3 ms·

>> I do know enough about math and engineering to know that the only realistic way to deal with the disaster they are predicting is an immediate and massive exp

>> I do know enough about math and engineering to know that the only realistic way to deal with the disaster they are predicting is an immediate and massive expansion of nuclear power Would it not be cheaper, whilst also being realistic, to pursue renewables + natural gas? AIUI renewables LCOE is around 5x cheaper than nuclear and natural gas is often (including right now) sold at negative prices in the US because it is almost a waste product from far more lucrative shale oil operations (accounts for around 80% of gas production). Add to this gas is a near perfect complement to renewables given its fast response times to demand changes unlike nuclear. Natural Gas is also the cleanest of the fossil fuels, modern generation facilities are far more efficient than e.g. petrol or diesel engines. I’m failing to understand why nuclear would be the only game in town? Those construction costs make it look unviable. Not to mention the NIMBY aspect which means nuclear is simply off the table in terms of options thanks to citizen desires.

timbit42 3y ago
Natural gas doesn't pollute much less than coal or oil. The CO2 is less but there is also the methane. Natural gas is methane gas. It's not a transition fuel. Calling it 'natural' is a scam to sell methane gas.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  so what? Its just being used as a peaker plant since the renewables cant scale effectively or at all. Just put a co2 sequestration plant nearby and youre good to go.
fdschoeneman 3y ago
It might be. Probably. I don't know. All I know is that if people who do believe in the climate apocalypse say that CO2 generation from lng would make the problem worse, not better; whether that's true or not, I don't know, but I accept that they genuinely do believe it to be true. And so, if I do take them at their word, and use their logic, and assume they understand math, then they must also support an immediate and massive expansion of nuclear. If they do not argue for an immediate and massive expansion, I'm forced to conclude they either a) are lying about what they call the science, b) are lying about their belief in apocalyptic scenarios, c) don't understand math, or d) some combination of a, b, and c.

timbit42 3y ago

Natural gas doesn't pollute much less than coal or oil. The CO2 is less but there is also the methane. Natural gas is methane gas. It's not a transition fuel. Calling it 'natural' is a scam to sell methane gas.

HDThoreaun 3y ago
so what? Its just being used as a peaker plant since the renewables cant scale effectively or at all. Just put a co2 sequestration plant nearby and youre good to go.

fdschoeneman 3y ago

It might be. Probably. I don't know. All I know is that if people who do believe in the climate apocalypse say that CO2 generation from lng would make the problem worse, not better; whether that's true or not, I don't know, but I accept that they genuinely do believe it to be true. And so, if I do take them at their word, and use their logic, and assume they understand math, then they must also support an immediate and massive expansion of nuclear. If they do not argue for an immediate and massive expansion, I'm forced to conclude they either a) are lying about what they call the science, b) are lying about their belief in apocalyptic scenarios, c) don't understand math, or d) some combination of a, b, and c.