4 ms·

> I suspect you’re approaching this from a viewpoint of energy austerity Not really. I'm just saying that all renewable, non-nuclear is possible...some time i

> I suspect you’re approaching this from a viewpoint of energy austerity Not really. I'm just saying that all renewable, non-nuclear is possible...some time in the future. Realistically, I think even in some kind of idealized future, there will be a lot of nuclear power in the mix. Hopefully it's safe, low cost and produces minimal harmful byproducts. In truth, if nuclear can get excellent enough, which is a real possibility, then it becomes effectively more clean than solar and wind, right? The energy density is so high, there is a LOT less to build. Given the choice between our land covered in solar panels, wind mills and battery farms, and a few very large but very safe and cost effective nuclear power plants....that choice gets pretty easy in my opinion. But I'll take the former as well, if needed.

philwelch 5y ago
Sounds reasonable enough. > Given the choice between our land covered in solar panels, wind mills and battery farms, and a few very large but very safe and cost effective nuclear power plants....that choice gets pretty easy in my opinion. But I'll take the former as well, if needed. From my perspective, there are a lot of things that become significantly easier to do if we can produce as much energy as possible, ranging from synthesizing liquid fuels from air and water (chemically possible but energy-intensive) to extracting CO2 from the atmosphere and sequestering it in some sterile chemical sludge that we can pump into empty oil wells to large-scale water desalination (combined with removing the salt). And that’s just in the realm of climate change and sustainability—we are also going to need energy to do new things, not just to do the same things we’re doing now with less ecological impact, or even reversing the ecological impacts we’ve already caused. We’re going to find productive uses of energy faster than we’re going to be able to develop the energy production needed to sustain them. So I’m not sure we’ll be given the choice—we’ll need to do both. The main difference being that a high amount of nuclear baseload would obviate the need for batteries.
- Diederich 5y ago
  Preach! Seriously large amounts of sustainably created energy opens all kinds of doors, and might actually be one of the only ways out of our current and upcoming climate crisis.

philwelch 5y ago

Sounds reasonable enough. > Given the choice between our land covered in solar panels, wind mills and battery farms, and a few very large but very safe and cost effective nuclear power plants....that choice gets pretty easy in my opinion. But I'll take the former as well, if needed. From my perspective, there are a lot of things that become significantly easier to do if we can produce as much energy as possible, ranging from synthesizing liquid fuels from air and water (chemically possible but energy-intensive) to extracting CO2 from the atmosphere and sequestering it in some sterile chemical sludge that we can pump into empty oil wells to large-scale water desalination (combined with removing the salt). And that’s just in the realm of climate change and sustainability—we are also going to need energy to do new things, not just to do the same things we’re doing now with less ecological impact, or even reversing the ecological impacts we’ve already caused. We’re going to find productive uses of energy faster than we’re going to be able to develop the energy production needed to sustain them. So I’m not sure we’ll be given the choice—we’ll need to do both. The main difference being that a high amount of nuclear baseload would obviate the need for batteries.

Diederich 5y ago
Preach! Seriously large amounts of sustainably created energy opens all kinds of doors, and might actually be one of the only ways out of our current and upcoming climate crisis.