Apocalypse Never

I've been very interested in climate change lately. From How to Avoid a Climate Disaster to The Uninhabitable Earth, Less Is More, and tons of articles and YouTube videos in between.

But Michael takes an entirely different approach. He claims that many environmentalists have Malthusian views. They oppose the extension of cheap energy and agricultural modernization to developing nations by using left-wing and socialist language of redistribution. It wasn't that poor nations needed to develop; it was that rich nations needed to consume less.

“Malthusians raise the alarm about resource or environmental problems and then attack the obvious technical solutions. Malthus had to attack birth control to predict overpopulation. Holdren and Ehrlich had to claim fossil fuels were scarce to oppose the extension of fertilizers and industrial agriculture to poor nations and to raise the alarm over famine. And climate activists today have to attack natural gas and nuclear energy, the main drivers of lower carbon emissions, in order to warn of climate apocalypse.”

I don't remember ever opposing nuclear myself, but my enthusiasm for it grows daily. Nuclear energy is basically zero pollution and has a radically low environmental footprint. What matters most is power density. Solar and wind simply aren't power-dense. You need vast amounts of land to create a comparably low amount of electricity. Not to mention they are extremely weather dependent. And that they don't work at night and very poorly in winter. Battery storage isn't an answer. Especially not for seasonal differences in production. This is why, wherever they built a lot of solar/wind, they also build coal/natural gas plants. And that's why oil giants support renewables and oppose nuclear because it means more oil/gas consumption.

The gist to be pro-nuclear is very clear: the denser the fuel, the less of an impact on the environment. Solar and wind are not dense. Neither is wood. Coal is denser than wood. Oil is denser than coal. Nuclear is FAR denser than anything.

We shouldn't be against solar on top of existing buildings. But cutting down forests to build solar plants is ridiculous. We can't be up in arms against Brazilians cutting down forests for agriculture while not having issues when we do the same but for renewables. Wind plants are not that great since they kill many birds and bats. Not to mention they look ugly.

The path to low emissions is clear: no wood, as little coal as possible (only allow it in the transition period), as little oil as possible, maximize solar/hydro when conditions allow, nuclear for the majority of energy, and natural gas (or hydrogen if we figure out how to produce it efficiently) to cover the spikes.

One thing is clear throughout the books I read on climate change: cheap, reliable, and abundant electricity is a prerequisite for prosperity.