3 ms·

32 of the 48 countries in Africa are in an energy crisis according to the World Bank. Think how many millions of lives could be improved/saved by cheap coal pla

32 of the 48 countries in Africa are in an energy crisis according to the World Bank. Think how many millions of lives could be improved/saved by cheap coal plants, with immediate benefits. Or, the horror, nuclear power plants in 15 years. We're leaving hundreds of millions in abject poverty today, for some mild to negligible benefit in the future (We aren't cutting CO2 emissions from industrialized nations much anytime soon).

ZeroGravitas 11y ago
Or wind and solar (including PV, CSP and domestic water heating) seeing how they are cheap and easy to roll out? Why wait 15 years for nuclear that is seen as too expensive as well as socially unacceptable in many nations, when you can get immediate returns with wind? Why poison the air with coal when you can use distributed solar and save on grid expansion costs?
- merpnderp 11y ago
  Because a modern coal plant can provide rock steady power at $.05/kwh, day in and day out. Yes, thorium, uranium, VOC's, and mercury suck. And the CO2 isn't exactly a benefit. But compared to the abject poverty, or even eternal "developing" status some countries acquire, it is probably a worthwhile investment, or at least should be given as an option. At least until solar becomes cheaper and we find a way to store energy for when it is needed. [EDIT] Because this isn't just about providing retail power to consumers, but commercial power to factors and industry, to generational wealth to pull whole societies out of poverty. But asking the Congo to invest in massive solar farms when it can't afford cheap coal, is just cruel. And Vietnam, China and many other countries see nuclear as the only sensible option. We only have about 3 billion years of fuel left (including thorium, but excluding the immeasurable amount of uranium that could be mined from Ocean water).
- baakss 11y ago
  Solar's fine, but very inconsistent. I work in natural gas myself, but I know quite a few people in Solar. It's great in some areas, not so great in others. They get a lot of calls during the winter wondering why they're getting no production out of their panels when it's snowing or has recently snowed. Wind more and more is looking like it might be a nightmare. Natural gas is way cheaper in terms of energy provided when you factor in maintenance costs of wind turbines. In addition, there's significant concerns about the environmental impact of wind farms. http://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2013/02/rethinking-wind-power http://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2013/02/rethinking-wind-pow... Natural Gas is actually insanely good right now in terms of carbon footprint versus cost. Most countries don't have the infrastructure for NatGas E&P though like we do in the US, and it's mostly a local resource.
  - DennisP 11y ago
    I'd be more supportive of gas if the industry weren't so resistant to measuring and controlling their methane leaks.
lucian1900 11y ago
Modern nuclear power plants have negligible environmental impact. Yes, they should be built everywhere.
DennisP 11y ago
A growing number of environmentalists support nuclear. James Hansen, for example, advocates advanced nuclear in his book Storms of My Grandchildren. Several other very prominent environmentalists talk about their conversion to nuclear advocacy in the documentary Pandora's Promise. And we could cut CO2 emissions from industrialized countries quite soon, with the right kind of nuclear power. ThorCon, for example, has a design for a molten salt reactor using existing technology, which could be built in modular form at a rate of 100GWe capacity per year by a single shipyard. It'd be safe, very proliferation resistant, six times more fuel-efficient than conventional reactors, and as cheap as natural gas. Their only problem is that the NRC won't let them do anything. 75% of U.S. coal plants are scheduled for retirement within the next decade. Air pollution from coal kills thousands of Americans per year, according to the American Lung Association. We have lots of shipyards. We have a historic opportunity here, if the government will get out of the way.

ZeroGravitas 11y ago

Or wind and solar (including PV, CSP and domestic water heating) seeing how they are cheap and easy to roll out? Why wait 15 years for nuclear that is seen as too expensive as well as socially unacceptable in many nations, when you can get immediate returns with wind? Why poison the air with coal when you can use distributed solar and save on grid expansion costs?

merpnderp 11y ago
Because a modern coal plant can provide rock steady power at $.05/kwh, day in and day out. Yes, thorium, uranium, VOC's, and mercury suck. And the CO2 isn't exactly a benefit. But compared to the abject poverty, or even eternal "developing" status some countries acquire, it is probably a worthwhile investment, or at least should be given as an option. At least until solar becomes cheaper and we find a way to store energy for when it is needed. [EDIT] Because this isn't just about providing retail power to consumers, but commercial power to factors and industry, to generational wealth to pull whole societies out of poverty. But asking the Congo to invest in massive solar farms when it can't afford cheap coal, is just cruel. And Vietnam, China and many other countries see nuclear as the only sensible option. We only have about 3 billion years of fuel left (including thorium, but excluding the immeasurable amount of uranium that could be mined from Ocean water).
baakss 11y ago
Solar's fine, but very inconsistent. I work in natural gas myself, but I know quite a few people in Solar. It's great in some areas, not so great in others. They get a lot of calls during the winter wondering why they're getting no production out of their panels when it's snowing or has recently snowed. Wind more and more is looking like it might be a nightmare. Natural gas is way cheaper in terms of energy provided when you factor in maintenance costs of wind turbines. In addition, there's significant concerns about the environmental impact of wind farms. http://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2013/02/rethinking-wind-power http://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2013/02/rethinking-wind-pow... Natural Gas is actually insanely good right now in terms of carbon footprint versus cost. Most countries don't have the infrastructure for NatGas E&P though like we do in the US, and it's mostly a local resource.
- DennisP 11y ago
  I'd be more supportive of gas if the industry weren't so resistant to measuring and controlling their methane leaks.

lucian1900 11y ago

Modern nuclear power plants have negligible environmental impact. Yes, they should be built everywhere.

DennisP 11y ago

A growing number of environmentalists support nuclear. James Hansen, for example, advocates advanced nuclear in his book Storms of My Grandchildren. Several other very prominent environmentalists talk about their conversion to nuclear advocacy in the documentary Pandora's Promise. And we could cut CO2 emissions from industrialized countries quite soon, with the right kind of nuclear power. ThorCon, for example, has a design for a molten salt reactor using existing technology, which could be built in modular form at a rate of 100GWe capacity per year by a single shipyard. It'd be safe, very proliferation resistant, six times more fuel-efficient than conventional reactors, and as cheap as natural gas. Their only problem is that the NRC won't let them do anything. 75% of U.S. coal plants are scheduled for retirement within the next decade. Air pollution from coal kills thousands of Americans per year, according to the American Lung Association. We have lots of shipyards. We have a historic opportunity here, if the government will get out of the way.