• BaldProphet@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I want to see more emphasis on nuclear in these climate plans. It’s a far superior energy source than wind or solar, which have significant environmental costs that are commonly downplayed (manufacturing and disposal).

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      They’re being deployed at scale first because both wind and solar had a learning-by-doing cycle which brought costs to levels below both fossil fuels and nuclear. In much of the world, nuclear never managed to achieve that.

      • BaldProphet@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The fossil fuel industry convinced the world that nuclear is dangerous and expensive. In reality, it is the safest and cheapest contemporary source of energy.

      • Sonori@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nuclear is still profitable, and has the advantage of already been proven at the scale of an entire industrial nations grid. It takes a while to build, but is still faster than nearly all of our non-binding pledges. Instead, most of the world is betting everything on a massive redesign of the electrical grid with lots of HV DC and new hydro, all for a few percent higher profit.

        Moreover, this possibility that renewables might be unstable at nation scale is exactly why we’ve built so many new fossil plants as a ‘bridge’ to when they are ‘ready’. The same would not have been possible if we had chosen the option that made a major industrial nations grid carbon neutral by accident in the seventies.

        • scientist@eu.mastodon.green
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          @sonori @silence7

          Yep, we must have energy to power the industrial complex. I mean, what would happen if we couldn’t keep the lights on at at weapons factories? Or, heaven forbid, all those Christmas lights and masses of other non-essential products and services?

          What will it take for people to take the effects of a degrading nature seriously? When there is another crazy war, it’s all folk can think about.

          It does make me question why so many “leaders” keep on making the same bad mistakes.

          • Sonori@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean, while we could definitely be more efficient, you realize most of the energy we use in industry not oil related is for things like food, homes, clothes, transport, etc… Wepons are high cost, but ultimately not made at anything like the scale that most other industries operate at.

            House wise, nothing can compare to heating and air conditioning in terms of energy use. Heat pumps are very efficient, but they’ll still burn though far more energy than a electric car, much less things like stoves and driers. There are limits to how well you can insulate a home without health risks, and getting close to that still requires pumping in cold air and venting warm to carry out co2. To say nothing of having to also abandon a lot of warm areas becuse they’ve gotten to hot to be safe without heat pumps.

            If we are to replace fossil fuel in heating, and exterminating everyone in Canada, Mexico, and the Middle East is off the table, then we need to vastly expand our electricity production.