09-08-2022, 02:34 PM
(09-08-2022, 02:23 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:(09-08-2022, 12:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Still, nuclear does not emit carbon gases or methane, so that is a foremost need at the present time. It is a powerful source, and takes less land or rooftops or ocean space. It is less flexible than renewables though. It is turned off or comes offline periodically, and adding or subtracting energy from the grid as needed from nuclear power is awkward, since it is a huge amount or chunk of energy to add or subtract at a time. Since we need the emission-less energy and it's a major source, it seems we should keep the plants we have for a certain time, and maybe build more in places where it is safe and the need is great, which probably includes China. PG&E in CA just decided to keep its nuclear plant until 2030.
In other words, we should expand use of nuclear power because it is the best thing we have currently, but we should continue R&D to come up with safer alternatives? That is an acceptable answer.
ITER is coming along faster than planned. First fusion is 2025. It should be fully operational in the early 2040s, and the commecial spin-offs possible in the 2080s. Once fusion is on-line, the conversion to zero-carbon fully-capable energy will be a reality.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.