know.

It isn’t worth looking into at all. Not even going to bother wasting my time on it.

[sherr]

But hey have at it. A nuclear utopia sounds horrible. I mean, what could go wrong?

The real problem with nuclear is not the technology, it's much more practical. It's the NIMBYism. No one wants a nuclear plant in their back yard, or the waste stored near them. Further nuclear plants are extremely expensive because of all the safety precautions they necessarily must have, and take forever to get regulatory approval and to build.

Nuclear power itself is very practical, building the plants is not.

[EvenSteven]

An author shilling for his book doesn't seem very interesting to me. I suppose we are all different though. He is pretty obsessed with nuclear and using phrases like "climate alarmism." I mean, if you only care about facts, then just post facts. Don't try to window dress it.

In terms of going full nuclear here you go: (Word of caution, it is very "science-y")
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6021978

And in terms of the Breakthrough Institute, with which he co-founded, they have their own set of oh let's call them "funding issues." They promote industrial agriculture, which is highly dependent on fossil fuels, and processed foodstuffs while also accepting donations from the Nathan Cummings Foundation, whose board members have financial ties to processed food companies that rely heavily on industrial agriculture. These days they keep their donor list private.

They have also allied themselves with anti-climate science organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute.

So yeah, not really interested in the book. But hey have at it. A nuclear utopia sounds horrible. I mean, what could go wrong?

I don’t know anything about the breakthrough institute, but if industrial agriculture is just using tractors and fertilizer, what’s so wrong with it? I can see why using fertilizer is a greater energy input, but why must that be tied to fossil fuels?

[MasterStache]

An author shilling for his book doesn't seem very interesting to me. I suppose we are all different though. He is pretty obsessed with nuclear and using phrases like "climate alarmism." I mean, if you only care about facts, then just post facts. Don't try to window dress it.

In terms of going full nuclear here you go: (Word of caution, it is very "science-y")
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6021978

And in terms of the Breakthrough Institute, with which he co-founded, they have their own set of oh let's call them "funding issues." They promote industrial agriculture, which is highly dependent on fossil fuels, and processed foodstuffs while also accepting donations from the Nathan Cummings Foundation, whose board members have financial ties to processed food companies that rely heavily on industrial agriculture. These days they keep their donor list private.

They have also allied themselves with anti-climate science organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute.

So yeah, not really interested in the book. But hey have at it. A nuclear utopia sounds horrible. I mean, what could go wrong?

I don’t know anything about the breakthrough institute, but if industrial agriculture is just using tractors and fertilizer, what’s so wrong with it? I can see why using fertilizer is a greater energy input, but why must that be tied to fossil fuels?

Industrial farms use huge quantities of synthetic fertilizers, which, in the case of nitrogen, requires significant fossil fuel inputs (primarily natural gas). The process is called "Haber-Bosch" and it uses nitrogen from the atmosphere and fixes it with hydrogen derived primarily from natural gas to produce ammonia for fertilizer. This is the environmental problem with industrial ammonia production.

[MasterStache]

But hey have at it. A nuclear utopia sounds horrible. I mean, what could go wrong?

The real problem with nuclear is not the technology, it's much more practical. It's the NIMBYism. No one wants a nuclear plant in their back yard, or the waste stored near them. Further nuclear plants are extremely expensive because of all the safety precautions they necessarily must have, and take forever to get regulatory approval and to build.

Nuclear power itself is very practical, building the plants is not.

Agreed! It would be highly dependent on every other country building highly standardized nuclear plants as well. Do we really want to put our faith in that? One Fukushima was more than enough. We don't want to be dealing with one per year.

[RetiredAt63]

There are multiple issues with present day industrial agriculture; direct and indirect fossil fuel use are only part of the problems.

Stupid storage issues keep coming up with nuclear, as in the proposal to have spent fuel stored only a few km from the Ottawa River.  No one has heard of ground water leaching?  People want fast cheap easy solutions.

[EvenSteven]

An author shilling for his book doesn't seem very interesting to me. I suppose we are all different though. He is pretty obsessed with nuclear and using phrases like "climate alarmism." I mean, if you only care about facts, then just post facts. Don't try to window dress it.

In terms of going full nuclear here you go: (Word of caution, it is very "science-y")
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6021978

And in terms of the Breakthrough Institute, with which he co-founded, they have their own set of oh let's call them "funding issues." They promote industrial agriculture, which is highly dependent on fossil fuels, and processed foodstuffs while also accepting donations from the Nathan Cummings Foundation, whose board members have financial ties to processed food companies that rely heavily on industrial agriculture. These days they keep their donor list private.

They have also allied themselves with anti-climate science organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute.

So yeah, not really interested in the book. But hey have at it. A nuclear utopia sounds horrible. I mean, what could go wrong?

I don’t know anything about the breakthrough institute, but if industrial agriculture is just using tractors and fertilizer, what’s so wrong with it? I can see why using fertilizer is a greater energy input, but why must that be tied to fossil fuels?

Industrial farms use huge quantities of synthetic fertilizers, which, in the case of nitrogen, requires significant fossil fuel inputs (primarily natural gas). The process is called "Haber-Bosch" and it uses nitrogen from the atmosphere and fixes it with hydrogen derived primarily from natural gas to produce ammonia for fertilizer. This is the environmental problem with industrial ammonia production.

