Thread by @realscientists

Hey! So let's talk climate change. A lady called Eunice Foot once added carbonic acid to water in a bottle, and measured the temperature rise under heating compared with regular water. It got hotter.

Since then, we've known CO2 could increase the earth's mean temperature, and it has just been about quantifying the details: How much influence does it have, how does it interact with other Earth systems, and over what time scales ...

There is contention over the accuracy of various models of climate change, and this is an unfortunate distraction. The more specific the model, the more wrong it can be. Our general predictions are so good that we now focus on more specific models.

In the end, it's basic physics that we all agree on that should convince us climate change is going to affect human progress.

So, what to do? Well, in part, adapt. Try to work out which areas will need more of what, or will produce more/less of what, and adjust economies and trade networks accordingly. And in my opinion, trade networking organisations that facilitate this will be invaluable.

Also, we can try to mitigate the effects. But to do so requires some really, REALLY brutal realism. Of all the issues that exist here are the four most striking:

1) What we are currently doing isn't working.

Low GHG techs are being implemented, but the population is also growing, and its GHG production outstrips tech-driven reductions. Population growth will level out, but lifting people from poverty still requires more power.

2) We don't need "a" solution: we need hundreds of small solutions.

Solving electricity production or transport isn't enough. The diverse range of GHG sources means no single panacea technology exists.

3) Any workable solutions will have to be so economically attractive that USA/China/India/EU adopt them. Especially "Chindia", since their populations are still growing significantly. If they don't cut emissions, nothing else makes much difference.

4) We will probably fail.

In sociopolitical jargon, problems like this are called collective action problems. The only solutions require strong co-operation, and every actor has strong short-term incentives not to. Humans have never licked a problem anything like this before.

Pessimism aside, electricity generation is a good area to focus on because it lies at a bottleneck, and because a lot of GHG-intensive processes could, if the incentives existed, be electrified. Transport being the most significant.

There are approaches to low GHG energy, but the crucial criteria are: It has to A) displace ALL current usage PLUS enough to motivate the conversion of the transport sector and B) It has to be SO cheap/easy that China/India/USA go for it. We will FAIL if A and B aren't met.

So, renewable energy is important. But renewable techs are all intermittent or expensive. Pumped hydro, thermal batteries, Li-ion batteries, molten salt+CSP solar etc are advancing, but grid-scale-storage just doesn't exist. Nothing looks like it will meet A+B in coming decades.

Our best option is nuclear. Which has a PR problem. And it is the job of scientists to educate themselves about the basis of this PR problem, and educate the public on the relevant facts. Here are a few summary charts addressing the main ones.

First, nuclear solves the GHG emissions problem. Like many such analyses, it's important in this one to choose good points for comparison. The best way to compare techs is usually to say "How much X does sit use/produce, per MWh of energy it makes, over the life of the facility"

Secondly, yes you read correctly, nuclear produces less dangerous waste than other power sources! It's because nuclear waste is nasty stuff, but it's recyclable, and there is comparatively a MINUSCULE amount of it. Other techs' waste is a bit less dangerous but FAR more abundant.

Next, it's possible to implement. There's a trope that it's more expensive than renewables, which is true in limited situations. It's more expensive to take an airplane down the road than a bike. For energy, nuclear is a cheaper option at large/long scales, like the airplane.

Safety is an often cited concern, partly for the drama of widely publicised (and reimagined) nuclear accidents. To get an overall impression, we need to see how much human tragedy energy techs cause comparatively. Add to this the new generation of ultra-safe reactors.

So, there's a taste of the case for a reappraisal of nuclear energy. In my view, scientists have a responsibility to keep their views as focused on the data as they can. And we will do well to apply this to the very pragmatic means we can employ to preserve out beautiful planet!

Eunice Foote*, sorry, typo ;)