3 Burst results for "$423 Billion"
"$423 billion" Discussed on Why It Matters
"The joke is that fusion is 30 years away and always will be. But if it works and there actually has been a lot of really interesting progress on that front, just over the past few years, it would be able to provide large amounts of electricity much more cleanly than nuclear fission. You know, the tricky thing is, there are a lot of scientific unknowns and a lot of engineering unknowns, and then after you lock those down, you still need to deal with how you construct these plants in an economical fashion. So there's a lot of work still to be done, but there are some really brilliant people and even some just fascinating private companies that are making really great strides on developing commercially viable fusion plants for the future. Fusion would represent an unparalleled breakthrough in the fight against climate change. But it still may be a long ways off. For now, countries have to weigh mounting climate and energy pressures against the expense and stigma of existing nuclear technology. Some countries, like Australia, for example, have no nuclear power at all. At the other end of the spectrum, you have countries like the UK, which plans to center nuclear to achieve a fossil fuel free energy grid by 2035. China is planning a 40% increase in nuclear capacity. India, has 7 new plants under construction. In France, is setting aside €1 billion for small, modular reactors. France in particular has a very high fraction of their electricity coming from nuclear. I think right now, it's about 80% in the past. It was slightly higher. Yeah, and so France among every industrial country has by far the lowest greenhouse gas production because so much of their energy comes from nuclear. And France in particular when they were building a lot of these reactors in the 1970s were especially good about streamlining the construction process as well. They built very, very similar reactor units across the country, which allowed them to cookie cutter style, just roll them out one after another after another. And just streamlining the actual construction is one of the most crucial pieces for making sure that these plants can be built on time and on budget. So where is the United States in all of this? We still derive about 20% of our electricity from nuclear power. But the infrastructure is aging. 12 reactors were permanently closed between 2013 and 2021. And in many cases, this led to an increased use of fossil fuels. If these trends continue, the nuclear share of U.S. electricity generation could fall to just 11% by 2050. What is the risk if we don't pursue further research and implementation of nuclear energy? I think that nuclear is crucial for hitting our climate goals. I think there's no way that we'll be able to hit our climate goals with solar and wind and hydro and geothermal alone. I mean, to get a little bit more specific on that, there aren't very many more places in the world where we can install additional hydro or geothermal. And wind and solar, they're fantastic technologies, but we need to couple them with better grid scale energy storage, or else they won't be useful for the grid. I mean, one of the craziest things to me about the electric grid in general as a system is that you need to across an electric grid match very, very closely, the amount of electricity being produced at any one time and the amount of electricity being consumed at any one time. And you can get halfway decent estimates for how much electricity is being consumed at any one time. You can say, okay, well, this is baseline how much people in businesses use and okay, there's a heat wave coming up next week so we can guess that people are going to turn on their air conditioning units and it will increase a little bit. But if you couple that with an unpredictable supply from solar and wind, it becomes a very, very, very tricky problem. And again to emphasize that I'm 100% in favor of expanding solar and wind. We definitely need to expand that as well. But we also need to figure out better types of storage in order to be able to use them properly. And we're running out of time. Scientists at the intergovernmental panel on climate change warned that the earth's average temperature could hit the dangerous threshold of 1.5° warming by the early 2030s. I mean, it's fascinating to me that we need to expand nuclear because it felt like when I was growing up nuclear energy was thought of as something that was very bad for the environment. And now it seems that the reverse is true. I mean, there's still a little time left just ten years, according to some studies, and this is a tool that we have that we know works. I think that's exactly right. I think one of the more urgent pieces actually is when it comes down to whether you want to keep existing nuclear power plants open or not, because there's a large number about 99 operating in the U.S. about 440 worldwide of this older generation of conventional light water reactors. And there have been a number of places in the U.S. where these plants have been shut down, say in New England, where I'm originally from, then after the old nuclear plants are shut down, the balance of electricity production is made up for with coal power, which is just catastrophic environmentally. So I think it's really important also to not shut down the existing facilities prematurely. You know, they're operating safely. They've been operating safely for 30, 40, 50 years, and you want to make sure that you keep breathing the benefit of them. I think there is the potential for people to start having warm feelings towards the next generation of nuclear power plants. And I think I'm not completely insane in saying that. But they can say, okay, that is a carbon free source of electricity. It's safe. It is good for my community. I am glad.
"$423 billion" Discussed on Radio Free Cybertron - All of our Transformers podcasts!
