|
|
|
|
|
by jonasvp
2596 days ago
|
|
You're making a big assumption that simply doesn't hold: it's not a matter of "let's switch to renewables and keep everything else the same". Fossil fues have an energy density that's unparalleled anywhere else in nature and most renewables are simply riding off of that (the machines, factories, trucks and ships producing and transporting wind towers and solar cells are not and won't be running on electricity). Read up on EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) if you're interested in the topic. I just read a calculation how automatic milking machines will turn a tidy profit on milk into a loss with energy costs per kwh just 10 cents higher. Milking by hand will be _more_ profitable with that small a difference. So it's controversial because doing something about climate change involves massive changes to our way of life. Not simply switching your SUV for a Tesla, we're talking up to and including economic collapse and deindustrialization. |
|
A 1GW conventional nuclear plant is refueled by a single 18-wheeler truck, every year and a half.
A 1GW fast reactor or thorium reactor would require only one ton of fuel, about the size of a beachball, once a year. A lump of fuel smaller than a golfball would provide all the energy you need for your entire life, transportation included.
Fossil fuels still have the best energy density for cars and airplanes, but for large ships or anything stationary, nuclear is far superior. And not just for electricity; several GenIV designs run hot enough for process heat.