Nuclear takes to long to plan and build. If that is fixed, then great.
Nuclear takes to long to plan and build. If that is fixed, then great.
There are two economically-viable renewable sources: solar and wind. Everything else is, to put it succinctly, bullshit.
We're not producing and deploying as much solar and wind as we can. But global production has limits. Going all in on just those two (together with batteries) requires massively overpaying. That, in turn, makes the economy uncompetitive.
> Nuclear takes to long to plan and build. If that is fixed, then great
Permitting takes forever, too. Nuclear can be done quicker and cheaper, we've seen China do that. It's a good part of the mix because we just need to add power, and ideally, with economies of scale.
Europe should absolutely develop it. But it's no panacea.
Optimistically, "around 43 GW of enhanced geothermal capacity in the European Union could be developed at costs below 100 €/MWh" [1]. That's 3% of European energy demand [2].
[1] https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/hot-stuff-geotherma...
[2] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php... 36.6k PJ/year ~ 1,160 GW
A few nuclear plants will do absolutely nothing against a nuclear winter.
Surely it'd be a nuclear winter if the same number hit not-cities.
eg: Castle Bravo .. not a city, but a ground level strike.
> It's unclear how this is related.
From a geophysics PoV meteorite strikes are not unlike ground level nuclear explosions in so far as dust plumes go.
> another asteroid strikes, raises dust plumes and causes volcanic activity for years?
At least that's my recollection from those old old first approximation nuclear winter papers that were largely circles and arrows on the back of envelope guesstimations.
If we're to quibble, I'd be asking about the meteorite strikes causing volcanic activity (or is it the dust plumes that cause that activity?) .. cause that seems tenuous unless it's a direct strike on an unstable part of the Ring of Fire / Yellowstone Caldera.
Whether it's nuclear or meteorites the theory rests not so much on number of ground events as it does on volume (and type) or particles raised up high ... the Iridium K-Pg anomaly layer is global yet postulated to have come from a single (large) strike.
The nuclear strikes would create columns of burning material that stretch into the atmosphere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSFPcA62H5s
Nuclear war and meteors colliding with the Earth are different scenarios.
Citing Sagan's guesstimations on this is hardly credible.
It was interesting, because I assumed to commenter meant that "humanity powers through with nuclear power during the long winter", compared to nuclear winter as in "humanity attacks itself because of greed and stupidity", as it is commonly used.
You then interpreted it in the common way, but explaining it using meteor strike dust plumes, which is not how nuclear winter is commonly explained, as the mode is typically burning stacks of flammable material("guesstimated" first by Carl Sagan and his peers). It's been a long time since I researched the very plausible nuclear winter(stockpile in Switzerland is my plan).
Yes, it is also likely that strategic oil fields will be set ablaze by nuclear strikes, another dimension to the nightmare.
I don't know how valid this theory is, it seems plausible. It was just an interesting scenario, with nuclear powering us through a catastrophe, man made or otherwise, and with current leadership the best we can hope for.
Sweden, my native country, had a similar idea(offensive nuclear capabilities combined with SMRs) in the 50s and 60s, but was eventually(probably for good reasons) cancelled and dismantled it's nuclear weapons program and eventually closed it's first and only SMR in operation, Ågestaverket, eventually building a capable but conventional nuclear industry that provided cheap electricity to the country for decades.
https://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/WiresClimateChangeNW.... https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85gestaverket