[grecy]

The time to start building tons of new nuclear plants was 20 years ago.

Given how little time we have to react, and how long it takes to build a nuclear plant (and how expensive they are), putting our hopes on nuclear this late in the game is foolhardy and will never save us.

We have no choice but to go with what will have a meaningful impact in the immediate future (5 year horizon) - wind, solar, hydro. Many countries are already past 50% renewable, and many are climbing towards 100%.

[aldonius]

Thing is I seem to remember people saying "If we were going to build nuclear, the time to start was 15 years ago"... about 15 years ago.

[LargoLasskhyfv]

You are thinking too small. With enough 'nukes' we could suck the carbon out of the atmosphere, and use that to make syngas/synfuels for the applications where it would be impractical to replace them. That alone would be almost carbon neutral. Similar for hydrogen production by electrolysis and process heat for many industrial applications.

Oh, and mass production of carbon zeolithes to regenerate the sucked empty agricultural fields, to make them into something like 'terra preta' without having to use too much fertilizer, instead of uselessly sequestrating it somewhere underground.

Terraforming, so to speak. Like the 'atmospheric processors' from Alien II(Aliens).

edit: Instead of thinking all the raw materials for wind,solar&batteries grow on trees, without any externalities, sustainability problems, and no emissions at all. Which is a fucking cargo cult!

[grecy]

> With enough 'nukes' we could

Uh huh. And when exactly will they be online and performing all this work for us?

As well as the time and cost to build the nukes, how much time and money will it take to build the machines to suck the carbon out of the air.

I'm all for solutions, but 30+ years isn't going to cut it. 10 years is a huge risk.

[LargoLasskhyfv]

Did it ever occur to you that we actually could revert the atmospheric conditions we produced with those 'nukes' and attached 'atmospheric processors'?

Even after a few decades late into the game?

What is so hard to get about the idea that we actually could modulate the greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere, now that we know that and how they influence our living conditions?

It would even make sense to have something like this in case of the next supervolcano eruption. Call it 'weather control done right', if you like.

Retroactive.

[grecy]

> Did it ever occur to you that we actually could revert the atmospheric conditions we produced with those 'nukes' and attached 'atmospheric processors'?

Yes, of course that is a great hypothetical option for 30-50 years from now.

We and our children don't have time to wait for that.

Next you're going to tell me if I just wait till fusion works we'll all be saved and can power these "atmospheric processors" with those!

[LargoLasskhyfv]

> Next you're going to tell me...

Nope, I won't. Because anything except aneutronic fusion will be much dirtier than the 'nukes' we have now. Which is hypothetical right now, and maybe stays so forever.

Which can't be said about 'nukes', neither the ones we have, nor the ones we could have with a little bit of more investment into materials science. (Liquid salt, etc.)

We and our children won't make it with 'renewables' alone, because they emit at least as much greenhouse gasses, or more when you consider all the externalities going into their production. They are not the solution.

Edit: /me mumbling something like 'Look into fucking GESAMTSTOFFMENGENKREISLAUF'

Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sankey_diagram

[pyuser583]

Why? Assuming we need more energy over time, doesn’t it make sense to be preparing for 10/20/30 years down the road?