4 ms·
Your statement is plainly untrue and I don't know why you posted it. Electricity is a minority of GHG emissions (<25%). Even if electricity became 100% GHG-free
by tedsanders 5y ago
Your statement is plainly untrue and I don't know why you posted it. Electricity is a minority of GHG emissions (<25%). Even if electricity became 100% GHG-free, and even if you converted transportation and heating to electricity, you still have plenty of other GHG sources like agricultural, smelting, etc.
Just because nuclear power has been unfairly maligned doesn't mean it would unilaterally solve our climate problems. Beware mood affiliation when posting short pithy comments.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_technical-summary.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5... (see page 44)
- seanmcdirmid 5y agoWith EVs, nuclear could solve a lot more of our energy mix. Maybe EV tech would have been more developed earlier if we had cheaper electricity. But that still ignores the huge capital costs of building a nuclear power plant, not to mention the liability insurance that has to be provided by the government.
- HPsquared 5y agoIn a world of cheap nuclear electricity, more possibilities would open up in these other areas like smelting etc. It would be possible to have a higher carbon tax, use more electricity-derived heat for industrial processes (even just electrolyze and burn hydrogen if needed). Farming is a tricky one but again, with cheap electricity things like hydroponics become more feasible. A lot of things are physically possible but simply ruled out by the economics of energy cost.
- vimy 5y ago40 years of unnecessary coal and gas emissions adds up.