3 ms·
Yeah, no single technology can solve the problem yet. I don't think the build time is really the main problem with nuclear. If you could replace most of the coa
by xupybd 5y ago
Yeah, no single technology can solve the problem yet. I don't think the build time is really the main problem with nuclear.
If you could replace most of the coal and gas generators in a little over a decade the impact would be immense. Far sooner than I'd expect to see solar have a similar impact. But nuclear only works in wealthy nations.
The main problem with nuclear is the dangers of letting them get into a state of disrepair. In a politically unstable county it could be a real danger if they cannot secure the fuel or waste. A dirty bomb could be an environmental disaster.
Here in NZ many install solar and back feed the grid. They get paid to do so. But this doesn't help reduce emissions. During peak load the coal plants still fire up. We have significant hydro generation but require fossil fuels to deal with peak load. If home owners invested in batteries alone I suspect we could do a better job reducing our emissions.
- stavros 5y ago> Far sooner than I'd expect to see solar have a similar impact. Sure, and there's no reason we can't have both, that's my point. > A dirty bomb could be an environmental disaster. I live in an area with ~20 coal plants in a 15-minute radius and, let me tell you, a dirty bomb would probably have been cleaner.
- thedrbrian 5y agoOk I’m curious. What sort of industrial area needs 20 coal power plants in a 15 minute ?drive? Major aluminium production and mining , chinese crypto hub ?
- stavros 5y agoNo, nothing like that. There are just large coal reserves and this area powers much of Greece's electricity.
- orhmeh09 5y agoHas there ever been a dirty bomb anywhere? Is it a realistic concern? I don’t think it is; my opinion is it was drummed up by the US government and media in the post-2001 frenzy.