That would help explain why, despite big deployments of non-nulcear clean energy, emissions are not going down.
That we have to junk coal as a priority is obvious.
Tuesday, December 03, 2019
The kinda depressing "big picture"
If this graph in this tweet is correct:
what's been happening is that wind, solar and other renewables have only been replacing another source of emissions free power - nuclear.
That would help explain why, despite big deployments of non-nulcear clean energy, emissions are not going down.
That we have to junk coal as a priority is obvious.
That would help explain why, despite big deployments of non-nulcear clean energy, emissions are not going down.
That we have to junk coal as a priority is obvious.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
well if Australia is any guide they will replace coal stations as they are retired.
New coal stations are twice as expensive and this is growing
The reason to put up royalties on coal is that this coal has all this fissionable material that we are wasting. Its a crying shame to be burning it. Like burning the library of Alexandria. It hurts. It hurts.
Any sane world would get us pumping out oil and gas at double speed but preserving our coal until we could get the nuclear in place. But since we have this oligarchy-led insanity we are simply forced to burn coal or face economic stagnation.
The Rodale institute says that we can inter the entirety of fossil fuel CO2 using regenerative agriculture.
https://rodaleinstitute.org/science/crop-livestock-integration/
Yes we need to bring royalties up. But we have our silver bullet. We know what to do. And its not to subsidise renewables. If renewables cannot make it with high royalties and a few loan programs here and there then its the wrong decade for them. The next five decades any CO2-bedwetting ought to be assuaged by way of soil-building. That gives us time to get good at Thorium molten salts nuclear.
We know what to do. We don't need this leftist bullshit any more.
Post a Comment