Coal, on the other hand, is not even an option. Salt today and poison tomorrow. And so we must replace it with green energy. That includes nuclear, solar, and niche exotics, because no single source is going to cover our growing demand. Hopefully we can hold it together until fusion is viable.
Coal is a better option as nuclear, for several reasons, apart from the costs.
Current coal plants can even recycle and take advantage of CO2 and sulfur emissions.
They do not need the import of raw material, since most countries have enough with local mining
Likewise, there are no problems in dismantling after its useful life.
The promotion of nuclear energy as an alternative always has military and economic reasons for certain lobbies.
It is true that there is a growing demand for energy, but the question remains as to why.
Even so, if the countries make an effort, they can perfectly cover their energy needs with renewable energies with their own resources, without the need to depend on imports from third parties.
On more than one occasion it has been shown that a building or a house can be energetically independent, it has even been shown in entire towns with the decentralized production of energy with local resources, but this naturally does not interest the big electricity companies and related politicians.
Economically, the long term running costs of nuclear are superior to coal. Have you ever seen the devastation that mining coal does to the countryside? Nuclear fuel costs win in the long run, since you don’t need to feed it mountains of kilos per year. In Greece, I saw a beautiful valley ruined by conveyor belts and open pits, because the brown coal there is so poor it’s not worth shipping it on a truck. There’s no dismantling. The coal burning plants simply dot the landscape, as they build the next one closer to the most recent pit, again because the fuel is so poor it’s not worth the cost of taking it to the abandoned plants.
As far as weapons, the nuclear energy industry buys nuclear warheads and uses them as fuel. Nuclear energy is the leading cause of reduction of the world’s nuclear arsenals. As a fuel source, nuclear energy has made the world safer!
Coal is a deal breaker because if we continue to pump more carbon into the atmosphere, we threaten our own extinction. That trumps any economic argument. If coal’s emissions can be captured, why haven’t they? Because to do so would defeat it’s only selling point: it’s insane cheapness, despite it’s toxicity.
I agree that conservation and energy reduction can account for maybe 50% of what we use now. But consumption is increasing exponentially and no one is even talking about dialing it back. Regardless, green energy MUST replace coal and solar can’t do it alone. Nuclear must step in.
Coal, on the other hand, is not even an option. Salt today and poison tomorrow. And so we must replace it with green energy. That includes nuclear, solar, and niche exotics, because no single source is going to cover our growing demand. Hopefully we can hold it together until fusion is viable.
Coal is a better option as nuclear, for several reasons, apart from the costs.
Current coal plants can even recycle and take advantage of CO2 and sulfur emissions. They do not need the import of raw material, since most countries have enough with local mining Likewise, there are no problems in dismantling after its useful life.
The promotion of nuclear energy as an alternative always has military and economic reasons for certain lobbies.
It is true that there is a growing demand for energy, but the question remains as to why. Even so, if the countries make an effort, they can perfectly cover their energy needs with renewable energies with their own resources, without the need to depend on imports from third parties. On more than one occasion it has been shown that a building or a house can be energetically independent, it has even been shown in entire towns with the decentralized production of energy with local resources, but this naturally does not interest the big electricity companies and related politicians.
Economically, the long term running costs of nuclear are superior to coal. Have you ever seen the devastation that mining coal does to the countryside? Nuclear fuel costs win in the long run, since you don’t need to feed it mountains of kilos per year. In Greece, I saw a beautiful valley ruined by conveyor belts and open pits, because the brown coal there is so poor it’s not worth shipping it on a truck. There’s no dismantling. The coal burning plants simply dot the landscape, as they build the next one closer to the most recent pit, again because the fuel is so poor it’s not worth the cost of taking it to the abandoned plants.
As far as weapons, the nuclear energy industry buys nuclear warheads and uses them as fuel. Nuclear energy is the leading cause of reduction of the world’s nuclear arsenals. As a fuel source, nuclear energy has made the world safer!
Coal is a deal breaker because if we continue to pump more carbon into the atmosphere, we threaten our own extinction. That trumps any economic argument. If coal’s emissions can be captured, why haven’t they? Because to do so would defeat it’s only selling point: it’s insane cheapness, despite it’s toxicity.
I agree that conservation and energy reduction can account for maybe 50% of what we use now. But consumption is increasing exponentially and no one is even talking about dialing it back. Regardless, green energy MUST replace coal and solar can’t do it alone. Nuclear must step in.