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 <wthyde1953@gmail.com>
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: <vd4g8l$c47c$1@dont-email.me>
References: <20240913a@crcomp.net>
 <ceff4cd0-7f16-0f42-588b-374e89acf00c@example.net>
 <vcfq1i$8o8k$2@dont-email.me>
 <eef9e921-3ea3-76ee-39de-e34ac66733e4@example.net>
 <vcvu4d$3hnv8$1@dont-email.me> <vd1td8$3qtr8$1@dont-email.me>
 <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