- #1
ensabah6
- 695
- 0
As a CO2-global warming denier (GWD), how nuclear power generation compare to natural gas and oil carbon fuels, in start up costs, long term costs, pollution, operating costs?
Is there any reason natural gas and oil fossil fuels can not meet projected energy needs, besides the allegation of CO2-GW connection?
(I'm aware of other fossil fuel, coal, releasing dangerous pollution, sulfates and even trace radioactive material)
My own position is to continue to use and build clean burning natural gas and oil power plants until maybe in 100-150 years nuclear fusion (or IFR type designs) become affordable, and deal with excess CO2 if CO2 does indeed cause GW and not say solar sunspot cycles (say by seeding the ocean with iron).
Is there any reason natural gas and oil fossil fuels can not meet projected energy needs, besides the allegation of CO2-GW connection?
(I'm aware of other fossil fuel, coal, releasing dangerous pollution, sulfates and even trace radioactive material)
My own position is to continue to use and build clean burning natural gas and oil power plants until maybe in 100-150 years nuclear fusion (or IFR type designs) become affordable, and deal with excess CO2 if CO2 does indeed cause GW and not say solar sunspot cycles (say by seeding the ocean with iron).