I get that Haber-Bosch requires energy and hydrogen to fix the nitrogen, but why does that have to come from fossil fuel burning? Couldn’t it just as easily come from energy produced from wind, solar, or nuclear and use water for the hydrogen source? Agricultural output would crater without synthetic fertilizer, leading to really unpleasant outcomes for mostly the less wealthy around the world.

[MasterStache]

An author shilling for his book doesn't seem very interesting to me. I suppose we are all different though. He is pretty obsessed with nuclear and using phrases like "climate alarmism." I mean, if you only care about facts, then just post facts. Don't try to window dress it.

In terms of going full nuclear here you go: (Word of caution, it is very "science-y")
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6021978

And in terms of the Breakthrough Institute, with which he co-founded, they have their own set of oh let's call them "funding issues." They promote industrial agriculture, which is highly dependent on fossil fuels, and processed foodstuffs while also accepting donations from the Nathan Cummings Foundation, whose board members have financial ties to processed food companies that rely heavily on industrial agriculture. These days they keep their donor list private.

They have also allied themselves with anti-climate science organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute.

So yeah, not really interested in the book. But hey have at it. A nuclear utopia sounds horrible. I mean, what could go wrong?

I don’t know anything about the breakthrough institute, but if industrial agriculture is just using tractors and fertilizer, what’s so wrong with it? I can see why using fertilizer is a greater energy input, but why must that be tied to fossil fuels?

Industrial farms use huge quantities of synthetic fertilizers, which, in the case of nitrogen, requires significant fossil fuel inputs (primarily natural gas). The process is called "Haber-Bosch" and it uses nitrogen from the atmosphere and fixes it with hydrogen derived primarily from natural gas to produce ammonia for fertilizer. This is the environmental problem with industrial ammonia production.

I get that Haber-Bosch requires energy and hydrogen to fix the nitrogen, but why does that have to come from fossil fuel burning? Couldn’t it just as easily come from energy produced from wind, solar, or nuclear and use water for the hydrogen source? Agricultural output would crater without synthetic fertilizer, leading to really unpleasant outcomes for mostly the less wealthy around the world.

The process is different as it requires water electrolysis. And to be completely green renewable energy is required during the process. It's feasible and is currently being researched and trialed. It just isn't as simple as swapping out natural gas with renewable sources.   

[EvenSteven]

An author shilling for his book doesn't seem very interesting to me. I suppose we are all different though. He is pretty obsessed with nuclear and using phrases like "climate alarmism." I mean, if you only care about facts, then just post facts. Don't try to window dress it.

In terms of going full nuclear here you go: (Word of caution, it is very "science-y")
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6021978

And in terms of the Breakthrough Institute, with which he co-founded, they have their own set of oh let's call them "funding issues." They promote industrial agriculture, which is highly dependent on fossil fuels, and processed foodstuffs while also accepting donations from the Nathan Cummings Foundation, whose board members have financial ties to processed food companies that rely heavily on industrial agriculture. These days they keep their donor list private.

They have also allied themselves with anti-climate science organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute.

So yeah, not really interested in the book. But hey have at it. A nuclear utopia sounds horrible. I mean, what could go wrong?

I don’t know anything about the breakthrough institute, but if industrial agriculture is just using tractors and fertilizer, what’s so wrong with it? I can see why using fertilizer is a greater energy input, but why must that be tied to fossil fuels?

Industrial farms use huge quantities of synthetic fertilizers, which, in the case of nitrogen, requires significant fossil fuel inputs (primarily natural gas). The process is called "Haber-Bosch" and it uses nitrogen from the atmosphere and fixes it with hydrogen derived primarily from natural gas to produce ammonia for fertilizer. This is the environmental problem with industrial ammonia production.

I get that Haber-Bosch requires energy and hydrogen to fix the nitrogen, but why does that have to come from fossil fuel burning? Couldn’t it just as easily come from energy produced from wind, solar, or nuclear and use water for the hydrogen source? Agricultural output would crater without synthetic fertilizer, leading to really unpleasant outcomes for mostly the less wealthy around the world.

The process is different as it requires water electrolysis. And to be completely green renewable energy is required during the process. It's feasible and is currently being researched and trialed. It just isn't as simple as swapping out natural gas with renewable sources.   

That still sounds pretty industrial to me. I guess my point is the problems with farming are carbon release, habitat destruction, and nutrient runoff. Some of these problems can be solved or mitigated with better agricultural technology that doesn’t involve starving off half the planet. Complaining about “industrialized farming” seems to be missing the point in favor of buzz words.

[MasterStache]

An author shilling for his book doesn't seem very interesting to me. I suppose we are all different though. He is pretty obsessed with nuclear and using phrases like "climate alarmism." I mean, if you only care about facts, then just post facts. Don't try to window dress it.

In terms of going full nuclear here you go: (Word of caution, it is very "science-y")
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6021978

And in terms of the Breakthrough Institute, with which he co-founded, they have their own set of oh let's call them "funding issues." They promote industrial agriculture, which is highly dependent on fossil fuels, and processed foodstuffs while also accepting donations from the Nathan Cummings Foundation, whose board members have financial ties to processed food companies that rely heavily on industrial agriculture. These days they keep their donor list private.

