2/ Renewables are the right long term play. But, renewables + nuclear will A) speed up decarbonization & B) be necessary Models show when ~80% of electricity comes from renewables, an additional consistent low-carbon source of energy is still neededhttps://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/is-nuclear-power-worth-the-risk …
-
Show this thread
-
3/ It's safer than we think relative to current sources: "if we accepted claims that Soviet and international authorities covered up tens of thousands of Chernobyl deaths, the death toll from 60 years of nuclear power would still equal about one month of coal-related deaths"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
3.5/ quote from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/opinion/sunday/climate-change-nuclear-power.html … More on safer than we think: "Chernobyl rate is nine times lower than the death rate from liquefied gas… and 47 times lower than from hydroelectric stations"https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-nuclear-power-must-be-part-of-the-energy-solution-environmentalists-climate …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
4/ Waste is less of an issue than we'd think as well: "The U.S. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) ... could easily accommodate the entire world’s nuclear waste for the next thousand years."https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-nuclear-power-must-be-part-of-the-energy-solution-environmentalists-climate …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
4.5/ "Nuclear waste is compact — America’s total from 60 years would fit in a Walmart — and is safely stored in concrete casks and pools, becoming less radioactive over time."https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/opinion/sunday/climate-change-nuclear-power.html …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
5/ Nuclear waste doesn't equal nuclear weapons: "24 countries have nuclear power but not weapons, while Israel and North Korea have nuclear weapons but not power."https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/opinion/sunday/climate-change-nuclear-power.html …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
6/ It's more efficient than other forms of zero carbon energy: Capacity Factors (% of days out of year) Nuclear - 92.3 hydroelectric - 38.2 wind turbines - 34.5 solar - 25.1 Coal or natural gas ~ 50ishhttps://e360.yale.edu/features/why-nuclear-power-must-be-part-of-the-energy-solution-environmentalists-climate …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
7/ While nothing has happened yet, Thorium, instead of uranium is promising for: - more of it on Earth - better fuel properties - less nuclear waste - hard to weaponize https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
8/ So, the major drawbacks seem to be: 1) Public image of nuclear (influencing policy) 2) The cost of building Nuclear Plants. For #2, hopefully we could get investors, gov't, & the public behind “fourth generation” reactors that can be mass produced https://www.sckcen.be/en/SCKCEN_for_you/Energy/Gen_IV_reactors …
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
9 & Last / I just started reading about this & appreciate feedback. I don't consider myself an expert at all Also, it is hard to measure the TRUE impact of Fukushima & Chernobyl. Repercussions could be higher still is less dangerous than what we've been tolerating with coal.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread
It also has enormous upside. What technology has greater upside thannnuclear? The tech that gave us the most powerful weapon on earth?
-
-
Replying to @Molson_Hart
Ya, I didn't think about the upside. The upside of solar, wind, etc. is pretty easy to understand. The upside of nuclear, with ideas of fusion, are very unclear
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.