Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
Posts: 22,632
|
|
« Reply #1 on: March 18, 2019, 11:24:30 AM » |
|
|
« Edited: March 18, 2019, 11:27:34 AM by Snowguy716 »
|
Harry’s argument is based on the following;
1. Climate change (global warming) is a dire and lurking, if immediate threat to society and the biosphere.
2. Wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and hydro power cannot feasibly, or perhaps not even possibly provide even the minimum amount of energy in the short and medium term to prevent societal breakdown or collapse. So risks have to be taken.
3. Compared to the rapid collapse of the biosphere caused by extreme warming, building nuclear power plants to provide large amounts of relatively cheap, low risk (but high danger) power as a bridge to better renewable substitutes in the future, is not actually that risky and even if several more fukushimas happened, would still be better off for the planet.
While I disagree with Harry about the extent and severity of future greenhouse warming, it is clear he has thought this through and did his homework.
If you think we can decarbonize even in the next 50 years with current renewables...be prepared to cover land areas the size of New England completely with windmills and solar panels. That’s the USA alone. Where will Europe find the wind or sun to power their industry, transport, and electricity needs?
Imagine a zone the size of New England relegated to being a complete biological dead zone on the ground and in the air because of windmills and solar panels blocking the sun from thr ground. At least irradiated animals can still live.
|