Re:U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Weren’t Built for Climate Change
by mavhc on Monday April 22, 2019 @03:29AM
(#19717166)
We need 70 times more nuclear power than we have now to replace 50% of fossil fuel usage. Other 50% can be renewable
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Weren’t Built for Climate Change
by maxnoe on Monday April 22, 2019 @04:40AM
(#19717414)
The article states, that 19 percent of power was provided by nuclear plants in the US.
For what is your factor of 70?
Re:U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Weren’t Built for Climate Change
by mavhc on Tuesday April 23, 2019 @08:31AM
(#19727912)
Because we also need to replace all fossil fuels used to move things, heat things, etc.
100% renewable would require something like 10000 gigafactories to make batteries, probably not sensible. 50% means we don't need trillions of batteries.
that's assuming everyone moves to only use 2kW of energy, instead of 6 for North America and 4 for Europe. Hopefully switching to electricity will account for most of those savings.
Re:U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Weren’t Built for Climate Change
by vbuwivbiu on Monday April 22, 2019 @04:30AM
(#19717379)
or 100% renewable
Re:U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Weren’t Built for Climate Change
by imtringued on Monday April 22, 2019 @07:05AM
(#19717919)
Let's be honest 100% renewable is going to be expensive. I'd say 80% is the limit unless power2gas becomes economical.
Re:U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Weren’t Built for Climate Change
by vbuwivbiu on Friday April 26, 2019 @05:48PM
(#19762059)
it gets cheaper the more it's used
Re:U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Weren’t Built for Climate Change
by mempko on Monday April 22, 2019 @08:50AM
(#19718478)
You are right. We have this system where people use digital points to buy things. Where are we going to get enough digital points to do 100% renewable?! I don't think there is enough Atom or VS code uninstalls to free up the bits!