They have also allied themselves with anti-climate science organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute.

So yeah, not really interested in the book. But hey have at it. A nuclear utopia sounds horrible. I mean, what could go wrong?

I don’t know anything about the breakthrough institute, but if industrial agriculture is just using tractors and fertilizer, what’s so wrong with it? I can see why using fertilizer is a greater energy input, but why must that be tied to fossil fuels?

Industrial farms use huge quantities of synthetic fertilizers, which, in the case of nitrogen, requires significant fossil fuel inputs (primarily natural gas). The process is called "Haber-Bosch" and it uses nitrogen from the atmosphere and fixes it with hydrogen derived primarily from natural gas to produce ammonia for fertilizer. This is the environmental problem with industrial ammonia production.

I get that Haber-Bosch requires energy and hydrogen to fix the nitrogen, but why does that have to come from fossil fuel burning? Couldn’t it just as easily come from energy produced from wind, solar, or nuclear and use water for the hydrogen source? Agricultural output would crater without synthetic fertilizer, leading to really unpleasant outcomes for mostly the less wealthy around the world.

The process is different as it requires water electrolysis. And to be completely green renewable energy is required during the process. It's feasible and is currently being researched and trialed. It just isn't as simple as swapping out natural gas with renewable sources.   

That still sounds pretty industrial to me. I guess my point is the problems with farming are carbon release, habitat destruction, and nutrient runoff. Some of these problems can be solved or mitigated with better agricultural technology that doesn’t involve starving off half the planet. Complaining about “industrialized farming” seems to be missing the point in favor of buzz words.

Not sure where you are going with this. Heavy use of chemical fertilizers in industrial farming is pretty prominent. These issues aren't mutually exclusive to what you deem the problems are as fertilizer production leads to carbon emissions (as we discussed) and fertilizer applications lead to runoff issues. I don't know what buzz words you are talking about.

[EvenSteven]

...snip...
Not sure where you are going with this. Heavy use of chemical fertilizers in industrial farming is pretty prominent. These issues aren't mutually exclusive to what you deem the problems are as fertilizer production leads to carbon emissions (as we discussed) and fertilizer applications lead to runoff issues. I don't know what buzz words you are talking about.

I consider "industrial farming" to be a buzz word without a clear definition, where different people use it differently. When I hear that phrase it includes using synthetic fertilizer, using GMOs, using mechanized farm equipment, and is often the opposite of organic farming.

So if a way is developed for producing synthetic fertilizer using green energy and water, it is bad because it is still industrial. If GMOs are developed that drastically cut insecticide use, then that is bad because GMOs are industrial. If some big agribusiness comes up with some sort of precision fertilizer application that reduces use and run-off, then thats bad because it is industrial.

I am all for changing or advancing farming to be more environmentally friendly. I don't think running farming practices through the filter of "industrial farming" is useful to that end.

[AccidentialMustache]

The rub with nukes is that if we're ever going to be interplanetary or interstellar we need to get good with the atom. Solar power doesn't work "out there." It'll be a lot easier to get good with the atom here where the planet provides you some radiation shielding from solar/cosmic, rather than out there where you need to solve not only the nuke plant's problem, but all the space problems too, and all the problems space is going to cause with the plant on top of all that.

Oh yeah and that little bit where they don't smash passing birds, take up a lot of arable land, etc.

They probably shouldn't be privately run. This is a place for the Feds to step in and Do It Right. France has largely done a good job of it. Russia not so much. The Feds clearly can -- plenty of reactors running out there under the ocean surface and we haven't lost one due to reactor issues yet.

Fusion is a great plan, but its always been 20 years away. It might be nice to have power and heat on the moon or Mars sooner than that...

[zolotiyeruki]

I'm all for nuclear, but it faces a number of obstacles:
--Thorium has incredible potential for power generation, but all the research dollars for decades have gone into reactors that can be used for producing weapons-grade fuel.  No private institution is able/willing to invest the billions of dollars to overcome that hurdle
--NIMBY is a huge issue

There are "walk away safe" reactor designs out there.  There are designs small enough that you could have a distributed power generation system that's totally automated and safe and don't produce anything that can be weaponized.  The problem is that decades of misinformation have prejudiced enough people strongly enough that it's politically unviable to fund the necessary R&D, let alone build them for production.  It's sad, really, because nuclear power holds such promise, and its downsides are known and manageable.

[John Galt incarnate!]

I'm all for nuclear, but it faces a number of obstacles:
--Thorium has incredible potential for power generation, but all the research dollars for decades have gone into reactors that can be used for producing weapons-grade fuel.  No private institution is able/willing to invest the billions of dollars to overcome that hurdle
--NIMBY is a huge issue

I advocate  nuclear power too.

There are "walk away safe" reactor designs out there.  There are designs small enough that you could have a distributed power generation system that's totally automated and safe and don't produce anything that can be weaponized.  The problem is that decades of misinformation have prejudiced enough people strongly enough that it's politically unviable to fund the necessary R&D, let alone build them for production.  It's sad, really, because nuclear power holds such promise, and its downsides are known and manageable.

