4 ms·
It still remains a waste of money if you have other sources: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2009/ee/b809990c#!divAbstract https://pubs.rsc.org/
by Krasnol 6y ago
It still remains a waste of money if you have other sources:
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2009/ee/b809990c#!divAbstract https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2009/ee/b8099...
Nuclear is just too slow to fix our CO2 problems
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower/nuclear-energy-too-slow-too-expensive-to-save-climate-report-idUSKBN1W909J https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower/nucle...
- effie 6y agoWhat else do you propose as replacement for coal and gas power plants? Who expects nuclear energy to fix our CO2 problems? In the following decades, it is supposed to slow down CO2 buildup, not "fix our CO2 problems".
- Krasnol 6y ago> What else do you propose as replacement for coal and gas power plants? Renewables > Who expects nuclear energy to fix our CO2 problems? It's the main claim of the Nuclear AstroTurf campaign. > In the following decades, it is supposed to slow down CO2 buildup, not "fix our CO2 problems". As I've shown: it is not the appropriate tool to do that in an efficient way.
- effie 6y agoIt is not realistic to power current developed societies using only solar and wind power. For simple reason - we can't store energy well. Stop throwing up and shooting down strawmen. Nuclear energy was never going to replace all energy sources. Only the worst ones, like coal and gas power plants.
- jhgb 6y agoStoring energy is a straw man as well. The most realistic scenarios of renewable grids rely on overgeneration and opportunistic consumption. This will continue to be the case as long as storage costs significantly continue to exceed extra generation capacity costs.