3 ms·
For thirty years people have been asking that question, telling us to use "renewables" instead. Renewables aren't getting here fast enough, we can wait another
by willcipriano 4y ago
For thirty years people have been asking that question, telling us to use "renewables" instead. Renewables aren't getting here fast enough, we can wait another thirty years burning fossil fuels or we can start building nuclear plants now.
- adrianN 4y agoBuilding nuclear plants is really not something that I'd put in the category of "things one can do quickly".
- Kon5ole 4y agoRenewables are getting here faster than nuclear. At a fundamental level this is because you can mobilize a lot more manpower building renewables than you can building nuclear. A million homeowners adding solar power versus decade-long nuclear power plant projects. During the past decade in Germany, renewables added more power generation capacity than all the remaining nuclear reactors did combined. That energy is here now, and half of it gave benefits already 5 years ago. So I don't think it's wise to divert money from renewables and storage to build new nuclear, but keeping existing nuclear around for as long as possible is a completely different matter.
- willcipriano 4y ago> That energy is here now Is it? "CO2 emissions per capita in Germany are equivalent to 9.44 tons per person" [0] "CO2 emissions per capita in France are equivalent to 5.13 tons per person" [1] [0]https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/germany-co2-emission https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/germany-co2-emis... & https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?locations=DE https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?location... [1]https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/france-co2-emissions/ https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/france-co2-emiss... & https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?locations=FR https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?location...