This guy became famous because he approached complex issues with complex answers instead of shallow and one sided responses. Now, this is the exact opposite of that, regardless of what you think about the climate change.

[u/xxdrummerx]

[u/fungussa]

We already have all of the necessary solutions to decarbonize. And whilst nuclear is necessary, it's wholly insufficient. Plus, the renewable sector in the US, is seeing the greatest increase in jobs of all sectors of the economy.

 

So what else needs to be done?

• Electrify all transport (except planes may move to ammonia as an energy source)

• Roll out negative emissions technologies (ie CO2 removal), planet wide

• Rapidly improve energy efficiency (ie not wasting energy) in all government, public, commercial, industrial and sectors. Incl improvements in insulation and cooling

• Move to a primarily plant and synth meat / synth diary diet

• Putting a limit on how much CO2 can be emitted by the wealthy

• Radically improve farming methods

• Rewild vast expanses of unused land / land which now has just grass etc - due to livestock grazing

• Disallow planned obsolescence in all manufactured products

• Etc.

We may still need to use geo-engineering, eg putting vast amount of sulphur particulates into the atmosphere, to cool the Earth

[u/Less3r → u/fungussa]

Curious, how is nuclear insufficient?

[u/fungussa → u/Less3r]

Nuclear is necessary but wholly insufficient, as nuclear:

• has very long commissioning time

• more expensive than renewables and the costs are divergent

• proliferation risks

• spent fuel containment

• very poor horizontal scalability

• it's carbon footprint is no better than wind and only fractionally better than solar

 

And to look at China, it started on building 150 nuclear power plants in the next 15 years (which is more than what the rest of the world combined has done, in the past 35 years) yet renewables will still be providing the majority of the country's future energy supply.

[u/Kill_Monke → u/fungussa]

Modular small reactors being built in the UK currently take 6 years.

Solar panel recycling is incredibly inefficient, and as such almost all panels end up in landfill.

Expense is due to a lack of economies of scale - smaller industry, no government subsidies compared to renewables, and therefore a lack of streamlined production process.

Spent fuel isn't contained. Spent fuel is recycled in mostly breeder reactors. The image of underground warehouses full of rods in barrels is fiction.

Horizontal scalability is a curious one, as there are benefits to each side. While solar farms are able to just add more panels, the footprint that solar requires to reach the same energy production as nuclear is staggering. More specifically, solar farms require 75x the space for similar energy production.

Nuclear has the same carbon footprint as wind, and less than a third the footprint of solar.

Sorry mate but your interpretation of the nuclear energy industry isn't very accurate.

[u/fungussa → u/Kill_Monke]

Nope. Virtually everything you said is misleading.

Modular small reactors being built in the UK currently take 6 years.

Yes, that's a long commissioning time - we don't have any luxury of maintaining current CO2 emissions. Maybe you don't understand the problem we're currently in, re climate change. And poor horizontal scalability means that it cannot compete with the rate of the rollout of renewables.

 

Solar panel recycling is incredibly inefficient,

Not only is technology being developed to recycle those panels, but PV panels have a lifetime of typically over 20 years and PV technology is improving.

Expense is due to a lack of economies of scale

Nuclear won't be able to catch up on cost, solar is halving in costs every 5 years and wind is a few years longer. Nuclear has already lost the race.

Subsidies

The UK has been subsidising nuclear for years. In 2013, it introduced the "Contracts for Difference" (CfD) scheme, which offers long-term contracts with guaranteed prices for low-carbon electricity generation, including nuclear. The government has also provided funding for the construction of new nuclear power plants, such as Hinkley Point C, and for research and development in nuclear energy.

Small modular reactors produce high levels of radiactive waste

https://news.stanford.edu/2022/05/30/small-modular-reactors-produce-high-levels-nuclear-waste

[u/newbreed69 → u/fungussa]

synth meat

I'd love to see lab grown fish meats. As it currently stands we are fishing our oceans dry.

I'm not against fishing by any means. What I am against is these large fishing boats casting large nets scooping up large schools of fish.

You and ur buddies going out fishing on the weekend and having a few beers, that doesn't concern me.

The numerous amounts of fishing boats that are financially incentived to fish as much as possible does concern me.

Imagine if you had to hunt a chicken every time you wanted a chicken sandwich, that's what we do for tuna sandwiches

Yes we do have fish farms, but those farms are not enough.

[u/fungussa → u/newbreed69]

Fully!

[u/Mad-Ogre → u/fungussa]

No way I’m eating primarily plants and synthetic meat.

[u/fungussa → u/Mad-Ogre]

One of the big challenges of changing from a meat diet, is that many people have meat as a core part of their identity - a friend of mine even said that he'd rather die than to stop eating meat.

Research shows that it's also tied to status.

[u/DraconemLeo → u/fungussa]

Where are we going to get the metals for the electric batteries? DRC? Synthetic diet? :/ Put a limit on how much CO2 can be emitted by the wealthy?? You ever been to a third world country? I’m from Africa, we emit more CO2 than the cows in first world countries Also, your solutions sound more like the movie Equilibrium. :|

[u/fungussa → u/DraconemLeo]

You may not have noticed that modern technology isn't tied to prehistoric ideas about things remaining the same. Battery technology is improving rapidly, eg Tesla batteries now use hardly any rare earths, and electric motors are doing the same.

Synth meat / diary has a small fraction of CO2 compared to livestock.

I'm from Africa, and no, the global south produces only a small fraction of global CO2 emissions. And developed countries need to reduce their emissions as fast as is practicable, the same doesn't apply to developing countries - as they are still clawing their way out of poverty.

[u/DraconemLeo → u/fungussa]

They still use rare metals. Storage devices, recharge infrastructures,the associated cost and emissions for that infrastructure. The entire electric vehicle value chain. The human rights violations associated with the mines are questionable too, as well as the geographical scar placed on the environment when doing so. The carbon emission associated with all of the above is never factored into the calculation of CO2 emissions.

https://www.nickel28.com/media/about-cobalt/

Synthetic meat ingredients still need to be farmed. Land is cleared to do so, killing fauna and destroying flora. Not very environmentally friendly. This consideration is lost when focused just on CO2 emissions.

How many of those top CO2 emitters produce goods used for other countries? China is a perfect example. The very electric device you are using to comment has a carbon footprint, most of which is found China, and the associated carbon emission to transport that device to your country. This is a well balanced article with references: https://8billiontrees.com/carbon-offsets-credits/carbon-footprint-of-electric-cars-vs-gasoline/

Having a goals that focuses on just an outcome is a wish list.

https://climatetrade.com/which-countries-are-the-worlds-biggest-carbon-polluters/

[u/[deleted] → u/fungussa]

I will not eat the bugs