|
|
|
|
|
|
by corbulo
1220 days ago
|
|
|
>If you bet on the scientific majority around climate change being wrong / non-existent / something we can't control, and end up being wrong, then the worst case scenario we make the planet uninhabitable (I'm going to the extreme here). Have you heard of Pascals wager? What do you think of it? The problem with your 2nd part is it hasn't been actually shifting away from oil, just shifting where in the chain uses more of it. 'Green' infrastructure and products are still overwhelmingly powered by oil & coal and require such significant amounts of emissions to extract that it is self-defeating in the majority of cases. The strongest advocates of 'Green' energy have been frequently silent on Nuclear Energy, which is an obvious and much easier solution to their own alarmism than wind farms (have you seen local eco impacts and blade disposal?) solar (works only where it's sunny with limited options for power storage which is its own can of worms). >For something more immediate like health concerns with this derailment, is should the officials be more willing to be wrong? And message as such? I think transparency is what is being requested, not wrongness. |
|
|
If I have I don't remember it, thanks for bring it up. I'm still trying to absorb it, but I find it to be a fascinating insight. Part of it, is I often try to remind myself that I don't know what I don't know.
> The problem with your 2nd part is it hasn't been actually shifting away from oil, just shifting where in the chain uses more of it.
Well that's true today, but is also basically correct no matter what happens. Our society only operates because of the stuff, so today, any other energy types are going to be transported by oil, manufactured using electricity from hydrocarbons, etc.
> The strongest advocates of 'Green' energy have been frequently silent on Nuclear Energy, which is an obvious and much easier solution
What really changed my mind on this side of the discussion, was a point I heard somewhere that we would've really need to start this 15 years ago. Nuclear is so capital intensive and so long to build, we don't get the necessary impact for far too long if we start now. I'm totally onboard extending lifetime of current reactors if safe to do so, and think new nuclear should be some mix of future energy supplies. I'm keeping an eye on the industry here and totally want the startups to succeed, but I'm under the impression we need to pursue other options here as well.
This probably isn't the best thread to debate the nuances wind and solar and storage, you're right, there are real waste and safety problems with these technologies. But I don't know that also means they aren't the current best option for some mix of new investments.
But, I simply don't know what I don't know.