I didn't say it was THE plan, just that it was a good plan.
Not at all. What is required is a believable cause and a good scapegoat. (Witness the recent "blame everything on Muslims" meme.) And China makes a great scapegoat - even if, over time, we have put more CO2 in the air than they have.
Well, then so has been oil up until now. So is renewable energy, if you listen to the right wing. But both seem to be succeeding.
You said that in the context of the current construction boom in nukes - which is not part of your good plan, agreed?
Scapegoat for what? Not climate change - that's nobody's fault, remember, in wingie world.
What we want has nothing to do with it. It is how we acquire it, that is the problem.
And it's only June, this year.
and that includes fracking.
We are still in the EU until 18 months from now.
Efficiency of nuclear power plants is about 30%-35%
That would be a great solution, but recovering and converting wasted energy usually takes energy.Efficiency of nuclear power plants is about 30%-35%
What about to recover the wasted energy? TEG isn't enough.
To review - I said "Good for them. A combination of nuclear (for baseline power) natural gas (for peaking) and renewables (for the bulk of our energy) is a good plan."
Probably true. All we can do is make sure we are headed in the right direction.
No one is better at blaming other people than republicans.
They made a pretty good target for Trump.
True of low temperature reactors. Fortunately the fuel is cheap (per kwhr generated.)Efficiency of nuclear power plants is about 30%-35%
Sure. You just run into Carnot limits pretty quickly.
If it is.
Which so far we are not, at least not in the building nukes aspect. Without the "bulk from renewables" aspect all the plans are bad, and building nukes is building liabilities.
Not so far, and what's going to change? China does not make a good target for warmongering by Trump - he won't get backing from the war profiteers, or the military, or the corporate interests involved.
Yes, it is.
A world in which most energy comes from nuclear is better than a world in which most energy comes from coal - so if we can build more nuclear we should. Most energy from renewables would be better still, of course.
The right wing has always needed a good enemy to create fear. In the 1960's and 1970's it was Russia. They are now the right's bestest buddies after helping Trump win, of course; fortunately, the evil, terrorist Muslims and the rapist Mexicans are good replacements for them. They can switch to China just as quickly.
I don't see the "bulk from renewables" part.
Maybe, maybe not.
Unlikely. Too much of a financial hit for the warmongers, too dangerous for the military, etc.
Agreed on #2. Fortunately the trajectory in per-capita energy use in developed countries is downward, as appliances, vehicles, industrial processes, lighting and HVAC becomes more efficient. There will be a challenge in developing countries, because per-capita energy use rises dramatically as standards-of-living rise. That's why it is important (IMO) to be pushing to source those energy needs from renewables and nuclear, rather than coal.
Yes they are. You pay a lot for that cleaner power.
While I agree, in the world we are in now, there is a tremendous amount of money being spent on conservation and efficiency improvements. Thus, in the world we are in now, making sure that new sources of baseline energy are nuclear rather than coal is important.
The first is a rational consideration, the second is an argument from compassion. The right wing has never been strong on either one.
Per capita trends are not key. Total fossil fuel combustion is the key.
And they have a hard time handling nukes. Their risk premium is much higher than even the risk premium of the developed countries.
The question is where the increase should go - where's the biggest marginal gain from the next dollars.
I did not mean to mislead - the "danger" aspect is not one of compassion, but military assessment. The Pentagon - one of the warmongering power centers involved - does not want to make war on China, because China is too dangerous a military power.
They are if you want to predict where energy usage within a country will go.
We have already hit the point of diminishing returns there.
I agree. But you do not need to make war on someone to vilify them in order to create any level of fear. Look how much the USSR was used to that end during the Cold War, even though the Pentagon was well aware that any war with them would be suicide.
There still is.
A cold war with China would bankrupt most of the US warmongers, not make them rich as the one with Russia did.
Whoever said that may want to reconsider that statement. If temperatures in northern Canada would be like Florida, that same rise in temperature would give Florida a tropical climate and the same temperature rise in the tropics would make those countries uninhabitable.
