> Ord estimates that there is a 1/1000 chance of an existential catastrophe due to a nuclear holocaust occurring this century—the same odds he gives for a catastrophe due to global warming.
I suppose the question is, how much could the risk from nuclear weapons be reduced if there were no civilian nuclear power stations in the world, and how much would that policy increase the risk of catastrophic global warming.
Personally I think that 30 to 40 years of over-provisioning renewables and batteries would mean that even cold winter nights with low wind speed would not require fossil or nuclear energy to supply a country's electricity needs, which means nuclear power stations would need to recoup their costs over only 20 to 30 years of dwindling use.
Perhaps the best compromise would be for new nuclear power stations to come with a commitment to run atmospheric carbon capture plants to remove a certain amount of historic emissions, so that their generation capacity isn't wasted.
I suppose the question is, how much could the risk from nuclear weapons be reduced if there were no civilian nuclear power stations in the world, and how much would that policy increase the risk of catastrophic global warming.
Personally I think that 30 to 40 years of over-provisioning renewables and batteries would mean that even cold winter nights with low wind speed would not require fossil or nuclear energy to supply a country's electricity needs, which means nuclear power stations would need to recoup their costs over only 20 to 30 years of dwindling use.
Perhaps the best compromise would be for new nuclear power stations to come with a commitment to run atmospheric carbon capture plants to remove a certain amount of historic emissions, so that their generation capacity isn't wasted.