←back to thread

1041 points mpweiher | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.409s | source
Show context
Luker88 ◴[] No.45230034[source]
I am not sure people understand the implications of this.

First, it's not just nuclear, it's also Natural gas.

Second, lots of nations have incentives for "clean" energy. And now magically, all those incentives apply to nuclear and gas.

It's a money grab from nuclear and gas manufacturers. It's not that the courts were involved for nothing.

Still, we should use more nuclear. If only it was less expensive to build...

replies(5): >>45230176 #>>45231995 #>>45232405 #>>45232913 #>>45233455 #
m101 ◴[] No.45230176[source]
Nuclear + gas is the climate friendly solution.
replies(4): >>45230204 #>>45230313 #>>45230789 #>>45232360 #
kpmcc ◴[] No.45230204[source]
What is climate friendly about natural gas?
replies(4): >>45230262 #>>45230374 #>>45230688 #>>45231028 #
m101 ◴[] No.45230262[source]
Is it less climate unfriendly than the alternatives. Every form of energy generation releases CO2. Gas also has the benefit that it doesn't need all sorts of extras to make it dispatachable when needed (which also require CO2).

I forgot to say hydro is also great where possible.

replies(1): >>45231388 #
1. vintagedave ◴[] No.45231388[source]
> Every form of energy generation releases CO2

…except nuclear, hydro, solar… They are stable once built.

“Natural gas” is a fossil fuel and adds CO2 that was locked away.

replies(1): >>45238038 #
2. m101 ◴[] No.45238038[source]
So manufacturing hydro and solar releases no CO2? How long until those panels need to be replaced and recycled?