You must log in or register to comment.
But think of the short term gains!
Europe really should be expanding it’s offshore wind resources faster.
But the demand for gas is only going to go one way.
We need more nuclear reactors
Far too expensive, far too inflexible, far too long to build.
They have no upsides on any metric.
They have no upsides
Except the lack of greenhouse gas emissions, once up and running.
If we actually started developing them on any sort of scale most of those negatives you mention will be negated.
Flexibility, as in the inability to quickly ramp down, can be solved with storage or with generating hydrogen.Please tell me which US companies you trust to not cut corners on construction and safety for profit
Sorry, I was replying to a comment about offshore wind in the EU.
Supposedly you’d set up some proper regulations, implement checks and balances but given the current US business and political climate; good question.
Solar, wind and batteries has no greenhouse gas emissions at a fraction of price and fraction of the time to built. Australia did an analysis of this recently and said their is no reason to built any nuclear at all.
Nuclear is pushed by the oil and companies because it will slow transition away from oil and gas. Same as hydrogen, way worse than batteries and also made by fossil fuels at the moment. But by pushing for that it slows the transition away from things that actually work. Namely, solar wind and batteries.
Flexibility at a huge huge cost and great inefficiency. Like I said no upsides over alternatives.
Going 100% renewable is going to require an immense amount of storage, nevermind their instability. Any base load we can replace with nuclear is going to lessen that burden.
EV’s are heavy and require a ton of rare Lithium.
Using over capacity to generate hydrogen seems to me like a way to solve that. Hydrogen which in turn can be used to power cars, trucks, ships.
I don’t see how nuclear would slow the transition away from oil and gas.
You need storage to cover when demand does not match supply. Nuclear doesn’t reduce the difference between supply and demand. It has no flexibility so makes no meaningful difference to storage.
Lithium isn’t that rare. Sodium batteries are being manufactured today.
Hydrogen manufacturing is super inefficient.
Its a question of cost and time. You could run a country on nuclear but its far cheaper and quicker to do it with renewables. But pushing for something that isn’t really a viable solution nuclear and hydrogen. It delays uptake of the real solution which is wind, solar and batteries.
Nuclear doesn’t reduce the difference between supply and demand.
How does it not?
There’s a certain “base load” to any power grid which could easily be done by “inflexible” nuclear powerplants.Sodium doesn’t address the problem with EV weight.
Inefficiency is fine if you have an abundance of energy.
Running a country exclusively on renewables comes with its own costs in storage and emergency solutions.
I’m not saying “go exclusively nuclear” either. Supplementing it with renewables should be done.
Of course, this will kill thousands, but talk about killing a killer and you’re breaking a rule.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
So goes Donald Trump’s typically hyperbolic argument on new oil and gas ventures, which Republicans trumpeted this week as they formally tapped the ex-president as their 2024 White House candidate.
Trump’s plan centers on a bet that the U.S. can cash in on foreign demand if it rips up green legislation, massively expands offshore drilling and ends a Joe Biden-imposed moratorium on new liquid natural gas (LNG) export permits.
Some countries, such as Finland, Denmark and Lithuania, have virtually halved their demand, meaning they need far less gas than at any time in recent history, according to a report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.
Pledging Europe will take “its energy destiny back into its own hands,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in April said that despite the shrinking demand, officials were still trying to negotiate the best deals in the meantime.
Its executive vice president and chief commercial officer, Anatol Feygin, told POLITICO that the rise in sales across the Atlantic was "not master puppeteered by the U.S government or Cheniere.
While extra American production will be helpful if Europe has unexpected power demands or an extremely cold winter, said Jason Bordoff, founding director of the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, the direction of travel is away from the West and toward the East.
The original article contains 1,407 words, the summary contains 223 words. Saved 84%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
