Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target
1–10 of 205 posts
Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target
#2Or create sequestration systems so the net is that? Or would the numbers change?
Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target
#3I searched for 'nuclear' on that page, and found no mention of the word at all. Whatever you might think of nuclear energy, I don't think such a drastic energy cut is even possible to implement without it. (After all, I see little point in cutting CO2 emissions in the US if people in other countries emit an amount equivalent to whatever gets cut here.)
Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target
#4Or create sequestration systems so the net is that? Or would the numbers change?
Trees. You're talking about trees.
Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target
#5I searched for 'nuclear' on that page, and found no mention of the word at all. Whatever you might think of nuclear energy, I don't think such a drastic energy cut is even possible to implement without it. (After all, I see little point in cutting CO2 emissions in the US if people in other countries emit an amount equivalent to whatever gets cut here.)
[deleted]
Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target
#6Is there a chart that shows the progress each nation is making year over year to cut emissions?
Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target
#7I searched for 'nuclear' on that page, and found no mention of the word at all. Whatever you might think of nuclear energy, I don't think such a drastic energy cut is even possible to implement without it. (After all, I see little point in cutting CO2 emissions in the US if people in other countries emit an amount equivalent to whatever gets cut here.)
If you break ground today on a nuclear generator, you will not see your first kwh generated for at least a decade, and that kwh will not be cost competitive with anything else on the spot market.
At the same time, you could replace all nuclear in the US currently operating in around three years (even compensating for capacity factor), solely from PV manufacturing capacity in the US. It is plainly obvious why nuclear is not included when renewables and at grid parity and the cost of utility scale storage is rapidly declining. Even if the cost decline of storage takes longer than expected, you can compensate with overbuilding, curtailment, transmission and demand response.
You ask why nuclear isn't being talked about. I can't fathom anyone thinking it's a real option compared to solar, wind, and battery storage, all of which are cheaper unsubsidized than nuclear today, can be manufactured and shipped where ever needed, and scaling up production is trivial (in comparison).
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2019 (Lazard Levelized Cost of Energy and Levelized Cost of Storage 2019)
Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target
#8I searched for 'nuclear' on that page, and found no mention of the word at all. Whatever you might think of nuclear energy, I don't think such a drastic energy cut is even possible to implement without it. (After all, I see little point in cutting CO2 emissions in the US if people in other countries emit an amount equivalent to whatever gets cut here.)
Greenpeace and the environmental movement have a lot to answer for,
thanks to their knee jerk reaction to nuclear one of the technologies (note that I say "one of", there is a range of choices, not an either/or black/white choice, as is so often case on internet discussions nowadays)
we ended up with more coal/oil power plants contributing towards climate change
nuclear could have been the bridging technology buying us decades to build up real renewables (and/or fusion) and provide base load, but no cant have that, ideology trumps pragmatism
Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target
#9According to EIA global emissions are growing and predicted to grow through 2035. In 2035 global emissions are 40% higher than today.
When the developed world can gradually reduce CO2 emissions, China, India and the rest of the developing world will continue to increase emissions.
Re: Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target
#10I searched for 'nuclear' on that page, and found no mention of the word at all. Whatever you might think of nuclear energy, I don't think such a drastic energy cut is even possible to implement without it. (After all, I see little point in cutting CO2 emissions in the US if people in other countries emit an amount equivalent to whatever gets cut here.)
Nuclear would be good but here in California nuclear waste is stored on the beach making it less enticing. Most people would prefer home solar.