3 ms·
> “They just want to have coal plants without coal,” he said. “We’ll never solve the climate problem that way.” Given that the coal specifically (as well as oi
by MattGaiser 3y ago
> “They just want to have coal plants without coal,” he said. “We’ll never solve the climate problem that way.”
Given that the coal specifically (as well as oil and gas) is the problem, why is that bad? Coal plants without emissions sounds great!
- andbberger 3y agothis is the same guy that compared small modular reactors to theranos
- EricE 3y agoYes, replacing coal boilers with nuclear boilers seems like a total no-brainer. Which is why it probably will never happen.
- mullingitover 3y agoIt’ll never happen because coal plants are actually littered with radioisotopes from the coal ash. You could hook up a reactor to a coal plant’s turbine for cheap, but they would immediately violate regulations because of the existing levels of radiation.
- credit_guy 3y agoWait, what? In your mind a coal power plant is knee deep in coal ash, and there's radioactivity everywhere, or something like that? Ever heard of the EPA [1]? [1] https://www.epa.gov/coalash/coal-ash-basics https://www.epa.gov/coalash/coal-ash-basics