60
Africa’s first carbon-removal plant stokes questions about responsible climate solutions (www.nbcnews.com)
submitted 2 years ago by [M] to c/climate@slrpnk.net
24 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Not as it exists now. There are zero viable solutions for shipping or air travel, for example.

Achievable yes, but not in any near time frame, so we HAVE to look at other mitigating options as well.

Putting all your eggs in one basket is a very poor strategy.

Building more nuclear WOULD help. Yes, it has a huge capital front cost, and it takes a while to earn that back, but then it keeps paying.

The whole point of allowing these localized monopolies on power, is because power benefits from economy of scale and nuclear, right now, is the pinnacle of that. Large up front cost but also a solid, continual return that doesn't rely on outside factors.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    “The majority of studies show that a global transition to 100% renewable energy across all sectors – power, heat, transport and industry – is feasible and economically viable.”

    I agree that having all the eggs in one basket isn’t a great idea - luckily there are a good 4 or 5 sources of renewables, most of which are cheaper and better than nuclear, such as solar, wind, geothermal and hydroelectric.

    Nuclear is more expensive than renewables in total, not just for startup cost. Per kW generated, nuclear is somewhere between 2x and 5x more expensive than renewables.

    When it comes to benefiting from economies of scale, wind and solar are far more poised to benefit than nuclear. Nuclear is not gonna help us. It’s too expensive and too slow.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    You are quoting "The majority of studies..." but I am not sure where you are pulling that from.

    I have an issue with that quote since it is absolutely wrong about shipping and air trasport.

    Edit:

    And furthermore, you can't just abandon a significant sector and expect to pick it up later on.

    There is tremendous momentum in each sector and to just focus on one, at the behest of others, is a TERRIBLE idea. Each sector does not exist in a vacuum. They all have supporting industries that also need to be developed and planned out. To put everything into renewables, is irresponsible at best. If we don't subsidize it all all. Then it will be a stillborn process that will never see anything outside an office.

    Great, we now have 100% renewables, but we've had elevated CO2 for decades and now we have to spin up carbon capture from scratch because someone had the great idea to drop everything else. So add another 20 years for that to work up. We don't have that luxury.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent