2 ms·
Nuclear power is no longer an "easy solution" because it would take at least a decade before a new nuclear power plant would go into operation. If we had wanted
by _Microft 6y ago
Nuclear power is no longer an "easy solution" because it would take at least a decade before a new nuclear power plant would go into operation. If we had wanted nuclear power, we should have started building it two decades ago.
- Udik 6y agoWell, how many decades would the proposed societal changes and a transition to 100% renewables require? What would be your alternative plan to cut global co2 emissions by 30%-40% within the next, say, twenty years?
- _Microft 6y agoPhotovoltaics and wind power will get us a long way. Both of them are seeing installed power increased by roughly 20-30% year over year [0]. If we can keep this pace for the next five years and half the rate for the second half of this decade, they'll make up more than >30% of power production already (in 2030!). [0] Growth of installed photovoltaic (nameplate) power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics#/media/File:PV_cume_semi_log_chart_2014_estimate.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics#/media/File:PV_c...
- Udik 6y agoWhich means that if this rate of installation continues, in 20 years you'd have replaced about 100% of the power requirements of today in nameplate values- but the actual production is at best 20%-30% of that value. So in 20 years you would have offset say 30% of that 27% of emissions due to electricity generation: so 8% of todays' emissions. In 2040. Is this your grand plan to save earth from an existential threat? If we installed nuclear capacity for 200% of today's power generation, instead, we'd have enough spare capacity to convert transport, heating and some industrial processes to electric, reducing our carbon footprint beyond the 30% mark into the 40% or 50%.