When some people hear or read "nuclear" the very next word that comes to their mind is "bomb."  They don't understand that the uranium in a reactor CANNOT be instantly converted to energy as happens in a thermonuclear bomb.

[J Boogie]

I would not put too much faith in this sourcless, factless book ad. Several of the things he claims are just obviously, laughably, flat out wrong, like:

* 100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%
* Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4%

This sounds a lot more like someone trying to cash in than it does an honest grappling with the problems of environmentalism.

(tongue planted firmly in cheek) The author's book contains 100 pages of citations.  Where are yours? I'm more inclined to not put too much faith in your sourceless, factless response...

You really believe that switching to 100% of renewable would require the use of 50% of our land?! Okay. Here is a source that says to power the WHOLE WORLD, we'd need a solar farm the size of Arizona.

Is that a really big solar farm? Sure. In reality would it be less then that because realistically there's an awful lot of wasted roof space that can be covered in solar panels? Also yes. Is that anywhere near 50% OF ALL THE LAND ON EARTH?! No, it is many orders of magnitude off.

Also, I'm not trying to sell you something, so I'm inherently more trustworthy than a book ad. :)

This 50% figure sounds like a number from someone trying to replace all fossil fuel consumption for crop based biofuels. If that's the case, is a strawman from the noughties.

However, the Arizona sized solar farm is only referring to replacing current electricity usage. Unless I'm reading it wrong, it doesn't account for any combustion engine / natural gas power use.

[MasterStache]

I would not put too much faith in this sourcless, factless book ad. Several of the things he claims are just obviously, laughably, flat out wrong, like:

* 100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%
* Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4%

This sounds a lot more like someone trying to cash in than it does an honest grappling with the problems of environmentalism.

(tongue planted firmly in cheek) The author's book contains 100 pages of citations.  Where are yours? I'm more inclined to not put too much faith in your sourceless, factless response...

You really believe that switching to 100% of renewable would require the use of 50% of our land?! Okay. Here is a source that says to power the WHOLE WORLD, we'd need a solar farm the size of Arizona.

Is that a really big solar farm? Sure. In reality would it be less then that because realistically there's an awful lot of wasted roof space that can be covered in solar panels? Also yes. Is that anywhere near 50% OF ALL THE LAND ON EARTH?! No, it is many orders of magnitude off.

Also, I'm not trying to sell you something, so I'm inherently more trustworthy than a book ad. :)

This 50% figure sounds like a number from someone trying to replace all fossil fuel consumption for crop based biofuels. If that's the case, is a strawman from the noughties.

However, the Arizona sized solar farm is only referring to replacing current electricity usage. Unless I'm reading it wrong, it doesn't account for any combustion engine / natural gas power use.

It accounts for replacing all "electricity consumption." That would include any natural gas used for electrical generation. No it doesn't account for internal combustion.

[ministashy]

There are "walk away safe" reactor designs out there.  There are designs small enough that you could have a distributed power generation system that's totally automated and safe and don't produce anything that can be weaponized.  The problem is that decades of misinformation have prejudiced enough people strongly enough that it's politically unviable to fund the necessary R&D, let alone build them for production.  It's sad, really, because nuclear power holds such promise, and its downsides are known and manageable.

As one of those 'skeptical people', I find the above claim very hard to believe.  Everything I've been able to find online regarding new nuclear designs seems to fall into one of two categories.  Either it has a) serious security concerns (such as thorium reactors producing weapons-grade fissiles) or b) are untested designs that still have serious logistical or engineering hurdles to overcome (such as molten salt reactors, where they are still trying to engineer internals that won't corrode within a couple of years from the salt). 

If there are 'totally automated and safe' designs out there that have been tested and are viable, I haven't heard about them.  And considering the number of investors that would be climbing over each other to fund said 'magic bullet' energy solution the minute someone announced (with proof) that they had a 100% perfectly safe nuclear reactor design that did NOT produce insanely dangerous waste that needed to be stored for hundreds-to-thousands of years ... well, I think people are right to be skeptical about nuclear power.  And for that matter, perfectly reasonable not to want current reactor designs (or their associated waste) anywhere near where they live or work.

[js82]

I'm all for nuclear, but it faces a number of obstacles:
--Thorium has incredible potential for power generation, but all the research dollars for decades have gone into reactors that can be used for producing weapons-grade fuel.  No private institution is able/willing to invest the billions of dollars to overcome that hurdle
--NIMBY is a huge issue

There are "walk away safe" reactor designs out there.  There are designs small enough that you could have a distributed power generation system that's totally automated and safe and don't produce anything that can be weaponized.  The problem is that decades of misinformation have prejudiced enough people strongly enough that it's politically unviable to fund the necessary R&D, let alone build them for production.  It's sad, really, because nuclear power holds such promise, and its downsides are known and manageable.

I largely agree with you.  While nuclear reactor design isn't my particular field of science/engineering, my understanding is that there are modern designs that are intrinsically stable(that is to say, they will fail "off" instead of a runaway state) - but that in many cases these haven't been widely built yet as many of the nuclear reactors in service are much older designs.

