|
|
|
|
|
by lmm
3253 days ago
|
|
Renewables can't provide power where it's needed, and largely can't provide reliable baseline power (hydroelectric being the exception, but it causes huge environmental damage in terms of both direct flooding and disruption to downstream ecosystems). Fission could power us for 100-200 years at current consumption rates - substantially less if consumption continues to grow. It's not time to panic yet, but we can't afford not to be doing fusion research. |
|
I grew up with energy generated by a mix of hydro from 800km away and nuclear from 200km. An off-shore wind farm could be built anywhere between 100 and 250km from my city. In-shore wind, if distributed and connected, can provide a lot of reliable with little need for constant hydro or nuclear.
Also, hydro can be rather helpful in other aspects - it can be a store of drinking water, fisheries and agriculture. The environmental impact is, of course, huge, buy far more benign than the current fashion of fossils. Plus, if you are really clever, you can use it to host carbon-fixating algae you can bury to remove a lot of carbon from the atmosphere.
Mind you that fission's environmental impact is not restricted to those rare occasions when everything goes bad and the reactor melts down. Mining for fissiles is not exactly environment friendly.
And while local photovoltaic may have some nasty industrial processes involved, solar-thermal doesn't. It also provides a nice and smooth generation pattern that can cover for baseline generation.