4 ms·

I too have always found this argument to be a non sequitur, for the exact reasons that you identify. If you attribute the emissions and pollution of the entire

I too have always found this argument to be a non sequitur, for the exact reasons that you identify. If you attribute the emissions and pollution of the entire fossil fuel economy to the people who refine the products that go into the fossil fuel economy, there is nothing that can be accomplished with the analysis. On the other hand, if we are serious about global warming and pollution, we need nuclear energy immediately (including the safe nuclear fission technologies which we've had for a few decades now, as well as continued research into fusion).

dangoor 5y ago
I do think nuclear energy is part of the picture, but it is not immediate. TerraPower is working on a reactor in Wyoming that will be ready in 7 years at a cost of $1B, which is considered quick and cheap for the industry[1][2]. Based on everything I've read, I think we need to do a bunch of different things all at once to address global warming and reduce emissions as quickly as possible. Yes, solar and wind are intermittent sources, but they're cheap and available now. Yes, we need to upgrade our grids to be able to handle all of the new electric vehicles. We also need to change over building heating/cooling. Find better means of making concrete. You may not have meant only do nuclear, but I see politicians saying "nuclear & carbon capture" as if that's going to get the job done, but I haven't seen any analysis that supports those things alone doing the job. [1] https://www.dw.com/en/scientists-pour-cold-water-on-bill-gates-nuclear-plans/a-59751405 https://www.dw.com/en/scientists-pour-cold-water-on-bill-gat... [2] https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/nuclear/bill-gates-funded-nuclear-startup-will-transform-a-wyoming-coal-plant https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/nuclear/bill-gates-fund...
bryanlarsen 5y ago
Nuclear takes too long to build and is too expensive. Renewables are quicker, cheaper and sufficient. A 3x overbuild of solar+wind in an optimal mix, along with a continental grid and 3 hours worth of batteries is all you need for 99.99% reliability over an entire year. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z

dangoor 5y ago

I do think nuclear energy is part of the picture, but it is not immediate. TerraPower is working on a reactor in Wyoming that will be ready in 7 years at a cost of $1B, which is considered quick and cheap for the industry[1][2]. Based on everything I've read, I think we need to do a bunch of different things all at once to address global warming and reduce emissions as quickly as possible. Yes, solar and wind are intermittent sources, but they're cheap and available now. Yes, we need to upgrade our grids to be able to handle all of the new electric vehicles. We also need to change over building heating/cooling. Find better means of making concrete. You may not have meant only do nuclear, but I see politicians saying "nuclear & carbon capture" as if that's going to get the job done, but I haven't seen any analysis that supports those things alone doing the job. [1] https://www.dw.com/en/scientists-pour-cold-water-on-bill-gates-nuclear-plans/a-59751405 https://www.dw.com/en/scientists-pour-cold-water-on-bill-gat... [2] https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/nuclear/bill-gates-funded-nuclear-startup-will-transform-a-wyoming-coal-plant https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/nuclear/bill-gates-fund...

bryanlarsen 5y ago

Nuclear takes too long to build and is too expensive. Renewables are quicker, cheaper and sufficient. A 3x overbuild of solar+wind in an optimal mix, along with a continental grid and 3 hours worth of batteries is all you need for 99.99% reliability over an entire year. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z