Відео

Interesting! Can you say more about that? Are you concerned that the extraction of raw materials for EVs / panels, and the way these are manufactured, is going to create a new source of pollution?

@@switchbox-data Yes exactly! I think it’s important to keep in mind a lifecycle assessment of all the raw materials that will be needed to make this electrification a reality. For Ex: lithium in batteries

Thanks so much! On nukes: to be honest, I'm not sure yet! Haven't done enough thinking. This is my current take, which isn't based on a ton of research: nukes are safe, and expensive. In the US, a lot the existing nukes are starting to fail mechanically or economically. (IMO, we should keep them operating as long as it's safe to, but also plan for them to fail.) On the other hand, the countries that have cut their carbon pollution most dramatically so far did it by building lots of nukes. But they did that decades ago! Doing that today is a different story: the US nuclear industry is more or less dead--only one new power plant launched in the last 30 years, they started building it in 1973! So the industry would have be rebooted in order to be viable. Older nukes (2nd generation) aren't just expensive because of federal regulations-but also because they're very complex and bespoke. Things only get cheap when you can build them on assembly lines in a standardized way. Which is exactly what people are trying to do with advanced nuclear! My (very novice) understanding of advanced nuclear is that it 1. solves a lot of the problems with older nukes, and 2. isn't proven yet. But even if they end up working out, there's a deeper issue with advanced nuclear that folks tend to overlook: gen 4 nuclear plants are super small, by design! They're roughly the same size as the 60MW solar farm I featured in the video. And that means you'd need literally hundreds of them in every state to get all the power we need, just like we need hundreds of solar farms. And that presents two problems: 1. Competing with solar: Solar is already super cheap, and will continue to get cheaper. It's hard to imagine that nuclear-even mass produced gen 4 reactors-will ever be able to compete. That said, since nuclear plants operate almost constantly, it might be worth paying more for them anyway, so we need less (intermittent) wind and solar. 2. NIMBYs: But that leads to the second problem: there's already a huge NIMBY backlash to solar farms! Solar farms. You know, the power plants that produce zero-pollution and have zero risk of any kind. Now imagine trying to get permits to install dozens or hundreds of nukes. If people can get intensely upset about solar forms, the fact that gen 4 nukes theoretically can't melt down and some can recycle their own nuclear waste won't convince anybody who would have to live next to them. All that said, it's probably worth trying?