Path: ...!news.roellig-ltd.de!news.mb-net.net!open-news-network.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: William Hyde Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written Subject: Re: Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a Smear Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2024 16:30:10 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 62 Message-ID: References: <20240913a@crcomp.net> <3ace1b93-9c34-9abb-844b-c83a66d767d5@example.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2024 22:30:13 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="028bf39a8c322da1999468e1f5cc6599"; logging-data="397548"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18PoNpoIdgUaByHBsuC4D0G" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.19 Cancel-Lock: sha1:hxW89U2BC2sThVXm6/Phg2bt4qE= In-Reply-To: <3ace1b93-9c34-9abb-844b-c83a66d767d5@example.net> Bytes: 3639 D wrote: > > > On Wed, 25 Sep 2024, William Hyde wrote: > >>> >>> (Two-for-one for now, because we're behind on electric >>> generation capacity, and if we're going to have electric cars, >>> we'll need a lot more electricity to charge them.) >>> >>> The adamant opposition to nuclear power by the people who >>> are most gung-ho on the "Global Warming" thing unalterably >>> convinces me that they do not belive it themselves. >> >> >> Actually I am strongly pro-nuclear power, as are most climate >> scientists I know. > > Hmm, we agree on something. This scares me. ;) Surely we both agree that the rat is black's best defense against 1e4? > >> Circa 2000 a group from Princeton came up with a plan to limit the >> warming to 2.5C which did not involve nuclear, but also did not >> involve catastrophic economic decline.  But even if we accept that >> this was possible then, it isn't now.  Nuclear is a must, at least for >> a few decades. > > As a scientist, do you thing SMR will see hte light of day or remain in > the darkness of research projects for another decade or two? I do not have expertise in this field. I cannot speak on this as a scientist but as a lay person. Answer: I don't know. > >> I am also pro-hydro, which most greens oppose, though it has to be >> carefully done (poorly placed reservoirs for dams can emit C02 and CH4 >> to such a degree that the power is only as clean as non-fracked >> natural gas.  Better than coal, but not good enough). > > Oh my dear hydro! Can you imagine if sweden built out more hydro > (fiercely opposed by the swedish green party)? What an energy abundance > we would have! Hydro and nuclear for the win! I don't want to say that Hydro and Nuclear will solve our problems. There is no one solution. But I don't think we can afford at this point to ignore any means of dealing with the crisis. Nor will expanding Hydro and Nuclear be easy or cheap. I spent the summer of 2023 coughing due to ash from unprecedented fires in forests which may no longer be sustainable. Despite the beauty of a blood-red moon high in the sky, I'd rather have less of that in the future. William Hyde