We are overloading the planet: Now What?

[bilby]

They are so certain that technology can do it, the question doesn't even make sense.

You appear to be completely convinced, in contradiction of of all the evidence, that technology can't do it; This is why you persist in asking this nonsensical question.

The question really doesn't make sense. Despite which, I have given you the answer to your absurd hypothetical several times.

I still hold out the option that, if we really are in that condition, then...

If my aunty had a penis, she would be my uncle.

We are not in that condition. Your "option" is speculative fiction, and should not be mistaken for a sane basis from which to form policy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What reactor can eat plain U238? I thought you couldn't sustain a chain reaction in it. (Now, using it in a breeder does work.)

We weren't talking about plain U238; we were talking about unenriched natural uranium. 140 parts U238, one part U235. CANDU reactors can eat it. (As can a few obscure types.) The power still comes from the U235; the U238 mostly still turns into waste. CANDU is just a design in which having 140 parts of U238 in the way doesn't ruin the U235 chain reaction.

What's going on is the neutrons from a U235 fission come out too fast and need to be slowed down. The usual way is to make them bounce around in water before they hit another U235. But the problem is that when you run them through water some of the neutrons hit hydrogen nuclei and fuse with them and form deuterium, instead of bouncing off and slowing down. The loss of neutrons is why it's hard to sustain a chain reaction. So what do you do about it? There are three simple solutions:

1 - Enrich the uranium. Fewer neutrons times more U235 targets gives enough collisions to keep the chain reaction going. This is the usual approach.
2 - Stop the water from absorbing neutrons. A hydrogen nucleus can't turn into deuterium twice, so use water in which most of the hydrogen nuclei already absorbed neutrons and turned into deuterium, aka "heavy water". CANDU reactors do this.
3 - Don't use water. Find something else that's good at slowing neutrons. The early atomic piles used graphite.

If you don't breed it you are in effect throwing away more than 99% of your fuel.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Again, the claim here is that we are so overwhelmingly certain that modifying our regulations will allow nuclear reactors to save the planet, that we are not allowed to ask, "What happens if nuclear doesn't save the planet?"

We are where we started--with no solution in sight. The "green" answer of destroying our economy for no real benefit isn't an answer.

Again, the question is what we should do if we find that technical solutions are unable to allow humans to continue at anywhere near their current consumption patterns in the next century. Some people here have refused to answer this question. They are so certain that technology can do it, the question doesn't even make sense. So they tell us they are justified in refusing to answer the question.

You, at least, acknowledge that the question can be addressed.

Your answer appears to be, that if technology fails, we are screwed, and there is no use even trying. Fair enough.

Yup--I find the green approach counterproductive. It's betting it all (taking that route will really clobber research as scientific budgets are highly related to the standard of living) on a path we know ends in failure. The greens always put that failure point off the end of their charts but the line is always heading down at the end.

I still hold out the option that, if we really are in that condition, then options like reducing consumption per capita or a non-coercive movement to reduce birthrates can be put on the table. Hence, this thread to discuss our options.

You still have not explained how the green answer would destroy our economy. Sure, cutting back would hurt the economy. But how is that not better than stepping on the gas and driving at full speed headlong into the massive barrier ahead? If we hit the brakes before the crash, might not that improve our odds of survival?

We won't survive the crash. The only solution is to not hit the barrier in the first place.

Can we turn away from the barrier and save ourselves? I don't know (and the Fermi paradox suggests the answer is no) but hitting it at any speed is going to take us out. I prefer taking the "maybe" path over the "certain doom" path.

Please show me the evidence that, when nuclear reactors are operating without unneeded regulations, the result will be so overwhelming that we should not even ask what we should do if nuclear fails to fulfill this promise.

Simple: Deaths per TwH:
Nuclear: 0.03
Gas: 2.82
Oil: 18.43

In a regulatory climate that was optimum for the consumer these numbers should be approximately the same rather than nearly three orders of magnitude apart. And reality is worse than that because the oil and gas numbers do not count the threat from global warming. (Yes, there are other power sources with numbers similar to nuclear--but none are remotely capable of meeting the demand.)

Oh my. By this logic, if the deaths per TwH of hooking generators up to stationary bicycles is say 0.03, then we could simply undo government regulations on stationary bicycles until the deaths on bicycles per TwH reach 2.82, and our energy problems will be solved?

I'm not saying they would be solved. Rather, I'm saying that regulations should be altered so that all three numbers (and the coal number which I didn't list, it's even worse) are similar. Whether they should converge on 0.03 or 2.82 or some value in between is a separate issue.

