3 ms·

Isn't natural gas a huge CO2 source, at a time we kind of have an issue with CO2 concentration in the atmosphere? (genuine question)

gnusty_gnurc 7y ago
It’s bizarre how somehow the risk of nuclear is thought to be worse than the destruction caused by atmospheric carbon.
- CyanBird 7y ago
  That's a false choice, as natural gas is already being wasted and burnt as a byproduct, if that natural gas were used as an energy source, then we could better control the burning process and reduce emissions. Building nuclear plants would actually just increase the amount of natural gas that ends up being burned as a byproduct all the while not helping us in the grand scheme of things
  - gnusty_gnurc 7y ago
    > Building nuclear plants would actually just increase the amount of natural gas that ends up being burned as a byproduct all the while not helping us in the grand scheme of things. I don't know where you're sourcing that argument. Seems like nuclear beats most renewables (solar specifically) in terms of carbon emissions and potential for quickly and reliably replacing our generation in a centralized way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emis...
    - CyanBird 7y ago
      Nuclear and Renewables are mostly equivalent when it comes to their CO2 cost https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low... Solar in particular can vary wildly when it comes to the CO2/MWatt because of geography, the ratio of CO2/Mwatt in Atacama desert will be wildly different from a solar plant in Germany, but still, when averaged out, the values of the plants themselves are mostly equivalent. Yet the problem happens when costs and other externalities are thrown into the picture, a solar plant doesnt need to worry about the storage of nuclear waste, and the mining of new facilities to store that waste, nor the extraction and refining process for Uranium which has all sorts of caveats, solar needs only worry of silica extraction, rare earths (which are needed by other industrial processes anyways) and refining and production, then simple disposal. And unlike Nuclear, the waste disposal of solar panels is comparatively super straight forward. The big one is the economic cost, where solar and wind heavily undercuts nuclear energy production https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-2017/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... And solar/wind can be expected to continue falling in price as technology continues to advance and economies of scale pick up the slack, same is not the case for nuclear technology, where safety requirements balloon up the price of the plants, waste management, uranium extraction, and in a competitive disrupted market such as the modern market of energy production, nuclear plants are falling by the wayside as a consequence of continued delays, ever increasing safety requirements and waste management fees increases. Lastly, nuclear plant construction, is neither "easy, nor speedy". it is an absolutely gruesome afair which has lead to the bankrupcy of many companies https://www.powermag.com/more-losses-for-firstenergy-fes-seeks-policy-backing-amid-bankruptcy/ https://www.powermag.com/more-losses-for-firstenergy-fes-see... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/business/westinghouse-toshiba-nuclear-bankruptcy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/business/westinghouse-tos...
CyanBird 7y ago
Yeah, it is, and that's where things get interesting such as logistics, economics trends, risk assestment At the moment the US is going through a natural gas boom, companies many times have a serious over supply of it, and they are releasing it into the atmosphere, the Bakken Oil Fields at night are quite literally visible from the International Space Station[0] because of the colossal amounts of natural gas flares of companies burning excess natural gas. All of that is simply wasted energy, and extra CO2 and unburnt natural gas that enters into the atmosphere One of the reasons why so many coal plants in the US are going through hard economic times is because they are being undercut by both solar, wind and stupidly cheap natural gas turbines [1]. To build nuclear plants today in the US, would be an horrendous economic decision, because those would instantly become stranded assets that would need to be bailed out by the general public via overly expensive electricity bills. In the meantime, gas is just so readily available that's being burnt on an unimaginable scale, all of that energy could be simply packaged and used as electricity. In the meantime in the rest of the world, most countries are already divesting from big bulky centralized energy sources, simply because of how expensive they are. They just can't compete with cheaper renewables with a assistance of natural gas, and in the long as prices fall even further run those natural gas assistance plants can be replaced with batteries. In short, what I advocate, is simply Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. If we have nuclear plants already built, use them, but dont build more, if a country is experiencing a surplus of natural gas, use it, and please dont burn it as waste. [0] https://geog.ucsb.edu/why-are-night-lights-in-north-dakota-visible-from-the-iss/ https://geog.ucsb.edu/why-are-night-lights-in-north-dakota-v... [1] https://www.colorado.edu/today/2018/05/07/natural-gas-and-wind-energy-killed-coal-not-war-coal https://www.colorado.edu/today/2018/05/07/natural-gas-and-wi...

gnusty_gnurc 7y ago

It’s bizarre how somehow the risk of nuclear is thought to be worse than the destruction caused by atmospheric carbon.