In my mind, if you can deal with the waste disposal issue, Nuclear is a (relatively) mature technology that's available today, without some of the limitations of wind/solar(reliance on weather/seasonality).

[RetiredAt63]

I'm all for nuclear, but it faces a number of obstacles:
--Thorium has incredible potential for power generation, but all the research dollars for decades have gone into reactors that can be used for producing weapons-grade fuel.  No private institution is able/willing to invest the billions of dollars to overcome that hurdle
--NIMBY is a huge issue

There are "walk away safe" reactor designs out there.  There are designs small enough that you could have a distributed power generation system that's totally automated and safe and don't produce anything that can be weaponized.  The problem is that decades of misinformation have prejudiced enough people strongly enough that it's politically unviable to fund the necessary R&D, let alone build them for production.  It's sad, really, because nuclear power holds such promise, and its downsides are known and manageable.

I largely agree with you.  While nuclear reactor design isn't my particular field of science/engineering, my understanding is that there are modern designs that are intrinsically stable(that is to say, they will fail "off" instead of a runaway state) - but that in many cases these haven't been widely built yet as many of the nuclear reactors in service are much older designs.

In my mind, if you can deal with the waste disposal issue, Nuclear is a (relatively) mature technology that's available today, without some of the limitations of wind/solar(reliance on weather/seasonality).

But the waste disposal issue is major. We are having issues with our present reactors and waste disposal.

[zolotiyeruki]

As one of those 'skeptical people', I find the above claim very hard to believe.  Everything I've been able to find online regarding new nuclear designs seems to fall into one of two categories.  Either it has a) serious security concerns (such as thorium reactors producing weapons-grade fissiles) or b) are untested designs that still have serious logistical or engineering hurdles to overcome (such as molten salt reactors, where they are still trying to engineer internals that won't corrode within a couple of years from the salt). 

If there are 'totally automated and safe' designs out there that have been tested and are viable, I haven't heard about them.  And considering the number of investors that would be climbing over each other to fund said 'magic bullet' energy solution the minute someone announced (with proof) that they had a 100% perfectly safe nuclear reactor design that did NOT produce insanely dangerous waste that needed to be stored for hundreds-to-thousands of years ... well, I think people are right to be skeptical about nuclear power.  And for that matter, perfectly reasonable not to want current reactor designs (or their associated waste) anywhere near where they live or work.

You are correct that there are lots of walk-away-safe designs that for now are purely hypothetical, i.e. haven't been built.  The reason investors *aren't* climbing all over each other to build them is because the regulatory, political (NIMBY!), and legal hurdles (note the conspicuous absence of "engineering" in that list) have an enormously negative impact on the ROI of a nuclear power plant.  Yes, engineering is more demanding than a fossil fuel reactor, but it's not as large a contributor to delays as the other three.  If you're interested in diving into it, this video does a great job of explaining it in back-of-the-napkin numbers.

But the waste disposal issue is major. We are having issues with our present reactors and waste disposal.

Waste disposal isn't as large an issue as you might think.  The spent fuel is almost always stored on the same site as the reactor, and actually ends up being a pretty small quantity, relatively speaking.  The reactors only need to be refueled every couple of years, so over the lifespan of a reactor, the fuel doesn't amount to a whole lot, volume-wise.  IIRC, it's the low-level waste that can be a problem to store long-term--stuff like clothes, tools, equipment, etc that is mildly radioactive.  And when I say "mildly," I really mean it.  It's slightly elevated from background radiation, but realistically, it's not actually very dangerous.  That stuff piles up to a larger volume, and out of an abundance of caution, it gets the kid glove treatment, even though it's not really dangerous.

[RetiredAt63]

We have Candu reactors, not sure how much difference that makes to waste disposal.  Suggesting waste be buried only a km or 2 from the Ottawa River is not good even for low level waste, which is what is floating around now (I don't know which wastes were being discussed, so no idea of the radioactivity levels).   

[zolotiyeruki]

We have Candu reactors, not sure how much difference that makes to waste disposal.  Suggesting waste be buried only a km or 2 from the Ottawa River is not good even for low level waste, which is what is floating around now (I don't know which wastes were being discussed, so no idea of the radioactivity levels).

I don't think anyone is promoting burying waste near waterways.  Typically, the waste is stored in large tanks of water as the fuel further decays, then it is encapsulated in huge, everything-proof casks.

The youtube channel whose video I linked earlier has a whole series of fantastic lectures detailing many aspects of nuclear power generation, including this one about spent fuel storage, disposal, and reprocessing.  He has one stepping through what went wrong at Chernobyl (tl;dr: lots and lots of stuff that is obviated with better designs nowadays) and another about Fukushima (50-year-old plant, freak natural disaster took out plan B and plan C and plan D, still resulted in something several orders of magnitude smaller than Chernobyl).

[RetiredAt63]

We have Candu reactors, not sure how much difference that makes to waste disposal.  Suggesting waste be buried only a km or 2 from the Ottawa River is not good even for low level waste, which is what is floating around now (I don't know which wastes were being discussed, so no idea of the radioactivity levels).

I don't think anyone is promoting burying waste near waterways.  Typically, the waste is stored in large tanks of water as the fuel further decays, then it is encapsulated in huge, everything-proof casks.