"I be much more more. We renewable energy for something more useful. There you go. But they're not still running typically off fossil fuels or nuclear nuclear but mostly fossil fuel unclear nuclear power. Proliferation is not that widespread high nuclear written. I mean i know. There's a lot of nuclear plants. I mean but fossil fuel far far outstrips global probably globally and definitely so But yeah that's They really are not good for the environment. That's less true. Fair expend to make digital certificate of ownership to the brooklyn bridge. Yeah yes pounding. Also compare this to The trend a few years back where you could pay someone to name a star after you or someone else. Yes are history. Yeah yeah that's basically the same thing. It just doesn't require Scads of computing power to. Yeah i think that was the best that i can come up with on how to describe. It was strange that now understand it. I feel dumber with to be fair. You understand it correctly. You've got correct grasp of it in that case no don that was very valve and i wanted to bring that just because dragging. Dft thing here. I wanna make sure everybody has a chance to understand why we feel the way we do about them. I think very. I did read an article that that type of nafta that this is is one of the more environmentally friendly and ft. Which is why hasbro chose that so overall and there is we are we. We're not experts. We're speaking based on our best understanding. Understanding is is is what it is. It's it's possible that there other technologies out there that are more environmentally. Yes sounds want. This is one of the more environmentally friendly. And if tease there are levels of of that and i do i do want to point out. I do wanna point we yes. This is adding to other carbon footprint of the world. You know also so as you're listening to this podcast or facebook etc so you should have a facebook page either i Facebook sucks. Yeah so but you know it so yes. There are better ways to allocate energy. This is just one more bad way but if you want to do your part to eliminate that you know don't your talk the last word on this. I just want to quote later again. He says i had to explain to my brother. And his five-year-old that was in the room. Did the card face palm afterward. Nice okay So that time for what we got yet because Chris got some stuff. Yeah go ahead.
"$423 billion" Discussed on TIME's Top Stories
"Brought to you by audible. Fossil fuel companies are still influencing cop 26. Despite losing their official role by Alejandro de la Garza. Finally, it seemed, the companies that played a large part in creating the climate crisis were being denied a say in deciding how we dig ourselves out. Unlike at previous climate summits, the organizers of cop 26 in Glasgow didn't give fossil fuel companies a formal role in the talks, a move that climate activists have interpreted as a reprimand for the company's lack of clear action to end their planet warming emissions. Yet that doesn't mean the oil industry has lost influence over the conference and its outcomes, and in the lead up to the crucial summit a series of reports have made clear just how deep fossil fuel industry connections go, both with those organized in the conference and the players at the negotiating table. One possible avenue of influence is through the management consulting industry. UK cop 26 organizers tapped Boston consulting group or BCG for strategy implementation and other services, despite the fact that the firm also claims to advise 19 of the world's 25 biggest oil companies, according to a report from the UK's channel four news. This is highly unusual to have private sector involvement of any kind at that level, and what is essentially an international diplomatic conference transparency international UK chief executive Daniel Bruce told the network. It's hard not to ask the question, or to see that there is a very face value conflict of interest here. BCG told the network that it strictly adhered to policies, including staffing restrictions that would prevent potential conflicts of interest, but the results of a bit of digging, don't inspire much confidence in BCG's internal guardrails. The global leadership delegation, BCG is sending to Glasgow to present discuss and explore ideas for strategies aimed at meeting the cop 26 goals includes managing director Michelle Fredo, who serves as the company's global topic leader for climate and environment, but there's another aspect of Fredo's job, advising major oil and gas companies on strategic organizational and operational issues, according to his LinkedIn page. He also works with renewable energy companies. Asked for comment, a BCG spokesperson would not confirm if Fredo was involved in consulting for the cop 26 organizers. Michelle Fredo specializes in helping to develop decarbonizing strategies for high emitting sectors. The spokesperson said in a statement to time, at BCG, we partner with clients and sectors where abatement is most difficult, or where emissions are greatest and feel it is our role to help them find solutions that will spark the greatest change and speed up progress toward net zero. We don't work for clients who are openly indifferent or in denial of climate change. Another way fossil fuels exert power at meetings like cop is through the governments themselves. Many of which have close ties to the industry. In the U.S., senator Joe Manchin, who has significant fossil fuel investments, was able to all but single handedly got President Biden's initiative to force power companies to switch to clean electricity, leaving the U.S. with little domestic climate action to point to as it seeks to reestablish itself as a leader at the international talks. In Europe, more than 70 officials moved between posts in the EU, national governments or international institutions and oil industry or fossil fuel lobby group jobs over the past 7 years, according to an October 25th report from corporate Europe observatory, Friends of the earth, Europe, and food water action Europe, the researchers also counted 568 meetings between EU commission officials and fossil fuel executives or lobbyists during those years. For many governments around the cop negotiating table, fossil fuel interests and national interests are essentially one and the same. Russia singularly dependent on gas exports for both its economy and its muscle on the world stage will likely head to cop 26 with the intent to slow down climate progress as much as possible in order to preserve its domestic industry. As my colleague Erin baker writes, experts say Saudi Arabia is likely to have similar intentions, slow walking net zero goals that could cut into its oil and gas exports, other governments have tried to weaken climate action outside the public eye, with recent leaked documents showing how countries like Saudi Arabia, Australia, and Japan tried to par back the conclusions of a forthcoming UN scientific document on how to address climate change. Australia is a major coal exporter to Japan, an Australian official, for instance, made a comment on a draft of the report, saying that closing coal power plants, one of the main objectives of the cop 26 summit, wasn't necessary. All that is not to say that denying fossil fuel companies are role at cop 26 was a meaningless move. It blocked them from exerting the most overt kinds of influence over the talks, as well as an opportunity to burnish their climate credentials as they continued to pour billions of dollars into new fossil fuel investments. But it's also clear that the world's fossil fuel industry doesn't need to be physically present at the summit to make its voice heard. Plenty of the officials and attendants will be.