4 ms·
What’s missing from this discussion is a carbon price. If carbon were priced at $200/T, nuclear energy and renewables would both be favored over carbon based en
by ttul 6y ago
What’s missing from this discussion is a carbon price. If carbon were priced at $200/T, nuclear energy and renewables would both be favored over carbon based energy sources.
- zozin 6y agoAre you including mining costs for the metals to create wind turbines and solar panels? The mining costs to create a battery network large enough to have backup power for billions of households? What about the carbon cost of replacing and recycling the batteries? What about the carbon cost of rebuilding/refurbishing the current electrical networks to allow for this green future? What about creating a supply network for transportation where one basically doesn't exist today? Hydrocarbons are 12-15x more energy dense than what current batteries are able to store. A $1 spent today on hydrocarbon production results in 500-600% more energy produced than $1 spent on solar/wind energy production. Green is sexy, but the physics and economics don't support a massive shift to green.
- orthecreedence 6y agoTake your points and try them against nuclear. It wont work. The original argument is solid: the economics are failing us, so change the economics and suddenly nuclear becomes viable. Then you don't have to deal with battery arrays and other silly things.