I am glad the death per TwH for nuclear are low. And that may tell us we have some latitude to relax regulations. But that still does not answer the basic question: How does anybody know that relaxing these regulations will have such a huge effect that nuclear power will go on to supply virtually all the energy we would need in the next century?

Because it's all the insane safety requirements that make nuclear too expensive in the first place. It wasn't unduly expensive until it was destroyed in the name of safety, thus driving people to more dangerous means of generation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is also natural background radiation. Radon gas is a problem is some areas. It can be a problem in homes.

An interesting bit on that: Radon exposure seems to only correlate with lung cancer in smokers.

And there is no correlation between the background exposure where people live to cancer rates.

I would say deaths from nuclear power would be 'in the noise' compared to all the combined effects of background risks.

This part I definitely agree with. Reactors are in the noise even compared to medical radiation.

And that reminds me of another stupidity in the radiation exposure rules. There are yearly and lifetime exposure limits for radiation workers--but they do not consider who is being exposed. Why do they not have the low-skill jobs done by people who realistically won't care: those already dying of something reasonably quick?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

if we willing to accept the risks involved with breeder reactors

There are no risks of breeder reactors that come anywhere close to the risks of any non-nuclear electricity generation technology, except onshore wind power; If we are NOT willing to accept that level of risk, then we are not willing to risk having electricity at all.

What specific risks do you have in mind?

And not having electricity at all is an even bigger risk than any means of generation we use.

 

[bilby]

Why do they not have the low-skill jobs done by people who realistically won't care: those already dying of something reasonably quick?

Because it's not necessary to have anybody at all exposed to radiation levels sufficient to cause health problems.

Why don't we have terminally ill people doing all construction work, so that it doesn't matter if any of them fall to their deaths?

Why don't we get people who are already really ugly to unload molten steel in foundaries, so that if they suffer disfiguring burns, it doesn't affect their lives?

Same reason - its both easier, and less wildly and stupidly unethical to the point of psychopatic insanity, to just improve the safety in workplaces so that anyone can do the job without a significant real risk of injury or death.

 

[DBT]

We should have started building nuclear power stations in Australia decades ago, but given the nature of Politicians and inertia, it's not likely to happen anytime soon.

 

[bilby]

We should have started building nuclear power stations in Australia decades ago, but given the nature of Politicians and inertia, it's not likely to happen anytime soon.

We can't even begin to consider it, until the Federal Government repeals the laws prohibiting it. And they won't do that, because there are bugger all votes to be gained by doing so, but plenty of votes to be lost. Democracy promotes what is popular, not what is reasonable, sensible, or even vitally important.

s140a of the EPBC Act and s10 of the ARPANS Act make it unlawful to build nuclear power plants, and having passed with little discussion, are now extremely hard to repeal.

More information than any sensible person could possibly want about the regulation of all nuclear technologies, including power generation, mining, nuclear medicine, research, and weapons, can be found in the OECD country legal framework assessment for Australia, as an OECD Nuclear Energy Agency member state.

It's a horrible mess that has been deliberately designed, by small numbers of activists (taking advantage of general apathy towards the issues, and of political horse-trading to get minor party* support in the Senate), to be very difficult indeed to un-pick.









*Not just the Greens, as one might expect, but more particularly the Australian Democrats, who fucked up our chances of ever building nuclear power, a few years before their fucking up our chances of avoiding a GST caused them to implode and cease to exist as a political force.

 

[Millrat]

Why do they not have the low-skill jobs done by people who realistically won't care: those already dying of something reasonably quick?

Because it's not necessary to have anybody at all exposed to radiation levels sufficient to cause health problems.

Why don't we have terminally ill people doing all construction work, so that it doesn't matter if any of them fall to their deaths?

Why don't we get people who are already really ugly to unload molten steel in foundaries, so that if they suffer disfiguring burns, it doesn't affect their lives?

Same reason - its both easier, and less wildly and stupidly unethical to the point of psychopatic insanity, to just improve the safety in workplaces so that anyone can do the job without a significant real risk of injury or death.

 

[Millrat]

How does anybody know that relaxing these regulations will have such a huge effect that nuclear power will go on to supply virtually all the energy we would need in the next century?

We don’t.

I agree. We don't know that. But one person here insists that, if certain regulations and grassroots reactions were removed, we can be absolutely certain that nuclear power could meet most of our electrical needs this century.

I think he is wrong.

Horseshit - few here express absolute certainty about anything, in my brief experience here.

What we do know is that the largest source of energy supplies consumed to date have enjoyed such relaxed regulations - virtually unregulated early on.

What we also know is that once raw sewage flowed in rivers. And there are two problems with raw sewage in rivers: number one and number two.

Sometimes regulations are good.

