but that’s not true. Electricity only accounts for about 18% of emissons, its non renewable, you’d have a waste pile the size of a mountain, would have run out of fuel by now and you’d need to start decommissioning most of them and rebuilding them
There’s a persist myth that some technology can just magic a fix here, nothing short of vastly reduced energy consumption, and lifestyle changes can work, 10000 aging nuclear reactors that need replacing ain’t going to cut it.
an example ?
we’d get a 30% reduction in emissions if the richest 10% loved like the average European, not enough but an excellent start
Others have mentioned breeder reactors. There is also Thorium. But it is only necessary to use the energy until renewables take over. The last 70 years and the next 30 would have been enough to prevent global warming.
The last 70 years and the next 30 would have been enough to prevent global warming.
Suggesting that this would only be possible by going nuclear has absolutely zero basis in reality. Spinning magnets to generate electricity is a known way generate electricity since way before the first nuclear reactor was ever built. Hydropower and wind turbines were invented during the industrial revolution.
No they wouldn’t, plus the drive to nuclear would have pushed us to thorium and breeder reactors far sooner, using those we could power the Earth for billions of years, they can even use nuclear waste as fuel, don’t be daft and actually educate yourself instead of carrying water for Big Oil.
but that’s not true. Electricity only accounts for about 18% of emissons, its non renewable, you’d have a waste pile the size of a mountain, would have run out of fuel by now and you’d need to start decommissioning most of them and rebuilding them
There’s a persist myth that some technology can just magic a fix here, nothing short of vastly reduced energy consumption, and lifestyle changes can work, 10000 aging nuclear reactors that need replacing ain’t going to cut it.
an example ?
we’d get a 30% reduction in emissions if the richest 10% loved like the average European, not enough but an excellent start
You have to switch all processes to electricity or hydrogen like steel making or fertilizer.
Best results come from not abusing the third world and letting them have a future that allows them to only have two children.
Doesn’t turn Uranium into a regrowing resource.
Others have mentioned breeder reactors. There is also Thorium. But it is only necessary to use the energy until renewables take over. The last 70 years and the next 30 would have been enough to prevent global warming.
Suggesting that this would only be possible by going nuclear has absolutely zero basis in reality. Spinning magnets to generate electricity is a known way generate electricity since way before the first nuclear reactor was ever built. Hydropower and wind turbines were invented during the industrial revolution.
What would you have done in the 1960ies and 1970ies to end the usage of fossil fuels?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybus
That’s a nice solution, but only for a part.
From where does the electricity come?
How is steel and fertilizer produced without coal and gas?
I think only nuclear could have provided the energy. There were no carbon fibers for the wind turbine blades.
Turbines
Of course you would think that but you aren’t impartial.
Hi big oil, propaganda still paying off?
Fissile resources would have been depleted a long time ago if everyone would have went with nuclear. Don’t be so daft.
No they wouldn’t, plus the drive to nuclear would have pushed us to thorium and breeder reactors far sooner, using those we could power the Earth for billions of years, they can even use nuclear waste as fuel, don’t be daft and actually educate yourself instead of carrying water for Big Oil.
Accounting for breeder reactors your answer is only off by about 4 billion years.
It was a good guess though.
another 30% if work from home was standard