There is a misconception, because scientists work in probability. They will say there is a high probability of modest sea rise and low probability of dramatic sea rise, but we are not sure.Admin wrote: ↑9 months agoThere's a big difference between spending a trillion dollars foe preventive measures that are almost certain not to do anything due to the extremely limited capacity we have to predict the future in any reliable manner and effecticely spend that money to move people when and if the sea levels ever rise to the point that the coasts get flooded.
But apart from accessing risk that is projected so far into the future, for me there is a completely different scenario.
At the beginning of the nuclear age we had to start huge investments and we gained tremendously. That every single household machine is running on electricity is only possible because of the huge price drop through nuclear power.
Now we stand at the same point again. Once we have done the investment in electric cars, power lines, wind turbines and gas powerplants, energy will be much cheaper.
Right now renewable is expensive because of the cost of transition. Already today nobody invests into nuclear in America, because they most likely won't keep up with wind and solar.
Only China and Japan are building nuclear reactors, but at the same time China went up to 36% renewables in installed electric power, overtaking Germany.
And the main reason is not to save the planet but for strategic energy security reasons.
It's simple to block oil and uranium supply but virtually impossible to damage a decentralised wind power network.
China will leave the US behind, having a mature wind and solar market with huge economy of scale savings before the US even wakes up. And once you have economy of scale in wind turbine installation, we can burn energy like hell, because it's nearly free and won't impact the planet anyway.
And in case you really have no wind for a week, you power up expensive gas plants, it won't matter in the big picture.