The youtube channel whose video I linked earlier has a whole series of fantastic lectures detailing many aspects of nuclear power generation, including this one about spent fuel storage, disposal, and reprocessing.  He has one stepping through what went wrong at Chernobyl (tl;dr: lots and lots of stuff that is obviated with better designs nowadays) and another about Fukushima (50-year-old plant, freak natural disaster took out plan B and plan C and plan D, still resulted in something several orders of magnitude smaller than Chernobyl).

Um, it was seriously proposed here. Totally stupid, things rust, things leach, and lots of cities are down stream of the proposed location. Including Ottawa.

[Leisured]

 Nuclear is an option, but the problems are political. Modern reactor designs can lost electric power to their coolant pumps yet still stay safe by passive thermal circulation. I understand that modern reactor designs include nuclear waste into the outer levels of nuclear fuel, so that neutrons from the reactor split the nuclear water into more benign compounds, adding s small amount of reaction heat in the process.

I live in Australia, with a land area similar to that of the US. with a sparse population, stable geology and low rainfall. We are well placed to accept nuclear waste from other countries, for a fee, and use nuclear power to make energy intensive products such as fertiliser (ammonia), cement and aluminium.

Fukushima is a distraction. The plant was sixties technology, the emergency generators sere installed too low for a tsunami, and Japan is in a volcanic region.

[GuitarStv]

We have Candu reactors, not sure how much difference that makes to waste disposal.  Suggesting waste be buried only a km or 2 from the Ottawa River is not good even for low level waste, which is what is floating around now (I don't know which wastes were being discussed, so no idea of the radioactivity levels).

I don't think anyone is promoting burying waste near waterways.  Typically, the waste is stored in large tanks of water as the fuel further decays, then it is encapsulated in huge, everything-proof casks.

The youtube channel whose video I linked earlier has a whole series of fantastic lectures detailing many aspects of nuclear power generation, including this one about spent fuel storage, disposal, and reprocessing.  He has one stepping through what went wrong at Chernobyl (tl;dr: lots and lots of stuff that is obviated with better designs nowadays) and another about Fukushima (50-year-old plant, freak natural disaster took out plan B and plan C and plan D, still resulted in something several orders of magnitude smaller than Chernobyl).

To date, humanity has not developed anything that can be safely guaranteed to store nuclear waste for the geological (tens of thousands of year) periods of time necessary.  Think of the changes that have occurred between now and when Jesus was born.  Then think of how many chances will happen in five or six times this period of time.  It is hubris and foolhardy to expect any storage system we devise now to last for that period of time.

I'm not anti-nuclear at all . . . but the long term storage of nuclear waste that you're brushing off here is a serious issue.  There exists no such thing as an 'everything-proof' cask, and waste is piling up as we use nuclear power.  It may be better than many of the ways we're generating power right now, but it's absolutely not a panacea, or without problems.

[zolotiyeruki]

Um, it was seriously proposed here. Totally stupid, things rust, things leach, and lots of cities are down stream of the proposed location. Including Ottawa.

I looked back, and all I saw was "stored near".  That doesn't mean that they're planning to dig a hole and toss radioactive fuel rods in.  In fact, the NRC has a handy page describing how spent fuel can be stored.  Aside from the wet storage, the dry storage approach takes the fuel, sticks it in a steel tube, and then encapsulates a bunch of steel pipes in concrete, above ground.  That way it can be easily monitored, is impervious to anything that wouldn't cause greater problems on its own*, poses no proliferation risk, and poses no contamination risk.

To date, humanity has not developed anything that can be safely guaranteed to store nuclear waste for the geological (tens of thousands of year) periods of time necessary. 

The Egyptians did, but I suppose that's probably impractical. :P  You're right that we don't have a practical one-shot solution for millennia-term storage.  But we don't have to.  All we need is good enough.  If the spent fuel is kept where it can be monitored, then if the concrete cracks 100 years from now, our descendants can pull the fuel out and stick it in a new concrete case.  Or they can reprocess it into new fuel (another issue that's more political than technical), or whatever.

When you say "the waste is piling up," are you referring to the spent fuel, or to the other, contaminated stuff?

[GuitarStv]

To date, humanity has not developed anything that can be safely guaranteed to store nuclear waste for the geological (tens of thousands of year) periods of time necessary. 

The Egyptians did, but I suppose that's probably impractical. :P  You're right that we don't have a practical one-shot solution for millennia-term storage.  But we don't have to.  All we need is good enough.  If the spent fuel is kept where it can be monitored, then if the concrete cracks 100 years from now, our descendants can pull the fuel out and stick it in a new concrete case.

"It is widely accepted that spent nuclear fuel and high-level reprocessing and plutonium wastes require well-designed storage for periods ranging from tens of thousands to a million years, to minimize releases of the contained radioactivity into the environment. Safeguards are also required to ensure that neither plutonium nor highly enriched uranium is diverted to weapon use. There is general agreement that placing spent nuclear fuel in repositories hundreds of meters below the surface would be safer than indefinite storage of spent fuel on the surface." - https://thebulletin.org/2011/06/managing-nuclear-spent-fuel-policy-lessons-from-a-10-country-study/

You're talking about a monitoring and maintenance program that lasts for tens of thousands to millions of years.  This is a little more mind-boggling than the casual way you're dropping the idea would indicate - can you tell me anything that humanity has stuck to doing for this period of time?  Just a thousand years ago the language we're speaking in didn't even exist.  Politically, I can't think of any institutions that have even lasted 500 years.  While not necessarily unsolvable - these are problems that humanity has never solved before and are extremely difficult.  Although the problem will come about thousands of years from now doesn't mean we can just wave it away.

