5 ms·

Ok, so here you're referring to moving a lot of energy w/o wires/transmission lines? Is that a commonly needed thing?

• Danieru 3y ago
  South Korea, Japan, China say hello. Much of the world by population and gdp is a ship ride away from their major energy suppliers. Japan imports about half their LNG from Australia. Next largest is Qatar. There are no power lines between Australia and Japan.
  • maerF0x0 3y ago
    Right, but why rely on LNG when Nuclear sources could provide so much more energy and geo-political stability, and promising investment in other avenues (eg Thorium based) could make it even moreso?
    • bryanlarsen 3y ago
      Nuclear is better in many ways. It's a shame it costs an order of magnitude more than alternatives.
      • maerF0x0 3y ago
        Interesting point, A quick google suggests both possibilities that solar and nuclear are each cheaper depending on how big of a picture you're looking. (Capital, construction, storage for solar cause nuclear can run at night, storage for 25000 years for the waste etc). Still, if moving a lot of (potential) heat energy from point to point is the goal, Uranium still seems to be the move compared to so many tankers of LNG -- just to burn it. Nuclear plants put off a ton of waste heat energy, and it can be at a very high temperature too (if designed and desired).