Skip to main content

View Diary: Climate change isn't AN issue, it's THE issue (214 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  wrong again (0+ / 0-)

    it is nuclear vs. coal, and you who doesn't "get it".  Coal is where energy, and CO2, are coming from now. Coal accounts for the majority of new capacity being installed as well.  There is zero chance of that being replaced by "renewables" soon enough to do any good.

    There is at least a chance that coal could be supplanted by nuclear in time to do some good (and it certainly wouldn't hurt to throw some "renewables" into the pot as well).  If it isn't, if we keep burning coal and oil and natural gas for another 20 years at the present (or higher) rate, then it's game over for global warming and the resulting climate change.  The whole planet transitions to "the other" stable climate regimen, and stays there . . . probably for millions of years (that's how long it lasted last time).  When that happens "switching to renewables" will not transition it back.  All your solar panels and then some will be doing nothing but running air conditioning for the survivors.

    Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

    by Deward Hastings on Sun May 19, 2013 at 10:59:27 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  wrong again (0+ / 0-)

      there is zero chance we could build 1000 nuclear plants in a short time frame. i realize that the nuclear industry and its advocates are trying to use the climate crisis to rationalize their failed technology, but no serious person could take such a scenario seriously.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Mon May 20, 2013 at 12:44:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  there are plans (0+ / 0-)

        to built a thousand coal or gas fired plants . . . with no sense of urgency whatever.  Why can't they be built as nuclear instead, with the urgency of saving the planet to drive the effort?  We've got a command-driven trillion dollar a year "military" organization (and budget) that could be diverted to the task with ease.

        It would be a whole lot easier (and less expensive) than matching that generating capacity with windmills or solar . . . both intermittent (so lots of "excess capacity" is required) and both demanding of a complete infrastructure re-design and re-build as well (to get power from where it happens to be being generated at the moment to where it is needed).

        By advocating for delay you are in effect advocating for global warming . . . against that fundamental difference I don't see us reaching any agreement (until I give up and agree that it's too late, and nothing can be done except the "hail mary" of some massive geo-engineering attempt).

        have a nice hot future . . .

        Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

        by Deward Hastings on Mon May 20, 2013 at 07:46:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site