When it comes to commercial/industrial regulations, they are universally good for the majority of citizens. The extent of regulation is wildly askew in the case of nuclear power generation.

 

[Millrat]

Why do they not have the low-skill jobs done by people who realistically won't care: those already dying of something reasonably quick?

In case you weren’t aware, even nuclear facilities have toilets to scrub; perhaps even by those who might be indifferent to their own long term survival.

But, trust me when I say that those people are the last ones you want working with the stuff that gives off any significant dose.

 

[Merle]

Horseshit - few here express absolute certainty about anything, in my brief experience here.

Glad to hear that!

Read this thread. Many times I have asked what people would do if we find that technical solutions are unable to allow humans to continue at anywhere near their current consumption patterns in the next century. If that were to happen, and consumption needed to be cut in half, would it be better to reduce our consumption per capita in half, or would it be better to reduce our population in half?

I read certain people refusing to answer that question, because they say they are certain it is impossible that this would ever happen. In particular, I hear that there is an absolute certainty that nuclear power could save us from this situation.

For example,

the question is what we should do if we find that technical solutions are unable to allow humans to continue at anywhere near their current consumption patterns in the next century

...
Technical solutions currently available to us ARE sufficient to "allow humans to continue at anywhere near their current consumption patterns in the next century", and for many centuries afterwards.

Now we find out that people here are not saying we have certainty that we will never face that situation where we needed to cut consumption in half. Great. I guess we should all just ignore the word are in all caps and bold in that post. It does not mean absolute certainty. I must have misread it.

Bilby, now that we find out you are not certain we would never enter that situation, can we assume you will now answer the question?

 

[Merle]

When it comes to commercial/industrial regulations, they are universally good for the majority of citizens.

In general, yes, but in other cases, no.

The extent of regulation is wildly askew in the case of nuclear power generation.

I see the post here that regulation against nuclear is indeed "wildly askew" in Australia. Ok, they aren't going to get nuclear power there unless that changes.

My comment had to do with countries that have nuclear power. People claim that nuclear power would operate much more efficiently if certain regulations were changed. How do they know that? The claim is repeated endlessly, but nobody offers evidence.

 

[Merle]

Again, the claim here is that we are so overwhelmingly certain that modifying our regulations will allow nuclear reactors to save the planet, that we are not allowed to ask, "What happens if nuclear doesn't save the planet?"

We are where we started--with no solution in sight. The "green" answer of destroying our economy for no real benefit isn't an answer.

Again, the question is what we should do if we find that technical solutions are unable to allow humans to continue at anywhere near their current consumption patterns in the next century. Some people here have refused to answer this question. They are so certain that technology can do it, the question doesn't even make sense. So they tell us they are justified in refusing to answer the question.

You, at least, acknowledge that the question can be addressed.

Your answer appears to be, that if technology fails, we are screwed, and there is no use even trying. Fair enough.

Yup--I find the green approach counterproductive. It's betting it all (taking that route will really clobber research as scientific budgets are highly related to the standard of living) on a path we know ends in failure. The greens always put that failure point off the end of their charts but the line is always heading down at the end.

I am still trying to understand why you think my approach will be counterproductive. I recommend we tackle this problem from all angles, including technical solutions, affluence reduction in wealthy countries, gradual non-coercive population reduction, and even a calm acceptance that we are screwed. I think the only part of that plan which disturbs you is the gradual non-coercive population reduction.

You refer to the "green approach" which could mean a lot of different things. You seem to be referring to one particular aspect of my suggestions, the aspect of gradual non-coercive population reduction. I think that is what you mean when you say the "green" answer. If not, exactly what are you talking about when you refer to the green answer, and why do you know that this is counterproductive?

Let's discuss the detrimental effect of a gradual non-coercive population reduction. In particular, how do you think a reduction in population to 4 billion would destroy our economy? After all, that is what we had in the 70s and we did quite well. Why not return to it?

You might be arguing that the process of reduction would be detrimental to the economy. Certainly! But it seems to me that these problem could be addressed without destroying our economy. It would be far better than a full speed crash into a solid wall.

You also seem to be arguing that, with half the people, we would have half the scientists and engineers, and we would progress technically at half the speed. Fair enough. But also, we would have half the people. So, if innovation X occurs after Y people-years, it would take twice as long to get that innovation if we had half the population with all other factors being equal. But during that time period, we also have half the births. So the number of people born without the benefit of innovation X is the same, regardless of the size of the population. Perhaps we need a little more patience, but we still see the same innovations.

 

[pood]

Horseshit - few here express absolute certainty about anything, in my brief experience here.

Glad to hear that!

