It’s hilarious to me that South Park has been on the air long enough that they had to essentially apologize and admit they were wrong about their edgy climate change contrarianism when reality started catching up.
Interesting. Which episode was that? The apology I mean.
Meanwhile the very first episode of King of the Hill has Hank spitting facts about climate change to Dale
So South Park is just an idiot and King of the Hill is a show?
In stage one we say “nothing is going to happen”
In stage two we say “something may be going to happen but we should do nothing about it”
In stage three we say “maybe we should do something about it, but there’s nothing we can do”
In stage four we say “maybe there’s something we could have done, but it’s too late now”
The truly horrifying part about all of this is that the large corporations who are mostly responsible for greenhouse gas emissions are continuing to conduct business as usual. I’m doubtful anyone has the (political) will or ability to force them to stop…
I drive a semi truck for a living. I can imagine slightly more inconvenient alternatives to driving trucks everywhere, but trucking companies and their customers can not.
It’s a political problem, as it should be, but the candidates that they’ve chosen to represent us aren’t the ones we need, they’re the ones that the “other side” really doesn’t want. It used to be a game, but now with the internet/TV, it’s divided into a political tribalism and has become nothing but metagaming.
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions
It’s called trains and barges. Long haul trucking shouldn’t exist, because everything long haul trucking does is done infinitely better by trains and barges.
Trucks have their purpose as the last mile delivery vehicle, but they should never be shipping anything between cities.
No, it’s even worse than that. There’s a stable part of America that still refuses to believe in it. They tend to be “Christians” that are just killing time waiting for the rapture anyway. These are only tangently related, as their true religion is “I get to tell you what to do; you don’t get to tell me what you do,” which the GOO then exploits to stay rich and powerful.
“The goo?”
Probably meant GOP but goo is also accurate
Where is the “ok, climate change is serious enough that I may need to reconsider my opposition to nuclear energy”?
Because Greenpeace is a bit missing on this scale.
i still don’t get the nuclear lovers, like yeah it’s better than coal and oil but renewable are now cheaper and much faster to build. we don’t have decades to build new nuclear plants anymore.
I am personally in favor of nuclear because I don’t think we have solved the problems with renewables yet, our power grids are not ready to support a 100% renewable system and as of right now, electricity grids require some stable energy. Hydro can technically fill that role but that’s restricted by geography, so in places where that is not an option, it’s a choice of fossil fuels versus nuclear. In that context, nuclear is the lesser evil by far.
Unlike some of the other responses, I don’t think we can’t wait for energy storage solutions to be developed when we needed to be zero emissions, like, ten years ago. We need to use solutions that we know about RIGHT NOW, not years into the future.
Yeah people were using the same argument decades ago
It comes down to battery tech. They’re betting that the battery tech we need for renewables won’t be here before we can build more nuclear.
I think they’re wrong. I think batteries will catch up faster than enough nuclear could come online to be useful
It makes little sense for fully functional and existing nuclear plants to not be running though because politics/cheap gas/lobbying.
About 90 terawatt hours (TWh) of nuclear generation is scheduled to retire in the next decade, more than all of the US’s current solar generation. Studies suggest that another 135TWh is probably not cost competitive with gas plants and, therefore, at risk of retirement.
This means the source of about 15% of US low-carbon electricity could shut down and largely be replaced by gas, making it harder for the US to meet its emission reduction targets.
Research suggests that many existing nuclear plants would avoid being shut down if they were rewarded for their minimal CO2 emissions. Additionally, keeping existing nuclear plants open may be one of the lowest-cost forms of carbon mitigation, cheaper than building new wind or solar plants to replace them.
Nuclear, like all things do, requires investment and scale to bring the cost down. Investment is necessary for iterative innovation that reduces costs, and after Chernobyl, the west at large more or less stopped building nuclear reactors. That means the past +30 years in nuclear has been more or less stagnant, so maintenance and build costs go up as everyone trained to build and work on them either moves on in their career or retires. It’s a big reason why the US dumps so much money into oil, agricultural, and military spending and subsidies. Not just to funnel money to donors, although that is a big part of it, but because that industrial capacity is a national security priority. Once you lose it, it’s a lot harder and a lot more expensive to get it back, with no good alternative in the meantime. That is what happened with nuclear.
