Re:Reducing CO2 emissions by targeting the world’s hyper-pol...
by belorn on Tuesday August 10, 2021 @06:22AM
(#28127058)
The optimal and frankly only solution would be the close the coal plant. Arguing that alternative solutions are not "optimal" while continuing burning coal is directly harmful to the environment, green politics and human health.
The first step would be the set a definitive date when the coal plant will get demolished. Once that is done, people can continue to debating what optimal alternative should be constructed but if the date come and there is nothing built then what people get is no power, and the blame then goes to those who refused to build new power plants when they knew ahead that the coal plant is getting demolished.
Re:Reducing CO2 emissions by targeting the world’s hyper-pol...
by jstsch on Tuesday August 10, 2021 @08:00AM
(#28127744)
This is true. But there is the shortest term, say the 2030 goals (go full on wind and solar, there's still plenty of fossil base load that can be shaved off), and the 2050 plus subsequent goals. If we want to go full carbon negative (and we should), then nuclear is necessary.
Re:Reducing CO2 emissions by targeting the world’s hyper-pol...
by aero-glide2 on Wednesday August 11, 2021 @01:20AM
(#28138311)
Solar + battery is great but it isn't enough.
India will be one of the worst affected by Climate Change. That would be nothing compared to the economic cost of Nuclear.
Time of construction and cost of these plants far outweigh its benefits when compared to easier and cheaper alternatives in the renewable sector.