[ExI] solution to the world ending

Stuart LaForge avant at sollegro.com
Tue Mar 5 03:43:25 UTC 2019

Quoting Spike:

>>> ... https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5729035-Green-New-Deal
>> -FAQ The exact quote in the Green New Deal document released by Rep.
>> Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:

> The kinds of things outlined here would take 50 years at least, never mind
> 10, and would include slamming nuke plants into the ground as fast as we can
> build them.

You're right. If we broke ground today, we would be lucky to have the  
first few nuclear reactors online in 10 years. But 50 years might not  
be too late either so I am all for the trying. I see no benefit to  
procrastinating our weaning off of fossil fuels. Especially because  
the first country to achieve fossil fuel independence would have a  
technological advantage in any armed conflict.

> What I hope the GND accomplishes is to focus peoples' attention on a useful
> question: if global warming really is going to end the world in 12 years,
> why can't we eliminate fossil fuels?

Somebody's world is ending every second of every day, yet the world at  
large spins unperturbed. Where did you get this 12 year figure from?  
Global warming is not going to end the world just change the climate.  
Those who loive in

Part of the reason why we can't eliminate fossil fuels is because for  
the longest time Saudi and the other OPEC countries have been  
manipulating oil prices to draw out green energy investors with high  
oil prices, then when the green energy companies are just starting to  
get some traction, the Saudis would open the spiggots all the way and  
dump oil on the market to cause the green energy investments to crash.  
The really stupid thing is that they got the idea from American  

> It causes focus on a big solar project
> that is going in near a historically significant area in Virginia: any solar
> project requires enormous swaths of land.  If it is built east of the
> Mississippi, it requires deforestation and habitat destruction, for
> surprisingly little power generation.

I agree, Spike. I don't think that going into competition with trees  
for sunlight is really all that green of us. And Chernobyl has become  
a veritable wild life preserve despite all that scary radiation. Turns  
out deer and wolves don't care, they are just glad WE aren't there.  
Besides Spike, IMO fusion is the real "solar energy". If someone  
proposed a Manhattan Project for controlled fusion, they would have my  

> You mentioned falling water: from a power generation point of view, most of
> the best resources are already being tapped.  There isn't a lot of new
> potential, and the lower potential falling water sources have even more
> environmental cost than the ones already in place.
> At least some of the GreenPeace crowd gets that.  They recognize that if one
> is interested in preserving wild places and forests, nuclear is a good deal.
> We understand it creates a bunch of hazards in the form of bad guys wanting
> to get ahold of nuclear material, but from a strictly environmentalist point
> of view, nuclear power might be our best bet.

Yes. Nuclear energy IS green energy. Google "Chernobyl wildlife" if  
you don't believe me. If we are worried about bad guys getting nuclear  
material, then maybe we should build automated nuclear power plants  
inside of wildlife preserves. Grizzly bears might make a good natural  
deterrent against trespassers. And if they get past the bears, then  
they would have to deal with the security bots, if humans are not on  
location, we could even reduce shielding so that the radiation itself  
is a deterrent against bad guys.

Stuart LaForge

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list