johnhowson

johnhowson, 9 months ago

@Claidheamh @ndsvw
It depends on the renewables. Wind and photovoltaics have stability issues. Hydro and geothermal are more stable. Nuclear is compact and high power but has huge waste disposal issues.

johnhowson, 9 months ago

@Claidheamh
Nuclear is also very expensive. Bioenergy is the one I missed. That is far cheaper than nuclear and could be scaled up easily. I'm sure there will be a need for both the existing nuclear and indeed some fossil fuels for a while yet. But I think we should focus on getting our renewable energy resources in place in advance of building any new nuclear plants.

johnhowson, 9 months ago

@Claidheamh straw too. Biofuels are in fact carbon neutral. But yes release CO2. Nuclear also produces CO2 mainly due to the mining, processing and transportation of the fuel. But far less than say coal or gas. The reality is that some new reactors are going to be built. But I believe the money would have been better invested in onshore wind.

johnhowson, 9 months ago (edited 9 months ago)

@lntl nor do I

johnhowson, 9 months ago

@Anemia @TheBlue22
It's not quite as simple as that. There are the carbon emissions we actively produce such as fuel in motor vehicles. Then there are passive emissions from transporting items such as foodstuffs which we are not directly responsible for. So changing lifestyle can only achieve so much. Feedback mechanisms such as carbon sequestation through planting trees needs balancing against additional gasses from melting permafrost etc. A global government level effort is what is needed

johnhowson, 9 months ago

@Anemia
I agree that there is a lot consumers can do through personal action, companies and corporations too. It needs a big all round effort. But many people on low incomes have difficulty in making environmental choices through no fault of their own. This is in part why I feel it is better to focus on Governmental action while encouraging personal action.