Are Energy Co's Enterprises that Must be Stopped to Save the Planet?

It's going to be very, very tough moving forward. Things might have to get a lot worse with the climate before the status quo can change very much.

I don't think anyone is particularly evil. Think of it like this: you have a set of people who can realize a profit on the X tons of carbon currently in the Earth, and the profit will actually increase as X decreases. And indeed, the entire population wants the energy extracted from this carbon. At the same time, the planet's climate will most probably become worse and worse for humans as we move X from the ground into the air.

 

#firstworldKaliforniaprofessorproblems

 

So will this country ever accept nuclear power? Wouldn't that pretty much fix all the greenhouse gas issues?

 

It would help a lot on the CO2 issue, but it would be extremely expensive compared to alternatives such as natural gas and coal. Nuclear LCOE (levelized cost of electricity) is around $110/MWh, including capital costs. CCGTs (combined cycle gas turbines) are around $50/MWh and coal are around $75.

With a glut of natural gas, CCGTs are the answer for the US. Half the CO2 emissions of coal, but you'll still hear the environmentalists b****ing about that too.

 

It would, but ask any experienced operations or safety manager at a petrochemical or gas plant about how many different safety incidents they've had.

Nuclear is objectively less polluting and heavily regulated and monitored enough for there to be a better safety record, but if you build enough for it be the driver of both a company's whole revenue and our whole power supply (24 x 7 x 365 x 100), corners will be cut structurally and procedurally and increase the risk of accidents: which have stranger and longer term issues than any other fuel source.

 

Human beings will adapt to a slow disaster.

Mini-ice ages, Dust Bowls, regional famine .... the way of the world.

Look to Canada and Siberia for the new utopia.

 

We only need to look to Fukushima to see what can go wrong with nuclear. Anyway leaving aside the safety issue with nuclear there are other problems with it such as other posters have noted the investment cost into it.

I don't think there is any single solution to addressing doing away with fossil fuels but a range of different solutions. What we need is a power grid / infrastructure where generation is far more distributed and flexible. Nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, bio fuels, and even natural gas should be part of that.

One solution that I think should also be looked at is using hydrogen as a storage medium. That would solve two problems with things like solar and wind that they are sporadic and the power isn't portable.

 

I have to admit that I don't know much about this issue but I don't think it is implausible. Oil and car companies have in the past purchased and dismantled trolley lines because they were a competition to their products so it does seem possible that they might be doing things with renewable technologies.

 

Inception?

 

See this is the real problem. You have ignorant opinions out there like this one. Have you actually read up on the incident at all? My assumption is no. The established fact is that the accident was not the fault of nuclear technology but the stupid decision by TEPCO to locate the non-tsunami-resistant plant in a tsunami inundation zone.

 

Sometime this century, energy companies are going to be nationalized, and the sooner the better.

 

It's strange how people call Atlas Shrugged a fairy tale when everything it predicted 50 years ago is coming to pass. The rise of the welfare state. The slow but steady economic decline. The inevitable lashing out against the producers, coming after their wealth, Bane style.

What moral claim do you have to someone else's property? To the companies they built.

 

Except if nuclear was so safe why would it matter where the plant was located?

Further if you were so smart you would understand that nuclear power plants are located on coast, rivers or lakes (potential inundation zones) because they require a lot of water. Further if you actually understood construction you would know it is practically impossible to build a structure that can resist tsunamis.

Nuclear is dangerous, so is almost any power plant, but the consequences of a nuclear accident are potentially much worse and last for thousands of years. That is why it costs so much and it needs to be so heavily regulated. I am not completely against nuclear but it is naive to believe that there are no risk associated with it.

 

We are no more near the world of Atlas Shrugged any more than we are near the unfettered capitalism of The Jungle.

As far as slow and steady economic decline this chart might help:
https://www.google.com/publicdata/e...mktp_cd&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=us gdp

 

A very weak argument back from you. A lot of unrelated tangents. Sorry to embarrass you, but your opinion was just not well researched.

Building a nuclear plant in a tsunami inundation zone was the problem. Not the technology.

And I didn't say that nuclear has no risk. Where the hell did you get that from?

 

At this point, don't we need to worry just as much about sequestering existing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as much as we need to focus on eliminating new greenhouse gas emissions? I was under the impression that we have already reached the tipping point of global warming even if another ton of greenhouse gases never enter the atmostphere.

 

Your question makes me recall this article:

 

Well, let's focus on those that aren't "confused". What changes have they made to their lifestyle? Are they turning away from the products that oil companies are providing? So many bold statements are made from the comfort of a well lit, air conditioned home.

And, as a whole, I don't think people have shown that they care much for the quality of life for future generations if it comes at the expense of their current lifestyle.