3 ms·
>I was also a big fan, but there are many alternatives now. Do some research. There are essentially no alternatives to nuclear power for 100% carbon free gene
by Accujack 6y ago
>I was also a big fan, but there are many alternatives now.
Do some research. There are essentially no alternatives to nuclear power for 100% carbon free generation. That's due to how power is produced, transported and consumed (in the US at least) and simply installing extra capacity of renewables so there's "extra power" won't work.
- pfdietz 6y agoYou do some research. You're wrong. Your position might have been defensible ten years ago, but it's now obsolete.
- ehnto 6y agoIt's a big discussion, but I don't think we need 100% carbon free to the point of technicality. We should just jump on whatever is good enough and easily available right now, not in 10 years of commissioning time. The tech is here and now and it could be installed on your roof tonight. We should have rolled out nuclear 5 decades ago, and be reaping the rewards now. In my state in Australia, which resembles California to a fairly uncanny degree in many areas, we have a majority of energy from rooftop solar for a period of most days, the rest is filled by gas generators and the whole shebang is stabalized by a massive tesla battery ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsdale_Power_Reserve https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsdale_Power_Reserve ). It isn't perfect but it is a huge decrease in carbon emissions and a big step toward totally renewable. Somewhat ironically the state also has the national nuclear waste dump and was previously the site of British and American nuclear weapons testing out in the desert. So uh, guess we may as well have popped a reactor out there in the 60s and have enjoyed the clean energy.