Read this thread. Many times I have asked what people would do if we find that technical solutions are unable to allow humans to continue at anywhere near their current consumption patterns in the next century. If that were to happen, and consumption needed to be cut in half, would it be better to reduce our consumption per capita in half, or would it be better to reduce our population in half?

Suppose we find, in the next century, that Santa can no longer fit down our chimneys, because he has gotten too fat?

If that were to happen, would it be better to reduce Santa by half by putting him on a diet, or increase the size of our chimneys to make them half again as large? Or, as a third alternative if you feel the above is a false dichotomy, would it be best to reduce our consumption of Santa’s presents to zero by canceling Christmas?

 

[Elixir]

people here are not saying we have certainty that we will never face that situation where we needed to cut consumption in half.

{raises hand}
First, there’s always the option of pushing the button and reducing global population by half overnight.
Second, “need to cut consumption in half” or WHAT? We run out of stuff to consume? What will that do, force us to cut consumption in half? Sounds self-correcting.
Third, why can’t we cut per capita consumption by a third and cut population by 16% to the same end? Or vice versa?
Seems to me you have painted yourself into an imaginary corner of an imaginary room. There are LOTS - maybe infinite ways this might work out, and only one of these myriad “possible” scenarios is going to come to pass.
The chance that what actually occurs in the future conforms to ANY of our visions of the future that any of us holds in our feeble minds, approaches zero.

 

[Merle]

Suppose we find, in the next century, that Santa can no longer fit down our chimneys, because he has gotten too fat?

If that were to happen, would it be better to reduce Santa by half by putting him on a diet, or increase the size of our chimneys to make them half again as large? Or, as a third alternative if you feel the above is a false dichotomy, would it be best to reduce our consumption of Santa’s presents to zero by canceling Christmas?

Can you point me to a peer-reviewed article where a scientific expert says there is a risk that Santa will no longer be able to fit down chimneys?

I have pointed to multiple peer reviewed studies that indicate we are in overshoot, and that we may need a reduction in population over the next century to deal with that problem. e.g., Seibert, M.K.; Rees, W.E. Through the Eye of a Needle: An Eco-Heterodox Perspective on the Renewable Energy Transition. Energies 2021.

Is it possible that these multiple experts in their field are wrong in what they wrote in peer-reviewed journals? Certainly. But should we be treating their work the same as "The Night before Christmas"? No. These are real scientists with real evidence for their case.

Again, how is it that people can be so absolutely certain that all these scientists are wrong that they can laugh at the simple question, "What should we do if these scientists are right?"

Shaking my head in sorrow.

 

[Merle]

people here are not saying we have certainty that we will never face that situation where we needed to cut consumption in half.

{raises hand}
First, there’s always the option of pushing the button and reducing global population by half overnight.

First, I don't have The Football, and second, even if I did, that would not be a good option.

But I don't understand why a gradual non-coercive reduction of population by 50% in a century cannot be an option we put on the table.

Second, “need to cut consumption in half” or WHAT? We run out of stuff to consume? What will that do, force us to cut consumption in half? Sounds self-correcting.

Or many people may die.

William Rees, for instance, the co-author of the work I cited above says we could lose 6 billion people in the coming decades.
( Rees, William E., 2019, Yes, the Climate Crisis May Wipe out Six Billion People, The Tyee)

Third, why can’t we cut per capita consumption by a third and cut population by 16% to the same end? Or vice versa?

Yes, yes. I have mentioned multiple times that the solution can be a combination of technological solutions, affluence reduction, and population reduction.

If we really are in a position where we need to cut back consumption significantly in the next century, as these scientists warn, can we include a gradual non-coercive population reduction in our list of options?

Seems to me you have painted yourself into an imaginary corner of an imaginary room. There are LOTS - maybe infinite ways this might work out, and only one of these myriad “possible” scenarios is going to come to pass.

Seems to me you have painted me into a position I never put myself. I emphasize the multiple options. See Path Forward.

 

[Elixir]

Shaking my head in sorrow

You’re not alone in that.
I don’t have a panacea, but a tiny bit of advice.
It seems to me that you are framing this problem to yourself in a no-win manner. Not that I think there’s some “winning” viewpoint of what is obviously a dire situation in many ways, but thinking of it as a “need to reduce population” is restrictive in its perspective and reduces possible outcomes down to illusory binary options.
There is a whole galaxy of possible outcomes and ways to produce them. If/when possible, I’d try to focus on one possible/attainable outcome that you would consider desirable. Define the mileposts that would get us there, and map out the road to that first milepost.
Looking further than that makes this intractable problem become overwhelming and frankly, impossible.

 

[Elixir]

Or many people may die.

EVERYONE is going to die. That’s not “the problem”.