[-] johnhowson@mastodon.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
[-] johnhowson@mastodon.social 3 points 1 year ago

@Claidheamh straw too. Biofuels are in fact carbon neutral. But yes release CO2. Nuclear also produces CO2 mainly due to the mining, processing and transportation of the fuel. But far less than say coal or gas. The reality is that some new reactors are going to be built. But I believe the money would have been better invested in onshore wind.

[-] johnhowson@mastodon.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

@Claidheamh
Nuclear is also very expensive. Bioenergy is the one I missed. That is far cheaper than nuclear and could be scaled up easily. I'm sure there will be a need for both the existing nuclear and indeed some fossil fuels for a while yet. But I think we should focus on getting our renewable energy resources in place in advance of building any new nuclear plants.

[-] johnhowson@mastodon.social 4 points 1 year ago

@Claidheamh @ndsvw
It depends on the renewables. Wind and photovoltaics have stability issues. Hydro and geothermal are more stable. Nuclear is compact and high power but has huge waste disposal issues.

johnhowson

joined 2 years ago