3 ms·
I don't know the exact numbers but I know that's how it shakes out. This is not noise - it's just the truth. Here's something on carbon: https://en.m.wikipedi
by m101 2y ago
I don't know the exact numbers but I know that's how it shakes out. This is not noise - it's just the truth.
Here's something on carbon:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment
The problem with economic arguments is that externalities are not priced in. We don't price in the carbon of china solar manufacturing for example.
The other problem of economic arguments is that regulations are expensive in nuclear, and it is orders of magnitude safer than next best alternatives.
Which means: economic arguments miss the point when considered in the broader context.
- svara 2y agoCouldn't disagree more. The point you're making boils down to saying that because it's complicated, we can't rely on reason and rather have to go with gut feeling. The fact is that state of the art research into this does very much consider those points you think aren't being considered, and has been doing so for decades. Here is a link to such research: https://op.europa.eu/s/zX4i https://op.europa.eu/s/zX4i This particular EU project started in 1995. You can easily find much more on Google, from US sources as well if you choose to mistrust EU publications. I'm not commenting with more details ("numbers") because I very much am not qualified to give a detailed, well-founded opinion on this that doesn't randomly leave out half the story. But I do know enough to tell you aren't either, that the way you are talking about this is way under-complex and totally misses the mark in terms of where the state of the art is. One specific way (possibly of many) in which it does so is in ignoring the absurd exponential learning curve that renewables + storage technology is on.