5 ms·
No need to insult. I think most people agree that low-carbon, long-term sustainable, clean are the goals, not renewability. It's widely accepted that some renew
by acidburnNSA 3y ago
No need to insult. I think most people agree that low-carbon, long-term sustainable, clean are the goals, not renewability. It's widely accepted that some renewables like biofuel in general have both air pollution and climate challenges. Take a look at the IPCC's lifecycle CO2 assessments for proof.
- Gwypaas 3y agoAnd we get 5-10x the people using electricity instead of burning either traditional biofuels or fossil fuels using renewables. What are we optimizing for here? Impact or through any means possible justifying nuclear?
- acidburnNSA 3y agoThe goal is to reduce the world's primary energy from 80% fossil and renewable biofuel down to zero as fast as possible. Sounds like you're making the error where you think it has to be either wind/solar/hydro or nuclear. This is not a zero sum game.
- Gwypaas 3y agoIn a fantasy world of infinite resources it is not a zero sum game. In a world where we have prioritize the use of limited resources 5-10x the impact goes a long way.