3 ms·
It is. Even if it was exactly the same amount of CO2 (it’s not) it would eliminate much of the air pollution where people actually live. It gives you an handful
by tstrimple 4y ago
It is. Even if it was exactly the same amount of CO2 (it’s not) it would eliminate much of the air pollution where people actually live. It gives you an handful of places to apply additional carbon capture versus trying to address it individually across millions of vehicles. And the grid is getting more and more renewables added to it every year so the coal that is used to power these vehicles is shrinking all the time.
- nishantk 4y agoGuys guys, hear me out. What if we took a nuke and instead of exploding it outside, explode it inside and capture the energy into electricity.
- zshrdlu 4y agoYou've gotta learn to stop worrying and embrace the petro-dollar.
- tstrimple 4y agoLet me know when you find someone to pay for it. Energy companies take one look at the ROI for nuclear and run the other way. What for-profit company is going to look at a multi-billion dollar capex project which will take at least a decade and may never be completed that will take another couple decades to recoup the cost and say "This looks like a smart investment!"? Wind turbines and grid scale solar are only controversial to weird fringe groups and have a safe ROI.
- prepend 4y agoI suppose you could look at the list of nuke plant operators [0] who do not run the other way and instead choose to keep operating. Many of these are for profit. This is easy to look up. Duke Energy is one of the biggest companies in the world and definitely for profit. What makes you think they don’t want to invest in new plants? [0] https://www.nei.org/resources/statistics/us-nuclear-plant-owners-and-operators https://www.nei.org/resources/statistics/us-nuclear-plant-ow...
- LargoLasskhyfv 4y agoNo nukes needed. Just tap into Yellowstone.