4 ms·
But are those one or two catastrophies worse than the alternative. We know coal kills thousands each year and harms the planet. Would the net impact of Nuclear
by xupybd 7y ago
But are those one or two catastrophies worse than the alternative. We know coal kills thousands each year and harms the planet. Would the net impact of Nuclear be better than running the current course.
Ideally we'd use renewables but there are limits to the current tech that need to be solved before we can go 100%.
- Areading314 7y agoYou can't heat your house in winter with wind + solar. For a carbon-free world, you need nuclear, period.
- xupybd 7y agohttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261919317660 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626191... In this paper the authors model renewables in Artic isolated settlements. It's only a model but looks promising.
- crdoconnor 7y agoWhy not? Wind is a ~50% cheaper source of energy per kWh than nuclear. Edit : apparently the answer to this question is "downvote" :)
- Recurecur 7y ago> Why not? Wind is a ~50% cheaper source of energy per kWh than nuclear. That's an illusory number. Wind requires backup power, or lots of storage. Wind turbines have a ~20 year lifespan, compared with ~60 years for coal/nuclear plants. Once the safety and economies of mass-produced Gen IV SMRs are accounted for, nuclear is MUCH cheaper than wind. What would be really bad would be the first time thousands of people die when the wind/solar powered grid goes down during a cold snap.
- pmoriarty 7y ago"You can't heat your house in winter with wind + solar" I know someone who actually did heat their home through some pretty brutal winters using just solar heat.. and a pretty simple setup he jury-rigged himself, at that. So it can be done. There are also energy storage technologies like ordinary batteries to more exotic technology like molten salt storage for energy generated by solar panels.