4 ms·
I think most people can agree that up until this point, burning fossil fuels have been a net positive. But as renewables get cheaper and more useful, at some po
by GhostVII 6y ago
I think most people can agree that up until this point, burning fossil fuels have been a net positive. But as renewables get cheaper and more useful, at some point it becomes worth it to pay the cost of renewables rather than continue to have a ~1 year reduced life expectancy. So I think the most important comparison is renewables vs fossil fuels.
- ekianjo 6y ago> But as renewables get cheaper and more useful, at some point it becomes worth it to pay the cost of renewables rather than continue to have a ~1 year reduced life expectancy Why is nobody talking about nuclear though? The energy density of nuclear blows everything else out of the water, and so far it's been CO2 free for the most part and safer or at the same level of safety as renewables (btw there is no such thing as 'renewable' energy, it's an abuse of language).
- imtringued 6y agoNuclear is dead because nobody is willing to pay for it. Building safe nuclear reactors is just a money thing. Disposing of waste is all about money. Decommissioning unsafe reactors is also just a matter of money. Before you tell me that regulations are a waste of money think about the two easily preventable nuclear accidents we have already had in the past simply because the people responsible weren't willing to spend money. Here is my advice. Build products (read reactor designs) that people are willing to buy today and you'll find lots of customers.