5 ms·

I agree on renewables and they are certainly part of the solution, but we can meet our energy without fossil fuels if we really leaned into nuclear the way the

I agree on renewables and they are certainly part of the solution, but we can meet our energy without fossil fuels if we really leaned into nuclear the way the French did. It's simply a matter of political will. Musk looked at the regulatory tape around nuclear and said "I guess it has to be solar then" and I think that was a mistake. If we'd applied his economics of scale, and first principles thinking to nuclear we'd be far, far more along than we are right now and we'd probably have more medical isotopes to boot.

rat9988 6y ago
The french did this and ended up with nuclear costing more than current renewable. That said, it has served them well for the last decades and will probably still serve well for a decade or two.
wazoox 6y ago
We can relatively easily solve the problem of electricity production using nuclear, renewables and therefore make carbon-free electricity. But electricity is only 30% of our energy consumption.
- Retric 6y ago
  Cars, Heating, and cooking can be replaced with electricity just fine even if their not currently part of that 30%. Also, solar power overwhelmingly our largest energy source. It’s generally ignored in these calculations but farms for example are very dependent on sunlight.
  - TuringTest 6y ago
    Heating and cooling, OK. Cars require batteries, and there's not enough lithium to support as many electric cars as there exist combustion engine cars now. A breaktrhough will be needed, either in battery tech or shared transportation (either public transport, car-sharing, or generalized telecommuting).
    - Retric 6y ago
      There is plenty of lithium for EV’s. Existing mines are enough for ~1 billion cars, however raw lithium is currently well under 1% of the cost of a new Tesla so vastly more expensive mining options don’t really effect the economics much. The minimal amount of recycling would change dramatically as lithium prices increase. PS: “battery grade” lithium is more expensive, but what changes isn’t the amount of lithium but removal of minor impurities.

rat9988 6y ago

The french did this and ended up with nuclear costing more than current renewable. That said, it has served them well for the last decades and will probably still serve well for a decade or two.

wazoox 6y ago

We can relatively easily solve the problem of electricity production using nuclear, renewables and therefore make carbon-free electricity. But electricity is only 30% of our energy consumption.

Retric 6y ago
Cars, Heating, and cooking can be replaced with electricity just fine even if their not currently part of that 30%. Also, solar power overwhelmingly our largest energy source. It’s generally ignored in these calculations but farms for example are very dependent on sunlight.
- TuringTest 6y ago
  Heating and cooling, OK. Cars require batteries, and there's not enough lithium to support as many electric cars as there exist combustion engine cars now. A breaktrhough will be needed, either in battery tech or shared transportation (either public transport, car-sharing, or generalized telecommuting).
  - Retric 6y ago
    There is plenty of lithium for EV’s. Existing mines are enough for ~1 billion cars, however raw lithium is currently well under 1% of the cost of a new Tesla so vastly more expensive mining options don’t really effect the economics much. The minimal amount of recycling would change dramatically as lithium prices increase. PS: “battery grade” lithium is more expensive, but what changes isn’t the amount of lithium but removal of minor impurities.