And we are only now starting to see if the next generation of SMR (small nuclear reactors) can bring the cost down. Standardizing the production of smaller units that are much faster to make and deployable in more places will go a long way. Before, every single nuclear reactor was more or less bespoke, because a certain large enough size reactor grants enough operational efficiencies that it made much more sense to build large reactors with public funds to service a large area. But now government doesn’t want to make those kinds of big investments anymore, NIMBYs everywhere don’t want it built near them, and that is a long term strategy that requires long term commitment and public acceptance of nuclear to pull off.
As for why we need it, well, batteries are expensive and environmentally harmful to produce and very limited in supply. Renewables are intermittent and often unpredictable, and the grid demands a base load of power. Increasing efficiencies on the demand side requires public buy in and a whole lot more effort, like better insulating everyone’s house. Hydro is also ecologically not great, not suitable everywhere, and demand for power tends to spike at the exact time that it is most useless - during hot dry droughts. Nuclear is the only thing that can replace fossil fuels for the purpose that fossil fuels fill in heavily renewable countries. Germany for example shut down their nuclear reactors and went back to burning lignite coal, because wind and solar could not provide the electricity they needed. Their emissions went up in 2021 and 22, despite how heavily they are investing in renewables.
The NIMBYs that don’t want large nuclear reactors also won’t want small nuclear reactors in their backyards. That will make it even harder to get them approved.
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/d80WT/3/
Nuclear made up roughly the same percentage as coal now 20 years ago and is now fully replaced. Coal will be next and was already going down for years till the russian attack on Ukraine. Personally i would’ve liked it do be the other way around and at a much faster pace.
All your worries about base load really come into effect once we’re over 80 or 90% renewables which is still a long way and technology will be much more advanced till then.
“Nuclear lover” is a bit harsh. Someone mentioned batteries but another area is in actually buying emissions free energy and proving it for audits or reporting.
An angle that needs to be considered is that any upgrades that need to happen to a power grid in order to connect (in the US) need to be paid for by the party adding to the grid. The US distribution grid is ancient and this actually incentivizes them to do nothing.
One of the major negatives in solar and wind power is the instability of it. I think it’s overblown but is a genuine issue. Factor in the massive, massive bill the newer renewable power generator pays and it makes sense to use something more stable to recoup investment. Nuclear is then safer, capital does what it does.
There’s also the negative that depending on the contracting for the batteries, the lessOR of the batteries might be able to “claim” the energy credits towards their zero energy claims. This is also how those other solar companies profit off installing them on your house, they take the “green energy credits” and can sell them.
Nuclear doesn’t usually have these types of stipulations.
Fwiw most people in the corporate sustainability push (who actually give a damn that is) think net zero is impossible without a significant nuclear push.
deleted by creator
Renewables aren’t cheaper at a scale per KWh than nuclear once you include energy storage. Nuclear is also still cheaper and has less carbon footprint for production and operation once you cross the 10 years of operation mark. All for renewables, but the “cheaper than nuclear” argument is a myth with some numbers fudged.
Here in Germany 1 kWh of nuclear energy did costs about 40 cents, 1 kWh from Wind energy costs 3 cents. Also you forgot the cost of storage for the nuclear waste. Super expensive because no one wants that stuff near them and it has to be securely stored for thousands of years.
I didn’t forget it, they just don’t have numbers on it that are publicly available here. In the US they move depleted stocks under armed guard on public train tracks. It’s insane.
The price per KWh will be super obvious when we move to salt or earth battery capture, but we’ll have to see if we don’t kill the fucking planet first.
Haha Greenpeace reconsidering anything. They’re like the Germany govt., they’d rather see the world burn than admit to change anything in their perfect plans.
If only it were that straightforward.
