I am really dreading the devastation I know this El Niño will bring. As the situation deteriorates, it makes me wonder how I can be most helpful at a time like this. Do I keep trying to pursue my research career or devote even more of my time to warning the public?
“It’s as if the human race has received a terminal medical diagnosis and knows there is a cure, but has consciously decided not to save itself.“
—Prof Lesley HughesWhen a patient receives a likely terminal diagnoses with one obtainable cure, they typically do everything in their power to get to it unless that means leaving themselves or others permanently destitute. Their coming death is very close. So is the only way out.
The cause in both these statements is that global warming will NEVER be an immediate threat. Humans are wired for immediacy, and if the threat is not a right now thing, they switch to ignoring and adapting. Our psychology is wired to try to address the tiger and to adapt to what is unfortunately continual environmental collapse.
Those who understand we literally cannot do that and that a great many of us will die are not equipped to handle that information without simply sinking into increasingly immobile despair, because…what the fuck can I do about it?
I already eat little, don’t even own a car, my worst offense is having internet but it’s necessary for work. My other options are to become homeless again or Amish.
People in many countries are suffering greatly already from natural events that have been kicked up to 20. All I can do is watch. And I do. But more and more as someone who has a large stomach for suffering, even I’m beginning to evaluate what good it’s doing me, as a civilian, to watch.
I can’t help, or I would have. Whatever’s going to happen to me in the future is unavoidable. My choices then are between Despair and Not Despair. This is why the masses won’t pay attention. They don’t have the bandwidth for the entire planet.
The politicians, however, have no excuse for this, and had we less tendency to shut our eyes and stomp our feet and more biological ability to plan in long term, they would be on pikes in the 00’s.
The true dispair is knowing that the ones primarily responsible for the issues we are facing (private jets, mega yachts, hundred million dollar properties, etc.) are completely untouchable by us.
We just get to watch in horror as our world decays and the rich get richer.
I don’t know where you take that from but the super rich are a tiny tiny fraction of the problem. They don’t buy containerships full of stuff, they don’t eat millions of animals per day, they don’t constitute the vast majority of travel.
Yes, on a per person basis they have an extremely large footprint, but it’s still a drop in the bucket compared to the industries that feed the consumption of the average citizens.
Don’t forget kids once we hit 130 were gonna start dropping like flies, going outside will be dangerous, your AC bill will be astronomical and the rich people will all be fine in their bunkers!
We hit 125s pretty regularly out here near PHX. Death Valley hit 130 already. So I guess get ready to start dropping.
I lived in Phoenix for a while, 05-08ish. I grew up and live in Florida now. The difference really is the “dry heat” that everybody treats as the big joke. You can still sweat in 125 and dry air. 125 in humid air doesn’t let you sweat.
The heat has been constant this year. We are 30 days now of over 110F, a handful of those days hit 120+.
I’ve been here for a years now, but this year the heat is hitting different. Humidity is definitely another animal, but 120s is nothing to bat your eye at.
Man that’s environmental scientists catch phrase lately, “No one wants to be right about this.” I really wish people(cough governments) would take them seriously.
You forgot about ‘faster than expected’.
I really hope Tony Seba is right on his forecasts. It’s the only thing that brings more hope. Electric cars, solar, batteries and precision fermentation. He’s been right a lot so I have faith.
Having said that we need a huge carbon tax (including on trade) like today.
Sorry to burst the Tony Seba bubble, but he was wrong about self-driving electric cars and he is also wrong about batteries.
(Solar he is probably right on).
We only have two really big, proven guns in the fight against climate change: carbon tax (or, the power of the market) and atomic energy (or, the power of E=MC^2).
Everyone was wrong about self driving cars.
Any analysis out there about batteries?
Fission is just too expensive. Will never be the answer.
Fission is only expensive because we’re depending on the free market to develop and deploy it.
Basically, we cannot depend on capitalism to fix a problem that capitalism created.
I’ve seen fairly credible estimates that say when we finally max out the usable land for solar and wind, we’d be producing 30-40% of the world’s electricity via those two methods.
Which is a lot of power, but it falls short of the final goal. As a note, we just barely crossed 10% in 2022.
We need fission. It can power the world for the next 1000 years at current demand, and that’s including the power generated by solar and wind.
The problem is, regulatory sabotage has created a system where it’s more cost-effective to build the biggest nuclear plant possible. Except by building bigger, you drive up the costs more. Every part must be custom-built, which is expensive, most parts need special machinery to install, which is expensive, and then the constant frivolous lawsuits from people who don’t understand a damn thing about nuclear power, but have strong opinions are expensive.
