[katieHaylor (OP)]

Thomas had this feedback for the show:

I am surprised by the messaging regarding climate change on your show.  It comes across as religious zeal. Suppression of human behavior towards creating CO2 is an absurd basis for discussion.  By every metric, installing wind machines and capturing sun light for electric energy is and never will be scalable for humanity.  Never.  Ever.  Also it’s not dependable and in the likely event of a cataclysmic meteor explosion or volcanic planetary event, renewables will stop and nuclear will prevail. 
I wish there was parallel passion and discussion  for actually solving the problem. The problem is ENERGY.  The is one solution and that is nuclear.  Specifically, molten salt nuclear reactors.
Safe, dependable, economical, will supply humanity for 1000s of years and is scalable everywhere on the planet. 

[alancalverd]

Considerable sympathy with that view.

The fundamental problem is that there are too many people to be indefinitely sustained at an aspirational standard of living. Nuclear power is great for generating electricity reliably and in quantity, but less than a third of our energy consumption is electric and the energy payback period for nukes is 5 - 10 years - you need to burn a hell of a lot of oil to build a nuclear power station!

The simple, controllable variable is the human population. If we stopped breeding tomorrow, there would be no people in 100 years, so no need for artificial energy at all. As far as the UK is concerned, there is enough sun, rain and wind to support a population of 5 - 10,000,000 indefinitely at a rather higher standard than we enjoy today. Unfortunately this "do nothing, no cost" solution does not appeal to politicians or economists. Our starving, overcrowded successors will literally curse the day they were born, and the parents who bore them.

[evan_au]

the messaging regarding climate change on your show.  It comes across as religious zeal.

Some sympathy with that view.
Political parties with coal sponsorship are also zealous in promoting fossil fuels at any cost.

There is considerable irony that:
- in the USA, the EPA (responsible for protecting the public against chemical fallout from fossil fuels) is now headed by a Texan who obviously believes that "fossil fuel is the best".
- China, which has some horrible air pollution is trying to find non-coal alternatives, at least near major cities.

I agree that nuclear could be part of a solution, as it can provide base load electricity.
- However, due to their long startup and shutdown times, nuclear power is not so cost-effective for the busy-hour peak loads, which are much higher than the base load in the wee hours of the morning.

Improvements in battery technology may allow us to use:
- overnight spare generating capacity during morning peak hour,
- daytime sunlight for evening peak hour
- windpower whenever it blows (and for a while afterwards)
- and smarter appliances can use power ever whenever it is cheapest

[alancalverd]

The problem with batteries is always going to be the problem with electricity: it isn't the most significant energy source, you need fixed infrastructure to distribute it, recharge times are slow...

Far better, surely, to use all that free wind power and unused cheap nuclear energy to synthesise liquid and gas fuels from waste biomass or even direct from atmospheric CO2?

[Petrochemicals]

If they ever come up with a good nuclear option then i agree,  but s9 far nuclear is expensive. Wind is silly as it takes an awful lot of seperate infrastructure to harvest and store energy (the railways are costing enough in management) solar is not for us as it takes up alot of space and we aint tye sunniest place in the world. Storing electricity is a probl3m, so hydrogen splitting in water has to be better. It is all expensive though.

Geothermal and reflective solar stations wi5h molten salt storage in hot countries are simple and therefore cheap. We have very powerful waves and tides which could be used to greater effect relativley simply as pumping stations. I suppose this is why there is an energy problem though, no one has a good enough answer (exept geothermal as in Japan)

[chiralSPO]

We already have a reliable, self-sustaining fusion reactor with billions of years worth of fuel. All we need is the technology to tap into its energy output, and put it into usable energy when and where we need it. At this point we can tap in fairly effectively at competitive prices (a 1MW solar farm in the US would cost about $1–2M). The problem is with storage and transport (these apply to nuclear, hydro, wind, and geothermal as well--what we need to focus on now is ways to make renewable liquid and gas fuels using energy input from these stationary sources of energy)

We also already have a reliable self-sustaining fission reactor with billions of years worth of fuel. Geothermal energy appears to me to be a good way of having nuclear powered steam plant without the hassle of processing or disposing of radioactive materials. That's not to say it has no negative environmental impact, I imagine there is some, but it would have to be better than coal!