COVID illustrated that Republicans will never acknowledge the ‘oops’ phase. They will keep their foot on the accelerator even after we’ve plunged off the cliff and are in freefall.
More accurately:
- Climate change isn’t real
- Climate change isn’t real but we don’t want to change to avoid it
- Climate change isn’t real, but the science says otherwise but that changes nothing
- Climate change is real, but we want you to do the hard work by doing pointless things
- Climate change is real, but its your fault and not ours because you’re poor
- Climate change is real, and we’re now in a feedback cycle from overextended forests, permafrost releases, and overdevelopment, and doing anything impacts the most poor so there’s nothing we can do about it.
- Climate change is real, we the wealthy and privileged did it, and there’s nothing you can do about it <-- you are here
- Climate change is real, and we’re dipping to colonize another planet while you all die
- The Earth is uninhabitable
- The Earth is uninhabitable for humans
My buddy the crabs will evolve through this apocalypse and the next
No, this is backwards. Whatever survives will evolve into crabs. 🦀
im down for a human 2: things get crabby kinda season for the human race
I don’t think space colonization is feasible.
It sounds good, but the sheer logistics of it are mind blowing. It sounds cool to terraform Mars, but that’s a multi-hundred year process that will require quadrillions of dollars. It would be cheaper and faster fixing the Earth.
no whatll actually happen is intentional mass dust cover to cool down the earth using NUKES and stuff like volcanoes cooling areas with ash cover because space travel is a fun hobby but its impossible en masse (i speak uneducated on the matter but im confident in myself)
this is my prediction place ur bets
I’m gonna suggest there’s a cognitive dissonance going on here
- Climate change is real but it’s only the wealthy that should do something about it <– you are here
Collective action is part of the answer. The influential will do what they do, sure. But the 60 million normal people in the UK absolutely have an impact
The bargaining power of the masses assumes that said masses have a viable say in the process.
If your options are: buy power from the only company supplying it or not have power, is that really a choice?
If you want to see this play out in a move watch Don’t Look Up that discusses this whole thing.
It is really sad long term :(
deleted by creator
We are at oops…
Nah. Americans are still at deep end of denial of human involvement.
It’s fun to pick on Americans (I’m one of them) but a lot of Middle Eastern countries and their citizens are also hellbent God worshipers who deny climate change. And basically most countries’ government actions show they don’t really care about it either. Singapore is really the only one that comes to mind for leading the way to try and make change, but they’re too small to make any measurable change by themselves.
Most of these middle eastern countries are not democratic and what their population thinks doesn’t matter. USA can’t take any actions against climate change specifically because of its citizens.
Also USA is at the center of power where it can do a lot of improvements but choose not to. So it’s natural that USA should bear the brunt of criticism.
Removed by mod
The downside of “change my mind” entitled behaviour. Like bro….read a book.
It makes total sense the asshat in the Change My Mind meme is fucking Steven Crowder. Also why there’s no one anywhere near his booth.
We’re at “oops” now.
We are just realizing that we are already in the “fuck” territory
Who’s this “we?” In the US at least, conservatives are plowing full-speed ahead with outright denialism.
…up until they abruptly and simultaneously switch to “all of these natural disasters are indications that the End/Rapture is coming, so we’re going to go even more conspiracy crazy and get even nuttier people elected so that they can accelerate this to ensure we all die as is ordained.”
That’s what really scares me.
And exporting it to gullable people the world over, with a dose of feel good life tips, US conservative christian values, manufactured outrage, and cute cat pictures!
https://www.project2025.org/policy/
The energy section is the worst…
UN is a joke
The UN is not a joke, people just don’t understand the purpose of UN. The purpose is for countries to have a public forum where countries can discuss things. Even if something is decided in the UN it becomes the responsibility of individual countries to enforce those decisions. The UN cannot enforce decisions, we tried that with the League of Nations and it was a big failure.
The UN doesn’t have the power to do anything against climate change because it was never the purpose of the UN. The UN can only open up a discussion about how to tackle climate change, but any and all actions have to be done by actual countries.
