What does HN think who is financing this anti nuclear and pro solar movement.
(1) Why does pro-solar have to be anti-nuclear?
(2) How quickly can nuclear reactors and associated transmission lines be built, and at what cost?
My understanding is we’ve reached the point where solar and wind are quite cheap (cheaper than nuclear) and rapidly getting cheaper. We still need to solve the storage issue, but things on that front are progressing quickly.
I am certainly in favor of nuclear power where it makes sense, but again as I understand it the situations where nuclear is more economical are rapidly decreasing. Perhaps it’s better for society to “skate to where the puck is going?”
Or perhaps I am incorrect about the economics?
I've also seen anti-nuclear activists pondering who paid off pro-nuckear climate activists. There are likely very few people being paid off on either side. It's silly to me the bad faith both sides have. People can think differently without being sold out.
Aside: accusing people of being unscientific while proposing a very complicated issue could “be solved in a day” kind of calls into question your credibility.
[1] https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=2.7....
> there are few technologies available to bring emissions down to zero in areas such as shipping, trucking and aviation, the IEA said. The same problem exists in heavy industries like steel, cement and chemicals.
For chemical processes we have a lot more work to do. While electric furnaces are used in steel production, they are used for recycling, not production of new steel. For this we need to use a reducing fuel for the iron oxide, which is usually carbon monoxide derived from coal. There are hydrogen based alternatives in development, but not widely used.
No, it isn't. There hasn't been a single fatal incident.
> not production of new steel. For this we need to use a reducing fuel for the iron oxide, which is usually carbon monoxide derived from coal
Yes, production of new steel. Steel is made from pig iron by oxidizing the carbon, with the optional addition of alloying elements. No reductant is needed, quite the opposite. If you're going to nitpick, do it correctly!
Now pig iron is a different story, which is why I didn't mention it. Are you really trying to say that because nuclear power can't do everything, it shouldn't be used for anything?