←back to thread

1041 points mpweiher | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
T-A ◴[] No.45230688[source]
A methane molecule is one carbon atom bound to four hydrogen atoms. More than half of the energy released by burning it (53% according to [1]) comes from oxidizing the hydrogen to water. So it's roughly half as bad as coal in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, and does not have the additional problems of sulfur (acid rain) and soot.

[1] https://people.wou.edu/~courtna/GS361/Energy_From_Fossil_Fue...

replies(1): >>45230866 #
LunaSea ◴[] No.45230866[source]
So not climate friendly.
replies(3): >>45231001 #>>45231415 #>>45231422 #
1. lm28469 ◴[] No.45231422{3}[source]
At that point human life isn't climate friendly... everyone wants to live like the average american with 2 cars and 4 ac units per households, when Asia and Africa come for their fair share, even if they only claim 25% of it, we're fucked, no amount of battery or solar panel will make this consumeristic and "growth forever" mentality sustainable, because by definition it is a boundless quest. Half of the world still live like medieval peasants with less than $7 a day, this is just the beginning