[ExI] solution to the world ending
avant at sollegro.com
Tue Mar 5 03:43:25 UTC 2019
>>> ... 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.
More information about the extropy-chat