Or they can reprocess it into new fuel (another issue that's more political than technical), or whatever.

"Reprocessing does not eliminate the requirement for a repository, however, or even reduce its size much. This is because, in effect, reprocessing merely exchanges the problem of managing light-water-reactor spent fuel for the problem of managing not only spent MOX fuel but also the high-level waste from reprocessing, plutonium waste from MOX-fuel fabrication, and eventually the waste from decommissioned reprocessing and MOX-fuel fabrication facilities." - https://thebulletin.org/2011/06/managing-nuclear-spent-fuel-policy-lessons-from-a-10-country-study/

Nuclear reprocessing may at some point be a possible solution, but currently it's not able to replace the need for extremely long term nuclear waste storage.

When you say "the waste is piling up," are you referring to the spent fuel, or to the other, contaminated stuff?

Low level and short lived radioactive stuff is not as serious an issue, or as concerning.  I'm talking about the waste produced that requires storage in a deep geological repository (our current only idea for how to store it) that is continuously piling up by using nuclear fuel for energy generation.

[RetiredAt63]

Google chalk river nuclear waste storage and a series of articles will come up.  You can see the history and concerns about this proposal.  At this point they have eliminated intermediate-level waste from what would be stored, and added river monitoring. The proposed site is 1.2km from the river (that is roughly 3/4 of a mile for non-metric people).

You are then trusting that everything will happen as it should.  Good concrete (as opposed to the terrible concrete house foundations in an area I lived in, and all the crappy concrete in Montreal area overpasses, not to mention the Big O).  Proper monitoring, proper equipment and well trained staff, no budget cuts as people become used to it.  For at least 50 years?  Guess I'm just cynical in my old age.

[zolotiyeruki]

The Egyptians did, but I suppose that's probably impractical. :P  You're right that we don't have a practical one-shot solution for millennia-term storage.  But we don't have to.  All we need is good enough.  If the spent fuel is kept where it can be monitored, then if the concrete cracks 100 years from now, our descendants can pull the fuel out and stick it in a new concrete case.

You're talking about a monitoring and maintenance program that lasts for tens of thousands to millions of years.  This is a little more mind-boggling than the casual way you're dropping the idea would indicate - can you tell me anything that humanity has stuck to doing for this period of time?  Just a thousand years ago the language we're speaking in didn't even exist.  Politically, I can't think of any institutions that have even lasted 500 years.  While not necessarily unsolvable - these are problems that humanity has never solved before and are extremely difficult.  Although the problem will come about thousands of years from now doesn't mean we can just wave it away.

I'm under no illusion that any monitoring/maintenance program instituted today would last a thousand years.  Science and technology advance, and I fully expect that during the next 50 years, we will develop even better (lower-cost, simpler, longer-lived) processes, materials, programs, etc that will carry us through the next decades or centuries.

Burying casks of spent fuel is the best solution we have right now, if you're assuming nobody touches it forever.

When you say "the waste is piling up," are you referring to the spent fuel, or to the other, contaminated stuff?

Low level and short lived radioactive stuff is not as serious an issue, or as concerning.  I'm talking about the waste produced that requires storage in a deep geological repository (our current only idea for how to store it) that is continuously piling up by using nuclear fuel for energy generation.

Ok, good to know we're on the same page here.  The amount of high-level waste is something around 60,000 tons in the US. Given uranium's high density, that doesn't amount to a huge volume (thankfully!).

Oooooh, here's a silly thought:  SpaceX's Starship/Superheavy is (aspirationally) supposed to deliver 100T of cargo to LEO, at a cost (to SpaceX) of $2 million.  That's $20/kg.  At that price, we could launch the stuff into interplanetary space for less than it would cost to store it on earth!

[GuitarStv]

Launching radioactive stuff into space sounds great (gone forever!  no storage problems!).  But that usually ends as soon as you think of all the things that can go wrong with a space launch . . . and then imagine all that nuclear material finely dispersed across the upper layers of the atmosphere.  Although likely cheaper, the risks/reward there is pretty unbalanced.

[scottish]

If nuclear power plants are out, what do you all think we should use for electrical generation going forward?

[StashingAway]

But the waste disposal issue is major. We are having issues with our present reactors and waste disposal.

It's a helluva lot less of an issue than the CO2 waste we dump into the atmosphere from our current sources of fuel. And a coal plant emits more radiation than a nuclear one to local residents.

We don't have to be "perfect" with nuclear, we just have to be significantly better than the current energy production sources. Which many would argue that it is (I'm in that boat).

As humans progress, we have constantly benefited from denser, cleaner power sources. wood>coal>petroleum>gas. Nuclear is the best way to power a growing worldwide power demand. Solar, wind, geo, tidal, power can all do their part, but we need grid-level, predictable, dense, clean power. Build the thorium reactors!

