Quote:
Originally Posted by Frequitude
No. But I want it to be. Nuclear is the energy technology that I am rooting for most to have a breakthrough which lowers costs and increases EROI. The reason is that uranium is so dense that it gives us a hope of maintaining our standard of living as well as bringing third worlds out of poverty.
If you think debating the difference between nuclear and renewables is merely splitting hairs then you have a much lower understanding of energy, energy technology and energy economics than I was giving you credit for (I was giving you credit for a lot, even if it is masked with a bias).
|
My comments on nuclear vs renewables were based on the tone of debate that we were making mistakes developing renewables at a rapid pace and instead should have done something else. To that regard, if your objective function is reducing GHG emissions, then developing either is good so long as they can fit into a long-term low carbon pathway. The splitting hairs comment is that unless you demonstrate that renewables have some limit and that pursuing them is counter-productive to your objective then complaining about building one vs. the other is splitting hairs.
There's a real debate about the applicability of nuclear vs. renewables but we're not at that threshold. Both can be scaled significantly from current levels without regrets. Saying that we're making mistakes now is sowing a sense that our policy to boost renewables is counterproductive which is clearly not true.
http://deepdecarbonization.org/wp-co...ryMaterial.pdf
Is one of the most comprehensive and recent low-carbon scenarios path. They conclude that nuclear could be an important option but it isn't a technically necessary option.
Your argument that low carbon is not possible without nuclear as the primary source of generation should be tested. Show me with low carbon scenario pathways where anyone is saying that.