CyanBird 7y ago
That's a false choice, as natural gas is already being wasted and burnt as a byproduct, if that natural gas were used as an energy source, then we could better control the burning process and reduce emissions. Building nuclear plants would actually just increase the amount of natural gas that ends up being burned as a byproduct all the while not helping us in the grand scheme of things
- gnusty_gnurc 7y ago
  > Building nuclear plants would actually just increase the amount of natural gas that ends up being burned as a byproduct all the while not helping us in the grand scheme of things. I don't know where you're sourcing that argument. Seems like nuclear beats most renewables (solar specifically) in terms of carbon emissions and potential for quickly and reliably replacing our generation in a centralized way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emis...
  - CyanBird 7y ago
    Nuclear and Renewables are mostly equivalent when it comes to their CO2 cost https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low... Solar in particular can vary wildly when it comes to the CO2/MWatt because of geography, the ratio of CO2/Mwatt in Atacama desert will be wildly different from a solar plant in Germany, but still, when averaged out, the values of the plants themselves are mostly equivalent. Yet the problem happens when costs and other externalities are thrown into the picture, a solar plant doesnt need to worry about the storage of nuclear waste, and the mining of new facilities to store that waste, nor the extraction and refining process for Uranium which has all sorts of caveats, solar needs only worry of silica extraction, rare earths (which are needed by other industrial processes anyways) and refining and production, then simple disposal. And unlike Nuclear, the waste disposal of solar panels is comparatively super straight forward. The big one is the economic cost, where solar and wind heavily undercuts nuclear energy production https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-2017/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... And solar/wind can be expected to continue falling in price as technology continues to advance and economies of scale pick up the slack, same is not the case for nuclear technology, where safety requirements balloon up the price of the plants, waste management, uranium extraction, and in a competitive disrupted market such as the modern market of energy production, nuclear plants are falling by the wayside as a consequence of continued delays, ever increasing safety requirements and waste management fees increases. Lastly, nuclear plant construction, is neither "easy, nor speedy". it is an absolutely gruesome afair which has lead to the bankrupcy of many companies https://www.powermag.com/more-losses-for-firstenergy-fes-seeks-policy-backing-amid-bankruptcy/ https://www.powermag.com/more-losses-for-firstenergy-fes-see... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/business/westinghouse-toshiba-nuclear-bankruptcy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/business/westinghouse-tos...

CyanBird 7y ago

Yeah, it is, and that's where things get interesting such as logistics, economics trends, risk assestment At the moment the US is going through a natural gas boom, companies many times have a serious over supply of it, and they are releasing it into the atmosphere, the Bakken Oil Fields at night are quite literally visible from the International Space Station[0] because of the colossal amounts of natural gas flares of companies burning excess natural gas. All of that is simply wasted energy, and extra CO2 and unburnt natural gas that enters into the atmosphere One of the reasons why so many coal plants in the US are going through hard economic times is because they are being undercut by both solar, wind and stupidly cheap natural gas turbines [1]. To build nuclear plants today in the US, would be an horrendous economic decision, because those would instantly become stranded assets that would need to be bailed out by the general public via overly expensive electricity bills. In the meantime, gas is just so readily available that's being burnt on an unimaginable scale, all of that energy could be simply packaged and used as electricity. In the meantime in the rest of the world, most countries are already divesting from big bulky centralized energy sources, simply because of how expensive they are. They just can't compete with cheaper renewables with a assistance of natural gas, and in the long as prices fall even further run those natural gas assistance plants can be replaced with batteries. In short, what I advocate, is simply Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. If we have nuclear plants already built, use them, but dont build more, if a country is experiencing a surplus of natural gas, use it, and please dont burn it as waste. [0] https://geog.ucsb.edu/why-are-night-lights-in-north-dakota-visible-from-the-iss/ https://geog.ucsb.edu/why-are-night-lights-in-north-dakota-v... [1] https://www.colorado.edu/today/2018/05/07/natural-gas-and-wind-energy-killed-coal-not-war-coal https://www.colorado.edu/today/2018/05/07/natural-gas-and-wi...