10 ms·

We could do just as badly and still have nowhere near as many deaths (including evacuation related deaths) as a single coal plant causes due to pollution.

lawrenceyan 6y ago
I'm not a fan of having cancer rates rise either. I've stated this before, and I'll repeat it here: Solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro are more than enough to power the world. They're cheaper too.
- wiz21c 6y ago
  What about the resources needed to build the solar and wind infrastructures ? Metal, extraction of that metal, rare earths,... ? I'm all for solar and wind and whatever, but at some point there are some maths to do... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0W1ZZYIV8o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0W1ZZYIV8o
  - partingshots 6y ago
    Isn’t nuclear power really expensive? Solar and wind I think are just materially cheaper than anything else even including construction. I’m looking at the Lazard 2020 Levelized Cost of Energy report here: https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-140.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-o...
    - Hammershaft 6y ago
      Nuclear is expensive in the short term and remarkably cheap in the long run. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY That said the more intermittent ambient energy is on the grid the more difficult it is for nuclear to operate 24/7, which makes it take longer for nuclear to go from expensive to cheap.
    - wiz21c 6y ago
      I checked the prices in your document. But I'm more after the actual resources consumption. For ex. if solar is cheap, but in the end, solar panels production releases more CO2 than nuclear, then it's of no use for CO2 emissions.
- RealityVoid 6y ago
  So, what would rise cancer rates? Coal or nuclear? IMO, the answer is counter-intuitive.
  - lawrenceyan 6y ago
    Coal is replaced by the renewables as mentioned above. If you replace coal with nuclear, nothing changes.
- demosito666 6y ago
  > Solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro are more than enough to power the world Cool story. My city of 7M people has ~50 days of sunny days per yer, is located on a plane (as the most part of large cities), doesn't have active underground volcano nearby (as 99% of Earth's cities) and requires indoor heating at least 7 months/year. The city consumes an equivalent of two nuclear power plants output in electricity alone (half of that is from an actual nuclear plant). Heating probably consumes even more energy, but it's direct heat from CHPs so I can't google direct MW numbers straight away. I'd like to see calculations on powering that from solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro.
- lmm 6y ago
  Then how come we're still burning coal?

lawrenceyan 6y ago

I'm not a fan of having cancer rates rise either. I've stated this before, and I'll repeat it here: Solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro are more than enough to power the world. They're cheaper too.

wiz21c 6y ago
What about the resources needed to build the solar and wind infrastructures ? Metal, extraction of that metal, rare earths,... ? I'm all for solar and wind and whatever, but at some point there are some maths to do... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0W1ZZYIV8o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0W1ZZYIV8o
- partingshots 6y ago
  Isn’t nuclear power really expensive? Solar and wind I think are just materially cheaper than anything else even including construction. I’m looking at the Lazard 2020 Levelized Cost of Energy report here: https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-140.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-o...
  - Hammershaft 6y ago
    Nuclear is expensive in the short term and remarkably cheap in the long run. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY That said the more intermittent ambient energy is on the grid the more difficult it is for nuclear to operate 24/7, which makes it take longer for nuclear to go from expensive to cheap.
  - wiz21c 6y ago
    I checked the prices in your document. But I'm more after the actual resources consumption. For ex. if solar is cheap, but in the end, solar panels production releases more CO2 than nuclear, then it's of no use for CO2 emissions.
RealityVoid 6y ago
So, what would rise cancer rates? Coal or nuclear? IMO, the answer is counter-intuitive.
- lawrenceyan 6y ago
  Coal is replaced by the renewables as mentioned above. If you replace coal with nuclear, nothing changes.
demosito666 6y ago
> Solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro are more than enough to power the world Cool story. My city of 7M people has ~50 days of sunny days per yer, is located on a plane (as the most part of large cities), doesn't have active underground volcano nearby (as 99% of Earth's cities) and requires indoor heating at least 7 months/year. The city consumes an equivalent of two nuclear power plants output in electricity alone (half of that is from an actual nuclear plant). Heating probably consumes even more energy, but it's direct heat from CHPs so I can't google direct MW numbers straight away. I'd like to see calculations on powering that from solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro.
lmm 6y ago
Then how come we're still burning coal?