Oh, I'm not disagreeing. My personal opinion is its already far too late to solve the problem, and society is going to collapse under the weight of all the climate related problems (loss of resources, mass migration into northern countries, etc.).
Honestly, "blow off the atmosphere with nukes" is fast becoming the least bad option on the table. I think Musk, Bezos, and company have the right idea: get off the planet ASAP.
IMO, Musk, Bezos and those espousing a similar solution would just f-up any planet they went to in due time because they would bring all the problems of humanity with them and just repeat them.
EDIT: Not to mention that it would certainly be an enormous task to get all of humanity to another planet. Technologically speaking, anyway. END EDIT.
IMO, if the Fusion clan wants to try to make a difference, I am not against it.
Certainly, I agree that things are not looking bright for many aspects of the environment.
Most of us that grew up in Western Pa actually have heard more than enough about that. (Shipping Port.) But Deep geological disposal seems to be the way now and is quite safe.
Yes, good old TMI. The first of the bad batch.
While I agree that deep geo disposal might be safe for us, I am not so sure about future generations especially if something cataclysmic happens in-between and the warnings about the area are lost. We just might be shoveling that dirt pile from one side of the yard to the other.
I'm sure it now takes under a minute to scram a nuke plant.
There are, supposedly, much safer reactor designs out there - some of them, apparently, do not even need to be shut down -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor#Reactor_types Then again, I am no expert on the matter.
The problem is even after you scram, you still need power to cool the plant down. Hence the irony of a Nuclear Power Plant needing external power if it needs to scram.
My stance if this: reactor design must be done in such a way where no combination of actions from within the control room will lead to a loss of containment. And to the best of my knowledge, we do not have that.
As I understand it, the problem with Fukushima was that the designers failed to adequately asses the probability of the plant being inundated by a tsunami - which is what happened, and their backup generator, tasked with providing the necessary backup power, was swamped and essentially taken out by said tsunami.