Coal dropped, but looks like natural gass usage jumped. That’s only a small difference in carbon output. Nuclear is the way to go until we’ve got a solid infrastructure that can handle the ups and downs of renewables, grid storage and general upgrades, nation wide.
To my understanding they don’t use up the water though, it’s evaporated back into the cycle after use. Also they can use non potable water like salt water, if memory serves.
Yeah, let’s absolutely get more renewables out there, but I don’t see how we can accommodate base grid loads without something like nuclear (especially when grid storage of renewable energy that isn’t consumed at the time of generation seems like a problem that will take a long time to solve).
The anti-nuclear stuff drives me nuts, and as we’ve seen with Europe and their general move away from nuclear (France being a notable exception) is that you can spin up all the nuclear you want but you’ll need more fossil fuel plants to handle base load regardless.
Scotland’s Orkney Islands produce more clean energy than their inhabitants can use. Their next step? Hydrogen.
Hydrogen is not free of problems: it degrades metal, leaks above a very low level have the potential to negate the environmental benefits, and it’s not particularly efficient because of the cost of compression. And Green hydrogen (which is more like a battery than a fuel) risks providing Big Carbon with a new excuse to pollute with their multi-coloured array of non-Green hydrogens (which are filthy fuels, nothing like a battery).
But I’m not at all convinced about nuclear providing better answers than renewables. It takes decades for a new nuclear plant to come online, the same money invested in renewables starts yielding benefits immediately. And the problem of disposing of nuclear waste is not yet solved.
Coal dropped, but looks like natural gass usage jumped. That’s only a small difference in carbon output. Nuclear is the way to go until we’ve got a solid infrastructure that can handle the ups and downs of renewables, grid storage and general upgrades, nation wide.
Nuclear needs a steady supply of water for cooling, which has become rather unreliable these days in many regions.
deleted by creator
Ever heard of Molten salt reactors? They’re much safer than traditional reactors in many ways
To my understanding they don’t use up the water though, it’s evaporated back into the cycle after use. Also they can use non potable water like salt water, if memory serves.
Yeah, let’s absolutely get more renewables out there, but I don’t see how we can accommodate base grid loads without something like nuclear (especially when grid storage of renewable energy that isn’t consumed at the time of generation seems like a problem that will take a long time to solve).
The anti-nuclear stuff drives me nuts, and as we’ve seen with Europe and their general move away from nuclear (France being a notable exception) is that you can spin up all the nuclear you want but you’ll need more fossil fuel plants to handle base load regardless.
How hydrogen is transforming these tiny Scottish islands
Hydrogen is not free of problems: it degrades metal, leaks above a very low level have the potential to negate the environmental benefits, and it’s not particularly efficient because of the cost of compression. And Green hydrogen (which is more like a battery than a fuel) risks providing Big Carbon with a new excuse to pollute with their multi-coloured array of non-Green hydrogens (which are filthy fuels, nothing like a battery).
But I’m not at all convinced about nuclear providing better answers than renewables. It takes decades for a new nuclear plant to come online, the same money invested in renewables starts yielding benefits immediately. And the problem of disposing of nuclear waste is not yet solved.