|
|
|
|
|
|
by credit_guy
753 days ago
|
|
|
I love nuclear stuff, and I agree with you that SMR have a very good chance to become cheaper. I think we, the society, should invest in nuclear (specific nuclear fission) because of the immense energy density of uranium and thorium. Yet, I think reaching our climate goals is entirely doable without nuclear. Why? Net zero does not mean zero emissions. It means emissions equal to sinks. Right now in the US all the emissions coming from natural gas power plants are equal to all the sinks (generally forests) [1]. When I tell people that they are surprised. Here's the numbers: electricity contributes 25% to the emissions, and natgas power plants generate 45% of the emissions associated with power generation [2]. So 11.25% of emissions come from these power plants. The greenhouse gas sinks for the US are at 13%. So, if we ditch all the coal power plants (which is happening right now, at high speed) and we build a lot of solar and wind, and keep all the current natural gas power plants as peakers, then we will be well below net zero. [1] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas... [2] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=77&t=11 |
|
|