3 ms·

That's fine and you're free to do that, but it doesn't make what I said "incorrect." The uranium cycle uses carbon and, what's worse, produces vast amount of ta

That's fine and you're free to do that, but it doesn't make what I said "incorrect." The uranium cycle uses carbon and, what's worse, produces vast amount of tailings (radioactive waste) which contaminate land and water. This is in addition to the spent fuel rods which most people think of as "nuclear waste." I hope that you could agree that those are true statements.

DuskStar 7y ago
By that standard, there are no carbon-free energy sources.
- mimixco 7y ago
  So people should stop claiming that nuclear is one. It's an advertising term used by the industry, nothing more.
  - acidburnNSA 7y ago
    Nuclear fission is neutron + uranium = fission products and energy. This process is literally carbon-free. Solar PV is photons + semiconductors = electric current. This is directly carbon-free. Wind is wind + blades = mechanical motion. This is directly carbon-free. Coal, natural gas, oil, and biomass are Carbon + heat in the presence of oxygen is CO2 + energy. These are not carbon-free. This is the purpose of the term carbon-free. Now, literally everything has non-zero carbon lifecycle costs as long as we are using carbon-derived energy in our infrastructure. It is impossible to be fully carbon-free with coal, natural gas, oil even if all your infrastructure is electric. With solar, nuclear, wind, etc., you can get to a truly carbon-free lifecycle if you work hard to electrify or otherwise clean up your trucks. Meanwhile, today, nuclear lifecycle is the most carbon-free overall, tied with wind. The term carbon-free is used colloquially to mean anything that doesn't directly make carbon alongside energy. It is right and proper to point out lifecycle carbon costs too, and again nuclear is tied for lowest lifecycle. Nuclear is the most carbon-free thing we have. You bet it is advertising. It's truthful advertising of the positive characteristics of nuclear energy. People have a right to know how carbon free various energy sources are.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    But people DO claim that wind, solar and hydro are 'green' or 'carbon-neutral' or 'carbon-free' energy sources, so it's fair to hold nuclear to the same standards. And nuclear more than meets those standards. Only enforcing those standards for nuclear feels like an isolated demand for rigor.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

DuskStar 7y ago

By that standard, there are no carbon-free energy sources.

mimixco 7y ago
So people should stop claiming that nuclear is one. It's an advertising term used by the industry, nothing more.
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  Nuclear fission is neutron + uranium = fission products and energy. This process is literally carbon-free. Solar PV is photons + semiconductors = electric current. This is directly carbon-free. Wind is wind + blades = mechanical motion. This is directly carbon-free. Coal, natural gas, oil, and biomass are Carbon + heat in the presence of oxygen is CO2 + energy. These are not carbon-free. This is the purpose of the term carbon-free. Now, literally everything has non-zero carbon lifecycle costs as long as we are using carbon-derived energy in our infrastructure. It is impossible to be fully carbon-free with coal, natural gas, oil even if all your infrastructure is electric. With solar, nuclear, wind, etc., you can get to a truly carbon-free lifecycle if you work hard to electrify or otherwise clean up your trucks. Meanwhile, today, nuclear lifecycle is the most carbon-free overall, tied with wind. The term carbon-free is used colloquially to mean anything that doesn't directly make carbon alongside energy. It is right and proper to point out lifecycle carbon costs too, and again nuclear is tied for lowest lifecycle. Nuclear is the most carbon-free thing we have. You bet it is advertising. It's truthful advertising of the positive characteristics of nuclear energy. People have a right to know how carbon free various energy sources are.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  But people DO claim that wind, solar and hydro are 'green' or 'carbon-neutral' or 'carbon-free' energy sources, so it's fair to hold nuclear to the same standards. And nuclear more than meets those standards. Only enforcing those standards for nuclear feels like an isolated demand for rigor.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]