Considering the growth in renewable technology I'd like to see an updated graph of build times. I doubt building Nuclear energy is anywhere near as fast as renewable energy today.
This may be pretty inaccurate, but I recall hearing a comment from someone (in a position of authority on the subject, but for the life of me can't remember who it was) mention that "no nuclear reactor construction has ever been completed on-time or on-budget".
I'd love to find the source of this quote though and check it's validity.
The other problem: the electricty cost includes the cost of disposing the nuclear reactors: if they weren't able to price correctly the building of the power plant, are you confident that they priced correctly the disposal of the power plant?
Author has every right to stop, but should be mindful that solar is now cheaper than coal in many geographies. And some of the most well-funded companies on the planet are spending oodles of capital on battery technology. (Literally almost every big tech company.)
Edit: Irony being that some of the largest deployments of solar panels are in OPEC nations.
It was hard to figure out what the author's main points are, but it seems that they are upset because (paraphrasing) "environmentalists are against nuclear energy". Meanwhile, the author sees nuclear energy as part of the solution to moving away from fossil fuels.
I think both, the author and the author's antagonists, are right: it'll take a diversified source of energy (nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, etc) to ween the world off of burning shit, however it's very likely too late to mitigate the problems we're going to face as a result of human-induced climate change.
>I’ve recently studied the criticisms of prevailing economic system, and the possibilities of radical left politics that would make “Star Trek socialism” – or Fully Automated Luxury Communism – a topic of serious political debate.
His point is that, "I'm a consultant, I work in sweeping generalizations and broker attention, give me money."
It may be too late to mitigate the problems from getting to a certain level. It's never too late for them to get even worse (or to prevent them from getting even worse).
Does anyone know if anyone in the world has been able to make even a gross estimate of how much energy (and in general, environmental impact) goes into making clean energy, and how it actually compares to dirty energy when everything is included? (I mean including everything starting with mining the relevant metals, etc.)
Yes, they visit HN regularly (posting every other week ad minimum!) It hasn't been every everyone (economists in CAR or Zimbabwe, for example) and AAAS/Nature Review articles (also Special Issues c.f. any journal you can like) don't always pick out the pain points down to the last CIGS-sublimating Cobalt miner, but pain leaving is always discussed.
Farming algae outside urchin barrens (seaweed to the roof detail trim curb? arborea.io ) has come in to replace Biodynamic Gardening as a sink for phenanthrenes and other incomplete carbon releases. Finding ocean adaptations that could survive a failure to sequester CO2 production outside the ocean is under study (thermophile anaerobes will convert some CO2, favored algae may be found...)
I've rambled on to reiterate TFA's point to the title; year-on-year surplus weather damage makes advocacy moot in the manner of obvious; people universally know they like to do without damage or the migration/culling it sends around esp. between the equator and Ireland (or new global south; will the PLA make Shin New Zealand?)
13 comments
[ 0.24 ms ] story [ 37.8 ms ] threadI'd love to find the source of this quote though and check it's validity.
Edit: Irony being that some of the largest deployments of solar panels are in OPEC nations.
I think both, the author and the author's antagonists, are right: it'll take a diversified source of energy (nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, etc) to ween the world off of burning shit, however it's very likely too late to mitigate the problems we're going to face as a result of human-induced climate change.
His point is that, "I'm a consultant, I work in sweeping generalizations and broker attention, give me money."
Farming algae outside urchin barrens (seaweed to the roof detail trim curb? arborea.io ) has come in to replace Biodynamic Gardening as a sink for phenanthrenes and other incomplete carbon releases. Finding ocean adaptations that could survive a failure to sequester CO2 production outside the ocean is under study (thermophile anaerobes will convert some CO2, favored algae may be found...)