(a nuclear) THREAD
It is still possible to win if you have 9 players on the football / soccer field, but it is a lot easier to win if you have 11…
I was on NRK folkoplysninger speaking nuclear (English from 42:00 minutes)
tv.nrk.no/serie/folkeopp…
It is still possible to win if you have 9 players on the football / soccer field, but it is a lot easier to win if you have 11…
I was on NRK folkoplysninger speaking nuclear (English from 42:00 minutes)
tv.nrk.no/serie/folkeopp…
Nuclear versus other energy sources is really a trade-off:
• Risk of climate change (and air pollution)
• Risk of nuclear accident, storage, weapon proliferation
• (Risk of alternatives: don’t assume solar / wind are benign on all dimensions)
Value judgements are required...
• Risk of climate change (and air pollution)
• Risk of nuclear accident, storage, weapon proliferation
• (Risk of alternatives: don’t assume solar / wind are benign on all dimensions)
Value judgements are required...
Situation today:
• People are dying because of the impacts of climate change, & more will come.
• Millions have premature death because of local air pollution
• Very, very few deaths linked to nuclear accident, none to storage (?), none to proliferation via energy (?)
• People are dying because of the impacts of climate change, & more will come.
• Millions have premature death because of local air pollution
• Very, very few deaths linked to nuclear accident, none to storage (?), none to proliferation via energy (?)
It is a bit selfish not to seriously consider nuclear as an option. And even if you are against nuclear today, it is ok to change your mind tomorrow. Nuclear has a great record today, but with further research & development, it can even improve over time.
One big challenge with nuclear today is cost (& project management). But, bad public opinion also limits options, limits research, limits further development. So public opinion not only stops new facilities but stops the progression of the science.
There are alternatives to nuclear. Some argue we can solve the climate problem with only renewables. The balance of the literature says that is *perhaps* possible, but it is probably ridiculously expensive. That would mean, for example, less money for hospitals & education.
Betting future generations on renewables alone is a moral hazard, just as it is for carbon dioxide removal (negative emissions). science.sciencemag.org/content/354/63…
We need a future energy *mix* that is robust across all risks which may arise (known and unknown).
We need a future energy *mix* that is robust across all risks which may arise (known and unknown).
If you really think that climate change is the single biggest threat against humanity, then you would not exclude nuclear as a potentially effective option. Otherwise, climate change is not the single biggest threat against humanity, you have just stated it is nuclear!
Whether we build new nuclear or not is not for me to decide. But we should not exclude nuclear as an option, we should not tie one hand behind our backs, & we should put our best team on the field. Get over your nuclear opposition, and get on with solving the climate problem…
Unroll @ThreadReaderApp
