3 ms·

Honestly, I don’t even like nuclear power. I just see it’s track record in expanding availability of carbon neutral energy sources. To me, going all in on solar

by rotexo 8y ago

Honestly, I don’t even like nuclear power. I just see it’s track record in expanding availability of carbon neutral energy sources. To me, going all in on solar and wind and potentially running into scaling issues down the line after abandoning nuclear energy seems more risky than the waste issue in nuclear power. Also, as I noted in another reply, I think we need a carbon tax to correct our accounting for the different energy sources. After that, if we start lots of different experiments and find that there really are no issues scaling wind and solar, I will be overjoyed at being proven wrong.

Certhas 8y ago
A global carbon tax in 1990 would have avoided a lot of the mess we find ourselves in. As it is we don't have the luxury of implementing one. Even something as weak as the Paris agreement hinges on one election in the US. A globally enforceable carbon tax is much much less feasible than universal cheap fusion power. That said, we are in the middle of the experiment you are talking about. Renewables are cheaper now than new nuclear, despite nuclear having received a massively larger amount of subsidies over the years, there are still many parts of the world that are building nuclear so it's not like we're losing the technology, but really, there doesn't currently seem to be a good reason for building new nuclear. Let me put it another way, a relatively small island like Ireland is going to be capable of going 100% wind/solar relatively soon. They are not strongly connected to the EU grid. Smaller disconnected islands already have gone 100% renewable. So we will have plenty [1] of test cases of increasing size as we ramp up renewables. Conveniently, electricity is also much more expensive on small islands, so it's also economical to test every technology you want to bring to maturity there first. If we find that beyond a certain size it doesn't work we'll have a decade of warning before we hit that wall with the big continental size grids. [1] 2200 EU Islands: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-strategy-and-energy-union/clean-energy-eu-islands https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-strategy-and-en...
- rotexo 8y ago
  You make good points. I just don’t think we have the luxury of leaving ourselves in a position where burning fossil fuels might remain more economical than carbon-neutral alternatives. A carbon tax seems the only way to get around that. I agree that a carbon tax remains unlikely, which is why I spend most of my days in a depressed and anxious haze for the future :) But maybe a group like the Citizen’s Climate Lobby can pull something off (they suggest using the revenue of the tax as a monthly dividend for all citizens. Never underestimate the power of a monthly bribe in generating consensus in the American public).

by rotexo 8y ago

Certhas 8y ago

A global carbon tax in 1990 would have avoided a lot of the mess we find ourselves in. As it is we don't have the luxury of implementing one. Even something as weak as the Paris agreement hinges on one election in the US. A globally enforceable carbon tax is much much less feasible than universal cheap fusion power. That said, we are in the middle of the experiment you are talking about. Renewables are cheaper now than new nuclear, despite nuclear having received a massively larger amount of subsidies over the years, there are still many parts of the world that are building nuclear so it's not like we're losing the technology, but really, there doesn't currently seem to be a good reason for building new nuclear. Let me put it another way, a relatively small island like Ireland is going to be capable of going 100% wind/solar relatively soon. They are not strongly connected to the EU grid. Smaller disconnected islands already have gone 100% renewable. So we will have plenty [1] of test cases of increasing size as we ramp up renewables. Conveniently, electricity is also much more expensive on small islands, so it's also economical to test every technology you want to bring to maturity there first. If we find that beyond a certain size it doesn't work we'll have a decade of warning before we hit that wall with the big continental size grids. [1] 2200 EU Islands: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-strategy-and-energy-union/clean-energy-eu-islands https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-strategy-and-en...

rotexo 8y ago
You make good points. I just don’t think we have the luxury of leaving ourselves in a position where burning fossil fuels might remain more economical than carbon-neutral alternatives. A carbon tax seems the only way to get around that. I agree that a carbon tax remains unlikely, which is why I spend most of my days in a depressed and anxious haze for the future :) But maybe a group like the Citizen’s Climate Lobby can pull something off (they suggest using the revenue of the tax as a monthly dividend for all citizens. Never underestimate the power of a monthly bribe in generating consensus in the American public).