Aaaaand I was 100% WRONG About China

[Eric the Green]

(09-08-2022, 02:34 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(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.

Fusion is a long-term project, one about which I am skeptical. The 2080s is of course way too late for what we need now. We need conversion to zero carbon way sooner, I would say 2040 is a good target and that 2030 is a necessary target for many energy needs. Also needed is more development, government funding and R&D on machines that capture carbon from the air; they are also coming along faster than planned. By 2030 we should be stable at below 1.5 C and by 2040 we should be reducing carbon in the atmosphere and fully 0-carbon, perhaps even for airplanes and rockets although I am not sure about those. China and India will need to speed up their plans to end coal use, and of course the USA should vote Democratic and Brazil should vote out Bolsonaro so we both can lead the way and help others and not be the main obstacle.

"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" does not mean that it is the best thing currently, or that it should be expanded everywhere. "Safer alternatives" includes renewables, if that's what you meant Jason, including more R&D for them, and even now they are the best option because they are cheaper and expanding fast and the most green, safe and clean alternative. Renewables and alternative fuels can provide the 0-carbon economy, but use of nuclear is a good supplement right now. It is not based on renewable energy and generates waste and risk, so it may not be a good option in the long-run. More R&D in that field including fusion will be needed in order to decide for how long it can be deployed.