3 ms·

I'm hoping we get some new green movement soon that is much more pragmatic about how we can actually reduce reliance on hydrocarbons. Nuclear, and more natural

• diob 5y ago
  I mean, fracking shouldn't be allowed. I live in Arizona, and the electric companies here make it hell for solar owners. I don't understand it.
• profunctor 5y ago
  Why does more natural gas have to be part of the answer?
  • cjbgkagh 5y ago
    I assume because it’s cheap standby power that can make the whole renewable setup more affordable. Gas turbines don’t need expensive boilers and can ramp up and down quickly.
    • eldaisfish 5y ago
      natural gas is in fact a terrible alternative. It tends to work in places that already have natural gas or ones that can afford it. A better solution would be to interconnect larger grids and to build new transmission infrastructure. Africa is a good example of this going wrong. Instead of interconnecting the continent, the west is focused on off-grid solutions, things that don't scale well.
  • cloutchaser 5y ago
    If you switch all the wood burning in third world countries, and all the coal fired stations to natural gas, you reduce emissions considerably. You need to do this because third world countries can't afford renewables, or there simply isn't enough supply to roll it out quickly (within 10-20 years). But they burn a lot of wood, which is unnecessary, and can be switched to gas cheaply and easily. Considering it will still take decades for renewables to be rolled out and cheap enough to replace wood and coal, it makes sense to use gas transitionally. The fact that this isn't discussed in green movements is insane. It literally would reduce carbon emissions faster. It shows how the green movement is more ideological than pragmatic.
    • CaptArmchair 5y ago
      > third world countries I'll stop you right there because the major producers of greenhouse gasses aren't third world countries. Historically, the majority of greenhouse gasses emitted comes from industrialized nations. > can be switched to gas cheaply and easily I highly doubt that. Gas distribution requires a fine grained pipeline infrastructure which needs constant maintenance. That's a massive upfront cost in developing countries and new economies like India where the domestic market lacks such infrastructure in many places. Not to mention challenges regarding security and geography. Given the respective individual income level in those countries, it's far cheaper to source energy locally from wood, manure and - above all - coal. Moreover, the big issue isn't what new economies like India aren't emitting today. But what they are very much willing to emit in the near future in order to raise overall living standards to a level comparable with the West. At this point, wagging fingers what they should or shouldn't do is a non-sequitur since Western nations carry a historical responsibility for their own industrial pasts. In the documentary "Before the Flood", this dillemma is being made abundantly clear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia5fMomBXbE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia5fMomBXbE
      • megapolitics 5y ago
        >I'll stop you right there because the major producers of greenhouse gasses aren't third world countries. Historically, the majority of greenhouse gasses emitted comes from industrialized nations. That doesn't mean we shouldn't tackle emissions in third world countries.
• DennisP 5y ago
  Agree on nuclear, but natural gas isn't necessarily better than coal after accounting for methane leaks. The industry has lobbied hard against any requirements to monitor or mitigate those leaks.
• adrianN 5y ago
  Barring breakthroughs in the construction and operation of nuclear reactors, nuclear power is not a short term solution. We can't build thousands of nuclear reactors globally and staff them with qualified personnel when constructing a small handful of reactors already takes 15+ years.