Environment & Energy

My point was that when it comes to nuclear power, people tend to focus on high-level waste, but there are other negative impacts to consider.

Mind you, when it comes to water usage, while nuclear power uses about the same amount as coal, it does have the advantage of not producing carbon dioxide. (In the end, TANSTAAFL — ”There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.”) All types of energy production have their down-sides, it’s a matter of finding the least-worst solution, and there is disagreement on what that is. (I tend to think there is no “silver bullet.” The least-worst solution is a balance of multiple sources.)

I was never fooled by the natural gas hype, but, here’s the thing, coal is almost solid carbon, with some impurities. “Natural Gas” (let’s just call it “methane") is made up of carbon and hydrogen CH₄ so while burning coal produces mostly CO₂ burning natural gas produces a combination of CO₂ and water vapor. So, when it is burned, it is cleaner than coal. Leaky infrastructure (wellheads, pipes, etc.) makes it worse. Then again, coal seams also leak methane, which is mostly released straight into the atmosphere.

https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/global-coal-mine-methane-review-2026/

I think a good general principle is, “Burning stuff is not a good thing.”