2 ms·
Coal could turn out to be the most expensive fuel ever. That depends on whether we avert disaster. Similarly, when the nukes are mothballed, long before their
by ncmncm 4y ago
Coal could turn out to be the most expensive fuel ever. That depends on whether we avert disaster.
Similarly, when the nukes are mothballed, long before their design life is over because their power is too expensive to find any buyers, the actual cost of each kWh produced up to that end will balloon out of sight, as the exorbitant construction cost is suddenly amortized over much less energy.
But comparing nukes to coal is pointless. Wasting money building nukes instead of the much larger amount of renewables the same money could buy brings catastrophe nearer. Burning coal for ten years while the nuke is built brings catastrophe nearer.
To avert catastrophe, we will need to build out renewables radically faster than we are doing this far. And, we will need to build out factories for the equipment we will also need, particularly hydrogen and ammonia synthesizers to provide portable fuel for vehicles that cannot rely on batteries.
- njarboe 4y agoI bet nukes, wind, and solar have very different material needs so ramping up all of them as fast as possible should be the course of action. Why exclude nuclear?
- ncmncm 4y agoMoney is fungible. Our industrial capacity could cope with a great deal more activity than it will be devoting to building renewables. But money directing it to that activity, and not some other instead, is the limiting factor.