75% of carbon emissions come from energy production.
If this is actually an emergency, the only feasible option at the moment is nuclear power. If anybody is talking about anything other than nuclear power, I question their motivations.
If this is actually an emergency, the only feasible option at the moment is nuclear power. If anybody is talking about anything other than nuclear power, I question their motivations.
(i thought china was in a construction freeze with a huge quantity of incomplete high rises, for example)
When people stop ignoring exponential growth, they just decide to project it forward without any consideration.
I really doubt China's electricity usage will more than double until 2026. Or that it will be 100% (or rather, 300%?) replaced by solar.
The article says they'll have 5 times that, from solar alone, by 2026. What they almost certainly won't, there's nobody to buy that much energy and it's not enough time to create some industry that could use it.
>If anybody is talking about anything other than nuclear power, I question their motivations.
And what will this accomplish?
Nuclear has a long lead time. Setting aside safety concerns, any realistic shift to accelerating nuclear would not help us much in the 10 year range. If we are most concerned about tipping points, which tbh appear real but impossible to predict, a nearer term but less effective shift to renewables would be warranted.
When I say “realistic” I mean in the current political and cultural climate. If we posit that we can do anything we want, dictator-style, that’s a thought experiment. At which point I’m totally with you: latest designs, aggressive funding and incentives for both r&d and actual projects, etc. That’d complement the progress we’ve made with renewables.
Nuclear is the safest energy source per kilo of fuel mined and spent.
Is that a sufficient justification for actually imposing such a ban? I personally don’t think so, but reasonable people can disagree on that.
Seems close enough