4 ms·

The big picture isn't about "nuclear vs. fossil fuel" anymore, it is "nuclear vs. renewables". I write "vs." because we need to tackle the climate challenge a

The big picture isn't about "nuclear vs. fossil fuel" anymore, it is "nuclear vs. renewables". I write "vs." because we need to tackle the climate challenge as quickly as possible and have limited resources, therefore the need for optimization is clear: boosting the better approach and neglecting anything else.

hedora 4y ago
Nuclear plants probably kill less wildlife and people per delivered kWh than lithium extraction does for making batteries. No one technology is adequate. Even as we ramp lithium production as fast as we can, we’re facing production shortages for the next few years. More shortages of other stuff will hit each technology as it ramps. This looks like a “spray and pray” sort of situation to me. We should pick the top 5-10 technologies, and throw enough funding at each to get it to be a 33% solution. In five years, fund the top two or three at 100%, but don’t cut funding for the rest. (I’m counting geologically fixed atmospheric carbon capture and efficiency measures in that top N computation, fwiw)
- natmaka 4y ago
  > Nuclear plants probably kill less wildlife and people per delivered kWh than lithium extraction Uranium extraction has not negligible effects. Recent case: https://www.rfi.fr/en/africa/20230124-french-uranium-miner-leaves-20-million-tonnes-of-radioactive-waste-in-niger https://www.rfi.fr/en/africa/20230124-french-uranium-miner-l... > Even as we ramp lithium production as fast as we can, we’re facing production shortages Maybe, however the big picture seems clear: https://hannahritchie.substack.com/p/lithium-electric-vehicles https://hannahritchie.substack.com/p/lithium-electric-vehicl... > We should pick the top 5-10 technologies Globally we did so during the last 20 years, as many nations (including the US) tried hard to build and then use nuclear reactors and also renewable sources of energy: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/nuclear-renewables-electricity?country=~OWID_WRL https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/nuclear-renewables-electr...

hedora 4y ago

Nuclear plants probably kill less wildlife and people per delivered kWh than lithium extraction does for making batteries. No one technology is adequate. Even as we ramp lithium production as fast as we can, we’re facing production shortages for the next few years. More shortages of other stuff will hit each technology as it ramps. This looks like a “spray and pray” sort of situation to me. We should pick the top 5-10 technologies, and throw enough funding at each to get it to be a 33% solution. In five years, fund the top two or three at 100%, but don’t cut funding for the rest. (I’m counting geologically fixed atmospheric carbon capture and efficiency measures in that top N computation, fwiw)

natmaka 4y ago
> Nuclear plants probably kill less wildlife and people per delivered kWh than lithium extraction Uranium extraction has not negligible effects. Recent case: https://www.rfi.fr/en/africa/20230124-french-uranium-miner-leaves-20-million-tonnes-of-radioactive-waste-in-niger https://www.rfi.fr/en/africa/20230124-french-uranium-miner-l... > Even as we ramp lithium production as fast as we can, we’re facing production shortages Maybe, however the big picture seems clear: https://hannahritchie.substack.com/p/lithium-electric-vehicles https://hannahritchie.substack.com/p/lithium-electric-vehicl... > We should pick the top 5-10 technologies Globally we did so during the last 20 years, as many nations (including the US) tried hard to build and then use nuclear reactors and also renewable sources of energy: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/nuclear-renewables-electricity?country=~OWID_WRL https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/nuclear-renewables-electr...