RE: Nuclear power
March 13, 2022 at 5:20 pm
(This post was last modified: March 13, 2022 at 5:22 pm by Peebothuhlu.)
(March 13, 2022 at 9:30 am)Jehanne Wrote:(March 13, 2022 at 12:03 am)Paleophyte Wrote: For a given value of "short-term". Existing resources could run our entire power grid for millennia. The climate crisis that fossil fuels has produced needs fixing within decades. OK, decades ago, but you get the sense of immediacy. We can implement nuclear now or we can suck back another few decades of CO2 emissions as the sea levels rise. Those may not be palatable options to you but they're what's on the table for our energy-hungry society.
And, you've proven my point. Replace the 200+ coal plants in the United States with nuclear power ones. The coal that exists all throughout the United States will still be mined and will be shipped overseas to be burned in coal fired plants elsewhere.
Hi again.
Okay, as has been pointed out. Becuase of the higher energy density you can replace mulitple coal burning plants with fewer nuclear plants. It's not a one for one deal.
I undestand you're possibly being a tad flippant but you'd have to agree that less plants making more power is a good thing?
Yes, coal in all ocuntry's will continue to be mined. Simply for the fact that it has more than just burning in in coal plants uses.
Heck, should certain things continue along current veins we'll be diggin up coal to 'Gassify' and convert into petrolium products so that we can continue to run deisil/petrol/et all systems. Heck we might even end up needing to convert coal into plastics to keep things going in some sectors.
But, at this point, we're circling around what seems to be your "Nuclear icky" sentiments and that's cool/okay.

Hope things are great for you and yours.
Not at work.