Add in the fact that these lawsuits delay construction, which means that the regulations can then change mid-construction, which means you need to back-port everything to be compliant with the new regs, and now you have a massive project that’s been delayed a dozen times and had the final cost skyrocket, all because the current regulatory structure is such that every plant costs the same to license. And the licensing fees are pretty hefty.
So people taking the risk, build bigger, because the biggest plants can produce more power, which can then be sold to a wider market, and that means more profit in the long run. But again, big plants are fucking expensive.
The answer of course is a factory built small modular reactor. They can be slotted in place, run for 10 years, then shipped back to the manufacturer for refueling and refitting. And because they’re small, they literally cannot melt down. There’s not enough fuel to do so. Being modular, they can stack next to each other until you have the power needed, and they need the land equivalent of a corner gas station. All to produce more power than most solar farms.
But to really get the economies of scale, and drive that price down, you need a bunch of them to be ordered. Which puts up back in the realm of capitalism not being able to fix a problem that capitalism created. See, those first few units are going to be super expensive as the factory is built and tooled up, and no one wants to pay for that when they can just buy 1000 acres of land and throw a solar farm down.
Also, that licensing issue is still there. You have to pay a lot of money to open a nuclear plant, and that’s not even the insurance premiums.
Oh yeah, then there’s the waste issue, which is only an issue because we’re not actually allowed to burn the waste in a reactor. Because of regulatory sabotage again.
If we were allowed to reprocess and burn the waste, the remaining dangerous isotopes would last a couple hundred years, not the hundreds of thousands of unprocessed waste. We’d also shit ton more fuel power the world for a very long time.
Fission is only expensive because we’re depending on the free market to develop and deploy it.
Basically, we cannot depend on capitalism to fix a problem that capitalism created.
Well that’s just wrong. Capitalism makes things cheaper. Also fission has been built under communist countries so the point doesn’t make sense.
I’ve seen fairly credible estimates that say when we finally max out the usable land for solar and wind, we’d be producing 30-40% of the world’s electricity via those two methods.
That’s just bull crap. Even some back of the envelope calculations can prove that. Go look up some solar farms and wind farms. Calculate the power to area ratio then extrapolate.
You have a very wrong opinion of how capitalism work. Even way before Henry Ford economies of scale have been a thing. The fact is nuclear power large or small doesn’t make much money. Also profit maximisation is also cost minimisation, it’s two sides of the same coin. Again a country like China could mass produce small reactors even just for themselves, but do they? No they are mass producing solar and wind because it’s more economical. None of the arguments you have made in anyway stop China (who know how to build small reactors) wouldn’t do this.
The French also built a bunch of cheap reactors by building the same design. But that paradigm is not as common as it should be. Every Reactor in the US is a custom design.
Capitalism, goes with the cheapest option, even if it’s not the best. Except that’s not actually how it works, It actually goes with the option that makes the most money, regardless of who it hurts. That’s the capitalism I know and hate.
Capitalism is why oil companies still exist.
China is building wind and solar farms, but they also rank third in the world for number of nuclear power capacity, and are building more plants. They have 22 plants under construction right now, and a further 70 are in development.
So yeah, a state controlled economy can do it quite easily, capitalism cannot.
The issue with the capitalist approach is called a bootstrapping paradox. You need to sell the thing to develop the thing, and you can’t sell it without first developing it. Literally needing to reach down, grab your own boot straps, and lift yourself up.
Well of course you can build them when price is no concern.
But when price matters nuclear is too expensive.
Again, capitalism cannot fix the problems created by capitalism.
And you better believe that the factories that pump out solar cells and wind turbines were initially built with government money.
The federal government has been throwing money at solar and wind projects. And these days it pays off, but in the early days, it did not. Wind was particularly expensive for the power generated for about 5-10 years. And then more factories came online and the price rapidly fell.
The same crowd that told us to wait for wind to become viable, screams that nuclear is too expensive and should get no government money at all.
That same crowd often sues new nuclear power projects, driving up the cost further. All because they are fucking idiots who want fossil fuels to win.
See, that’s the dirty little secret. Every wind and solar farm needs a backup power source for when they’re offline. And that backup is always natural gas.
Those natural gas peaker plants are being built at a breakneck pace. All because solar and wind get priority on the grid. And then when they fall off, you need a near instant ramp up of power, which only natural gas can provide.
Batteries that can handle the load don’t actually exist yet, and likely require more investment than it would take to get a small modular reactor factory going full steam.