[chiralSPO]

CO₂-driven climate change is a very serious problem. Certainly there are those who hype it up, either because they are tired of being ignored or they think they can make money by fear mongering. But I think that there are many more who refuse to acknowledge the magnitude and scope of the impact or the responsibility of humanity as a whole (some people may bear more blame than others, but I don't think it's worth trying to hash that out too much unless it can be used as an economic or political tool to reduce the release of greenhouse gases)

It's happening. It's us. We have the means to slow or even reverse it. The longer we stall the more expensive it is going to be to clean this sh!t up...

[jeffreyH]

The problem with batteries is always going to be the problem with electricity: it isn't the most significant energy source, you need fixed infrastructure to distribute it, recharge times are slow...

Far better, surely, to use all that free wind power and unused cheap nuclear energy to synthesise liquid and gas fuels from waste biomass or even direct from atmospheric CO2?

You'd think so but there are no grown ups listening. Everyone is preoccupied with an old geezer having stompy fits and sporting the worst comb over in the history of mankind.

[syhprum]

Are you referring to the leader of the free world who according to my friends in Indianapolis (helped by jesus) is making America great again ?

[chiralSPO]

The problem with batteries is always going to be the problem with electricity: it isn't the most significant energy source, you need fixed infrastructure to distribute it, recharge times are slow...

Far better, surely, to use all that free wind power and unused cheap nuclear energy to synthesise liquid and gas fuels from waste biomass or even direct from atmospheric CO2?

You'd think so but there are no grown ups listening. Everyone is preoccupied with an old geezer having stompy fits and sporting the worst comb over in the history of mankind.

I fear that by mentioning that people are too distracted by someone to pay attention to this topic, you may have self-fulfilled on that prophecy somewhat...

I would rather talk about potential solutions like those proposed by alancalverd, which would be feasible and quite scalable using existing technologies, just not necessarily competitive in a market where fossil fuels are so heavily subsidized and shielded from true costs of their industry. The US federal government is not going to be pushing favorable policies in the near future (quite the opposite), but there are several other governments, both at the state and local levels within the US and in other nations, which are making progress. Our federal government will probably look quite different within four years--hopefully the delay is not so damaging...

[jeffreyH]

Well then, it needs some one or some group to start working on solutions at the local level. Building up from there. Small groups can easily work together to outmanoeuvre large clumsy corporations. The large corporations are irrelevant anyway. They all have a limited lifespan as does everything.

[Petrochemicals]

The problem with batteries is always going to be the problem with electricity: it isn't the most significant energy source, you need fixed infrastructure to distribute it, recharge times are slow...

Far better, surely, to use all that free wind power and unused cheap nuclear energy to synthesise liquid and gas fuels from waste biomass or even direct from atmospheric CO2?

You'd think so but there are no grown ups listening. Everyone is preoccupied with an old geezer having stompy fits and sporting the worst comb over in the history of mankind.

Chris really isnt that old

[alancalverd]

Well then, it needs some one or some group to start working on solutions at the local level. Building up from there. Small groups can easily work together to outmanoeuvre large clumsy corporations. The large corporations are irrelevant anyway. They all have a limited lifespan as does everything.

A small organisation might produce a local solution to part of the problem, or even the seed of a global solution  to the whole problem, but as long as people are fixated on electricity, you need a large corporation to move it from source to consumer.

Wind-powered oil synthesis, on the other hand, can be taken up by smallish ($10M) enterprises working to a common standard such as DERV or JETA1 that can be sold locally or pooled for easy distribution to existing piston or turbine engines.