3 ms·
This is a quite questionable statement. There was a post here at HN a few days ago [1] and the article [2] says: "Meanwhile, global warming lurches ahead. Gree
by ololobus 8y ago
This is a quite questionable statement. There was a post here at HN a few days ago [1] and the article [2] says:
"Meanwhile, global warming lurches ahead. Greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow. So do solar and wind power. But do you know how much of the world’s primary energy comes from fossil fuels today? It’s 81 percent—the same as in 2006."
I didn't check the numbers by myself, but it sounds reasonable: while renewable sources grow, the consumption grows as well. So maybe we need nuclear power too in addition to solar/wind/etc? I don't see too much alternatives around.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18411991 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18411991
[2] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-we-need-innovative-nuclear-power/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-we-nee...
- radicalbyte 8y agoCoal has been growing in developing nations because it's "cheaper" than renewables because the externalities aren't priced in. Nuclear isn't an option, it's simply too expensive compared to renewables. Here in The Netherlands there's pressure to close the last coal power stations. The liberals (i.e. Republicans minus the religious and racist blocks) have been pushing for new nuclear power stations only for the energy suppliers themselves to turn around and call them lunatics because renewables are better.
- _Tev 8y ago> Nuclear isn't an option, it's simply too expensive compared to renewables. Sure, let's ignore energy storage and subsidies altogether. I would believe e.g. solar thermal in Spain to be cost-effective, but these empty claims of "cheap renewables" are tiring.