As solar continues it's price plunge that logic will change quickly. Nuclear meanwhile has serious over-budgeting issues
-
-
-
Like, liberals who are against nuclear should reexamine the evidence. But a fair reading of the data shows solar is at price parity in many places now compared to nuclear. That trend will only continue
-
....unless fusion becomes a thing. Which would be awesome. But let's not hold our breaths on that one
-
this analysis finds that the world has spent about the same on solar and wind as it has on nuclear (about $2 trillion). the money spent on RE didn't decarbonize energy; the money spent on nuclear did. how many more trillions do you think we should dump into unproven technology?
-
Can I ask what you mean by renewables didn't decarbonize energy and nuclear did?
-
sure nolan: analyzing 68 countries' deployment of nuclear and its correlation to carbon intensity of energy, this study finds that more nuclear deployment is correlated with decreasing COE. the same correlation was not found for the deployment of solar or wind.
-
sorry: CIE, not COE
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This is too strong and persuasive a conclusion from an article which otherwise merits some attention and critical debate.
-
but this is literally what the analysis finds. historically, solar and wind have never decarbonized energy with the exception of in denmark, where wind was able to decarbonize energy because of the nordic grid's extremely rad hydro production
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Fukushima? Fukushima? Fukushima? Fukushima? Fukushima? Fukushima?
-
what about it?
-
Fukushima is a city in Japan that had 90000 people living there. A nuke power plant disaster occurred. Now no one lives there. The land like Chernobyl, Russia is rendered unlivable for next 30 centuries. Nuke energy (clean?) but bad, risky. Go wind+solar
-
recommended viewing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bMszSqNuKo …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yeah I think given the changing economics solar and wind will certainly be part of the equationhttps://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/11/economics-working-against-coal-as-cost-of-wind-solar-power-drops/ …
-
nah kev. physical energy production is physical energy production. if you spend $10 on solar and wind, you're not guaranteed to move the needle on carbon intensity of energy. spend the same $10 on nuclear and you are.
-
It's a long term proposition but If you need to generate X amount of energy, and it's become prohibitively more expensive and/or less profitable to build a coal plant, or in some cases, even operate an existing coal plant than to generate with solar/wind we'll eventually see...
-
replacement happen, presuming continued storage advances. This isn't to say nuclear doesn't have a place and in some cases more immediate potential but it is also very expensive
-
I guess 'guarantee' is a strong word for any specific case and given the immediacy of climate change we should push towards what works most effectively. Perhaps studying why in some isolated cases solar+wind did produce decarbonization would be worthwhile
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Facts have a pro-nuclear power bias.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
.... yeah, that is what was now let's talk about the future...
Thanks. 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.