We have a solution to this problem, it's build more nuclear plants and electrify everything with nuclear and renewables.
Unfortunately, we are shutting these plants down instead of building more of them.
Unfortunately, we are shutting these plants down instead of building more of them.
"The annual number of permanent nuclear reactor shutdowns fluctuated between 2005 and 2022. In the latter year, there were 4 shutdowns worldwide, of which three were in the United Kingdom (UK) and one in the United States (U.S.) "[0x40000000]
[0x3F800000] https://spectrum.ieee.org/slow-steady-progress-for-two-us-nu...
[0x40000000] https://www.statista.com/statistics/238656/number-of-nuclear...
The tech exists to solve the problem. We have 4th generation designs that cannot melt down. We fail to deploy them to the shame of all of the so-called environmentalists.
Especially useful would be having excess energy for renewal which thermodynamics says is a must.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/figures/summary...
> we really don't know what else would
We absolutely can meet our needs with other clean energy sources. And unlike nuclear most of these technologies are cost competitive with fossil fuels currently, and the ones that are not are continuing to come down in costs as manufacturing scales up.
> We know it would solve the problem
No we don't. There are a number of places where nuclear is highly unlikely to be deployed due to geopolitical concerns or due to a lack of advanced enough economy. Those places are going to have to rely on other options whether they want to or not.
Again, I am all for nuclear as part of the mix. There are absolutely places where it will make the most sense (extreme latitudes for example). And I generally agree that increasing deployment could bring costs down*. But the amount of FUD spread by the pro-nuclear crowd really makes it hard to get onboard. I think you are doing more harm then good.
* Nuclear is unlikely to see the same cost reductions as renewables though, due to the difference in the drivers of the costs for each type of technology.
MIT has a really neat policy simulator called En-ROADS [1] where you can tinker with applying various policies at various levels, and estimate their impacts. Check it out, and see just how minimal nuclear energy's effects are on their own. Compare that to, for example, just "highly reducing" methane emissions.
[1] https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=23.2...
It really seems like the straightforward solution to me, even more than carbon credits which seem to have some issues (I believe you can get paid for 'not emitting' in some cases, which of course can lead to almost-fraudulent behavior) -- taxing emissions is much more concrete and verifiable.
Also deforestation and afforestation are shown incredibly powerful. It really seems to me one of the most important aspects, since it means we also get "for free" the security of our forests and habitats that are collapsing (and even expansion of wild habitats hopefully!).
Nuclear takes so long to build it doesn't help at all.
[0] https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-carbon-notes-3-fo...