brk1 t1_iu1ixqw wrote
Isn’t natural gas supposed to be the most efficient energy source? Serious question. I don’t know much about the environment except that coal is bad.
Edit: lol @ getting downvoted for asking a question. Peeps need to get a grip
SamShephardsMustache t1_iu1lyzf wrote
It's not the use of NG that's a problem. It's the way it's harvested. Fracking.
[deleted] t1_iu1osjh wrote
[removed]
Mijbr090490 t1_iu1kc7h wrote
As far as fossil fuels go, it's pretty efficient. It would be wise to invest in NG over coal. Until wind and solar are able to handle more, that's the best option unless people want to drop the notion that nuclear is scary and bad.
momlin t1_iu4qf38 wrote
To be honest, before living in PA I kind of thought that nuclear was scary and the towers do look kind of ominous but so far there hasn't been an issue. Compared to NY my energy costs are miniscule, whether nuclear is appropriate for everywhere, not sure. Long term environmental impact of nuclear, not sure.
yeags86 t1_iu2isc0 wrote
Well, uranium wins most efficient by weight - with an insanely huge margin. Of course the cost per kilowatt also knocks that right back down.
Fracking is pretty damn bad for the environment, and that’s the main extraction method here in PA. So that impact is a factor as well and should be included.
For industry we’ll need coal - it’s required to make coke which is then used to make steel. Using coal for energy is bad for the environment, but necessary for other things as a raw resource (like gold for computer chips).
Solar and wind are helpful and we should work towards them. But we do need a base load that can provide extra power when renewables can’t meet demands due to the weather.
Nuclear power is much safer and efficient now. Every significant accident was due to old technology. We’ve learned a lot from those that did happen and aren’t that dumb anymore.
Didn’t really write this out in any particular order. That said, all things considered my thoughts are we should be aiming for solar and wind as well as we can, and have nuclear as a base load. Ramp up the nuclear plants as needed to adjust for renewables if their capacity is lost temporarily. It’s the only long term solution I can see working. Good luck convincing the short sighted corporations and governments of the world that though.
[deleted] t1_iu2s9gr wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments