6 ms·

That's the key part. What CPC case teaches us, is that if we could find a good alternative to Fossil fuels, we could likely eliminate their use.

barry-cotter 8y ago
We have a good alternative. France produces ~80% of its electricity with nuclear power.
- justinator 8y ago
  Transportation makes up 25% of the carbon emissions worldwide. Cows make up like 8%. The US military is the world's largest polluter. Most of their most serious crime against the environment is detonation of nuclear warheads.
  - justinator 8y ago
    Here are citations to my numbers (since I seem to be downvoted): * Transportation: 28% https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-... * Livestock is 14.5% of all GHG emissions, cows are 65% of that: http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/ http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/ * Stories on how the US Military is the world' biggest polluters: https://www.newsweek.com/2014/07/25/us-department-defence-one-worlds-biggest-polluters-259456.html https://www.newsweek.com/2014/07/25/us-department-defence-on... https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2009/08/15/the-worlds-worst-polluter-u-s-military/ https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2009/08/15/the-worlds-w... https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/america-is-the-worst-polluter-in-the-history-of-the-world-we-should-let-climate-change-refugees-resettle-here/2015/06/25/28a55238-1a9c-11e5-ab92-c75ae6ab94b5_story.html?noredirect=on https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/america-is-the-worst... Regarding specifically my nuclear detonation comment: https://www.ecowatch.com/military-largest-polluter-2408760609.html https://www.ecowatch.com/military-largest-polluter-240876060... In addition, the U.S., which has conducted more nuclear weapons tests than all other nations combined, is also responsible for the massive amount of radiation that continues to contaminate many islands in the Pacific Ocean. The Marshall Islands, where the U.S. dropped more than sixty nuclear weapons between 1946 and 1958, are a particularly notable example. Inhabitants of the Marshall Islands and nearby Guam continue to experience an exceedingly high rate of cancer. The American Southwest was also the site of numerous nuclear weapons tests that contaminated large swaths of land. Navajo Indian reservations have been polluted by long-abandoned uranium mines where nuclear material was obtained by U.S. military contractors. TLDR: there's more to greenhouse gas then pollution from power plants. And nuclear power isn't problem free.
    - mrfusion 8y ago
      Cows just confuse the issue though since they’re mostly producing methane which although a ghg doesn’t stick around too long.
      - EGreg 8y ago
        Methane is far more potent as a greenhouse gas And the best case scenario is burning it somehow in which case it just has a CO2 byproduct
        cyphar 8y ago
        Weirdly, burning methane gives you both energy and decreases its carbon footprint by ~30x (the mole ratio is 1:1).
      - robbick 8y ago
        I hadn't heard that methane didn't last too long in the atmosphere before. What happens to it?
        ams6110 8y ago
        The UV part of sunlight breaks it down into CO2 and water. And before you get too worried about the CO2, that's from "current" carbon in the environment (the grass that the cows ate) not fossilized carbon. So it's not a net addition of carbon to the atmosphere.
        Konnstann 8y ago
        The carbon is coming from the methane, though. I don't have a degree in chemistry, but the carbon from the grass doesn't end up in the atmosphere naturally, does it?
      - thinkcontext 8y ago
        Methane decaying just means the atmospheric concentration doesn't increase as fast. But if you emit more than the previous year then levels will go up. And indeed, levels are currently 3 times what they were from pre-industrial levels [0]. The EPA says its Global Warming Potential over 100 years is 28-36 times CO2 [1]. 100 years sounds like a very relevant time period to me. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#Patterns_of_methane_change_over_time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#Patterns_o... [1] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warmin...
- obpacheco 8y ago
  I don't know if I would call that a good alternative. How many places on the Earth can you no longer go due to radiation? Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island and the list will go on. Also it seams very short sided in terms of planning for out of control cosmic events such as asteroids or coronal mass ejections which could wipe out our grid, leading to nuclear leaks worldwide. If we were to get something like the Carrington Event of 1859 [1] we would be much worse off for centuries if we rely on nuclear energy rather then finding a safer fuel source. [1] https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-what-would-happen-if-solar-storm-wiped-out-technology-geomagnetic-carrington-event-coronal-mass-ejection https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-what-would-happen-if-sol...
  - TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
    > wipe out our grid, leading to nuclear leaks worldwide. I don’t understand how nuclear leaks could be a result of grid failure. Also, I read recently that CME could cause DC charge to occur on very long power lines, but that modern systems can handle this. There was a HN thread about this couple days ago, can anyone find it?
    - hexane360 8y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18379734 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18379734
  - bzbarsky 8y ago
    You can go to Three Mile Island just fine as long as you don't go inside the Unit 2 containment vessel itself. The meltdown was fully contained inside said containment vessel. Unit 2 has since had its core removed from the site entirely and has had its electrical generator moved to another reactor (in North Carolina), so it's not like people haven't been going in it either. Unit 1 (the other reactor right next to the one that had a meltdown) has remained a fully operational power station and is used as such today; people go there all the time. Chernobyl and Fukushima I will grant (especially Chernobyl!) but Three Mile Island has a no-go zone that's far smaller than most people think. And it's only sort of no-go at that. > which could wipe out our grid, leading to nuclear leaks worldwide Sorry, but citation needed for the causal mechanism via which the grid going down would lead to "nuclear leaks".
- Vinnl 8y ago
  Is it a good alternative if it is much more expensive?
  - barry-cotter 8y ago
    France’s energy prices are lower than Germany, Belgium, Italy and Spain. https://1-stromvergleich.com/electricity-prices-europe/ https://1-stromvergleich.com/electricity-prices-europe/
    - Kurtz79 8y ago
      Italy (where nuclear power was banned by referendum many years ago) is not able to meet its internal demand, and need to source energy from neighboring countries (including France), not really surprising. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Italy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Italy Germany and Belgium are phasing out their own reactors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out
    - Vinnl 8y ago
      Does that include government subsidies? What I'm getting at, is: will governments be supporting nuclear, even if it's considered safe enough? As far as I know the Dutch government has cleared the way for a new nuclear power plant, but no company is willing to build it because they can't recoup the investments. If governments have to subsidise it more than they subsidise wind and solar energy, will they do it?
- IMTDb 8y ago
  The issue is that "green" parties in Europe (and maybe the US) do not want to hear about nuclear either. Germany even had to shut their nuclear power plants down and go back to coal (!!) which is considered as major victory for the environment by the green parties. It seems impossible to find green political leaders willing to improve our CO2 emissions while accepting that we can't just rely on renewable energy only right now.

barry-cotter 8y ago

We have a good alternative. France produces ~80% of its electricity with nuclear power.

justinator 8y ago
Transportation makes up 25% of the carbon emissions worldwide. Cows make up like 8%. The US military is the world's largest polluter. Most of their most serious crime against the environment is detonation of nuclear warheads.
- justinator 8y ago
  Here are citations to my numbers (since I seem to be downvoted): * Transportation: 28% https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-... * Livestock is 14.5% of all GHG emissions, cows are 65% of that: http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/ http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/ * Stories on how the US Military is the world' biggest polluters: https://www.newsweek.com/2014/07/25/us-department-defence-one-worlds-biggest-polluters-259456.html https://www.newsweek.com/2014/07/25/us-department-defence-on... https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2009/08/15/the-worlds-worst-polluter-u-s-military/ https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2009/08/15/the-worlds-w... https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/america-is-the-worst-polluter-in-the-history-of-the-world-we-should-let-climate-change-refugees-resettle-here/2015/06/25/28a55238-1a9c-11e5-ab92-c75ae6ab94b5_story.html?noredirect=on https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/america-is-the-worst... Regarding specifically my nuclear detonation comment: https://www.ecowatch.com/military-largest-polluter-2408760609.html https://www.ecowatch.com/military-largest-polluter-240876060... In addition, the U.S., which has conducted more nuclear weapons tests than all other nations combined, is also responsible for the massive amount of radiation that continues to contaminate many islands in the Pacific Ocean. The Marshall Islands, where the U.S. dropped more than sixty nuclear weapons between 1946 and 1958, are a particularly notable example. Inhabitants of the Marshall Islands and nearby Guam continue to experience an exceedingly high rate of cancer. The American Southwest was also the site of numerous nuclear weapons tests that contaminated large swaths of land. Navajo Indian reservations have been polluted by long-abandoned uranium mines where nuclear material was obtained by U.S. military contractors. TLDR: there's more to greenhouse gas then pollution from power plants. And nuclear power isn't problem free.
  - mrfusion 8y ago
    Cows just confuse the issue though since they’re mostly producing methane which although a ghg doesn’t stick around too long.
    - EGreg 8y ago
      Methane is far more potent as a greenhouse gas And the best case scenario is burning it somehow in which case it just has a CO2 byproduct
      - cyphar 8y ago
        Weirdly, burning methane gives you both energy and decreases its carbon footprint by ~30x (the mole ratio is 1:1).
    - robbick 8y ago
      I hadn't heard that methane didn't last too long in the atmosphere before. What happens to it?
      - ams6110 8y ago
        The UV part of sunlight breaks it down into CO2 and water. And before you get too worried about the CO2, that's from "current" carbon in the environment (the grass that the cows ate) not fossilized carbon. So it's not a net addition of carbon to the atmosphere.
        Konnstann 8y ago
        The carbon is coming from the methane, though. I don't have a degree in chemistry, but the carbon from the grass doesn't end up in the atmosphere naturally, does it?
    - thinkcontext 8y ago
      Methane decaying just means the atmospheric concentration doesn't increase as fast. But if you emit more than the previous year then levels will go up. And indeed, levels are currently 3 times what they were from pre-industrial levels [0]. The EPA says its Global Warming Potential over 100 years is 28-36 times CO2 [1]. 100 years sounds like a very relevant time period to me. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#Patterns_of_methane_change_over_time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#Patterns_o... [1] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warmin...
obpacheco 8y ago
I don't know if I would call that a good alternative. How many places on the Earth can you no longer go due to radiation? Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island and the list will go on. Also it seams very short sided in terms of planning for out of control cosmic events such as asteroids or coronal mass ejections which could wipe out our grid, leading to nuclear leaks worldwide. If we were to get something like the Carrington Event of 1859 [1] we would be much worse off for centuries if we rely on nuclear energy rather then finding a safer fuel source. [1] https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-what-would-happen-if-solar-storm-wiped-out-technology-geomagnetic-carrington-event-coronal-mass-ejection https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-what-would-happen-if-sol...
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
  > wipe out our grid, leading to nuclear leaks worldwide. I don’t understand how nuclear leaks could be a result of grid failure. Also, I read recently that CME could cause DC charge to occur on very long power lines, but that modern systems can handle this. There was a HN thread about this couple days ago, can anyone find it?
  - hexane360 8y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18379734 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18379734
- bzbarsky 8y ago
  You can go to Three Mile Island just fine as long as you don't go inside the Unit 2 containment vessel itself. The meltdown was fully contained inside said containment vessel. Unit 2 has since had its core removed from the site entirely and has had its electrical generator moved to another reactor (in North Carolina), so it's not like people haven't been going in it either. Unit 1 (the other reactor right next to the one that had a meltdown) has remained a fully operational power station and is used as such today; people go there all the time. Chernobyl and Fukushima I will grant (especially Chernobyl!) but Three Mile Island has a no-go zone that's far smaller than most people think. And it's only sort of no-go at that. > which could wipe out our grid, leading to nuclear leaks worldwide Sorry, but citation needed for the causal mechanism via which the grid going down would lead to "nuclear leaks".
Vinnl 8y ago
Is it a good alternative if it is much more expensive?
- barry-cotter 8y ago
  France’s energy prices are lower than Germany, Belgium, Italy and Spain. https://1-stromvergleich.com/electricity-prices-europe/ https://1-stromvergleich.com/electricity-prices-europe/
  - Kurtz79 8y ago
    Italy (where nuclear power was banned by referendum many years ago) is not able to meet its internal demand, and need to source energy from neighboring countries (including France), not really surprising. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Italy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Italy Germany and Belgium are phasing out their own reactors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out
  - Vinnl 8y ago
    Does that include government subsidies? What I'm getting at, is: will governments be supporting nuclear, even if it's considered safe enough? As far as I know the Dutch government has cleared the way for a new nuclear power plant, but no company is willing to build it because they can't recoup the investments. If governments have to subsidise it more than they subsidise wind and solar energy, will they do it?
IMTDb 8y ago
The issue is that "green" parties in Europe (and maybe the US) do not want to hear about nuclear either. Germany even had to shut their nuclear power plants down and go back to coal (!!) which is considered as major victory for the environment by the green parties. It seems impossible to find green political leaders willing to improve our CO2 emissions while accepting that we can't just rely on renewable energy only right now.