[StashingAway]

One other note. Nuclear has the lowset mortality/kWh out of all of the sources we have so far, aside from dams in the US (which are themselves ecological disasters for flora/fauna).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#58f2d8ef709b

[zolotiyeruki]

Launching radioactive stuff into space sounds great (gone forever!  no storage problems!).  But that usually ends as soon as you think of all the things that can go wrong with a space launch . . . and then imagine all that nuclear material finely dispersed across the upper layers of the atmosphere.  Although likely cheaper, the risks/reward there is pretty unbalanced.

That's why I prefaced the idea with the word "silly" :)  Although, if Starship achieves arliner-like safety levels, it stops being silly...

[PDXTabs]

I'm all for developing Thorium reactors, but today we have zero.

Also, it's not just the reactor that needs to be constantly cooled, its also the spent rod storage for a long time (approximately 10 years). This was one of the problems at Fukushima. Two of the reactors were successfully shutdown, but that doesn't mean that you can let the spent rods go. To put it another way: modern reactors (not the ones at Fukushima) have core catchers. But the cooling pools do not.

[PKFFW]

Regardless of the waste storage problems, nuclear fission isn't really the answer anyway.

Brian Cox in the documentary "Can we make a star on Earth" did some calculations with the following assumptions;
Assumption 1:  All 6 billion people (at the time of the documentary) in the world used 5Kw of energy per day.  This results in 30 Terawatts per day energy needed
The USA average at the time of the documentary was 11.4kw per day.  So a little less than half what they currently use.  The global average was 2.2Kw per day so about double.  That would increase standards of living in the developing world while not throwing the developed world back to the Stone Age.  Let's be honest, getting the developed world to consume on average less than half the energy it currently does is pretty much a pie in the sky dream.  However, lets be optimistic and assume it can be done.
Assumption 2:  Only 1/6 of the 30 Terawatts of energy would be produced by nuclear fission reactors.
Assumption 3:  We need this 30 Terawatts of energy being produced by 2035. (25 years at time of documentary)

Take a guess how many full sized nuclear fission reactors would need to be built each week for 25 years to produce only 1/6th of that highly optimistic energy requirement......

2.5 full sized nuclear fission plants per week every week!!!

So give up on the idea of nuclear fission being the answer.

Documentary be seen here legally for free  http://www.documentarymania.com/player.php?title=Can%20We%20Make%20a%20Star%20on%20Earth

[StashingAway]

So give up on the idea of nuclear fission being the answer.

Eh, not going to just quit because some internet rando says to!

Without watching the documentary, I can be confident that there are more than 3 major assumptions that Brian Cox makes to come to his conclusion. Those types of things are very rarely done in good faith. I am leaving the door to be open to be wrong about this. But back of the napkin math doesn't even make sense. How can it be so impossible to achieve if France is 70% nuclear right now?

[PKFFW]

Eh, not going to just quit because some internet rando says to!

Apologies, didn't mean to sound as if I was actually stating anyone should give up on their illusions just because I say so.  Take it as a suggestion rather than any sort of order if you will.

Without watching the documentary, I can be confident that there are more than 3 major assumptions that Brian Cox makes to come to his conclusion. Those types of things are very rarely done in good faith. I am leaving the door to be open to be wrong about this. But back of the napkin math doesn't even make sense. How can it be so impossible to achieve if France is 70% nuclear right now?

Not much point in engaging if you admit you can feel confident a physicist who has taken at least a little time to study the problem is wrong without even bothering to listen to what they have to say.

I will say though, that as for France, last I looked, France is not the entire world and their effort doesn't make a bit of difference to the increasing power consumption needs of the developing world.

[scottish]

Regardless of the waste storage problems, nuclear fission isn't really the answer anyway.

Brian Cox in the documentary "Can we make a star on Earth" did some calculations with the following assumptions;
Assumption 1:  All 6 billion people (at the time of the documentary) in the world used 5Kw of energy per day.  This results in 30 Terawatts per day energy needed
The USA average at the time of the documentary was 11.4kw per day.  So a little less than half what they currently use.  The global average was 2.2Kw per day so about double.  That would increase standards of living in the developing world while not throwing the developed world back to the Stone Age.  Let's be honest, getting the developed world to consume on average less than half the energy it currently does is pretty much a pie in the sky dream.  However, lets be optimistic and assume it can be done.
Assumption 2:  Only 1/6 of the 30 Terawatts of energy would be produced by nuclear fission reactors.
Assumption 3:  We need this 30 Terawatts of energy being produced by 2035. (25 years at time of documentary)

Take a guess how many full sized nuclear fission reactors would need to be built each week for 25 years to produce only 1/6th of that highly optimistic energy requirement......

2.5 full sized nuclear fission plants per week every week!!!

So give up on the idea of nuclear fission being the answer.

Documentary be seen here legally for free  http://www.documentarymania.com/player.php?title=Can%20We%20Make%20a%20Star%20on%20Earth

Watts are units of power not energy.    Very few people need to use 5 kW of electrical power on a continuous basis.      This is roughly like running your oven, your clothes dryer and your air conditioner at the same time all day, every day.