7 ms·

If we (US) hadn't stopped building nuclear in the 80s, and had simply kept building at the same rate, our grid would be (near) zero carbon today. Not several de

If we (US) hadn't stopped building nuclear in the 80s, and had simply kept building at the same rate, our grid would be (near) zero carbon today. Not several decades from now if we hustle our asses off, today. But that's not what happened. The anti-nuclear team won and we collectively made the responsible decision to fill our atmosphere with CO2 instead. Yay?

onli 6y ago
Yes, that's the a common talking point that is false, "Nuclear energy does not produce CO2, or almost none". But you only see that it is false if you look at complete lifecycle analysis of building the plants, running the plants, mining and transporting the uranium, transportintg the waste, dismantling the plant etc. You can try to argue that the US would have less carbon emissions than today - something I'm inclined to believe given how much fossil fuels are used today - but in no way would it be zero.
- kergonath 6y ago
  Even counting for the whole life cycle, nuclear is a very small greenhouse gas emitter. One plant lasts decades and a very small amount of ore needs to be mined, because uranium is very energy-dense. I think your point is valid, but lacks generality. Almost nothing we do is carbon neutral. Our energy production certainly isn't. Playing devil's advocate, PV and wind turbines also need to be built, transported, installed, disassembled, and disposed of, all of which emits greenhouse gases.
- melling 6y ago
  Yes but we would have decades of extra time to deal with global warming. Instead, now we’re trying to shame people into flying less, which amounts to 2.5% of emissions a year..
- orwin 6y ago
  This was done, the whole calculation, again and again, again and again, like this was done for solar pannels and wind turbine. All the data is there, the IPCC even took the time to vulgarize this part because people don't seems to understand, took the highest evaluation wiht post-70s tech (12gCO2/MWh) and there is STILL people that talk about climate and don't even READ the IPCC document. I don't understand why you would talk about something this important and dont read the BASICS. Like those climate denialist who "prove" that low atmosphere CO2 will make everything greener. WE KNOW! At least climate denialist have the excuse that this information is not easily accessible [0][1]. Everything else is written in the vulgarized papers, it a two hour-long read top, just take some time to inform yourself! This is why nothing will never be done and we are hoping for a technological silver bullet, because people rather act like they care about climate than care about climate. I'm angry. [0] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/TAR-03.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/TAR-03.pdf [1] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-04.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-04.pdf [edit] spacing, swear words.
- jjoonathan 6y ago
  Did you even glance at the numbers? Tech gCO2/kWh Coal 920 Gas 490 Solar-Util 48 Solar-Roof 41 Solar-Conc 27 Geothermal 38 Hydro 24 Wind-Offshore 12 Nuclear 12 <--- Wind-Onshore 11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emis...
  - onli 6y ago
    It's my understanding that these numbers are not undisputed. Even https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00472.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1530-9290... lets enough opportunity to have that calculation be changed, though there does not seem to be any doubt that the emissions are minimal compared to fossil fuels. But that's not a point I made. But you are right, I shouldn't have made it sound as if no one produced such numbers.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - jjoonathan 6y ago
      That's not all you did.
    - retrac 6y ago
      Even if it is a full order of magnitude larger, it still compares quite favourably to fossil fuels.
      - onli 6y ago
        Right, that's part of what I was citing. But the people vehemently opposing nuclear power plants, like me, are generally also opposing fossil fuels. So that doesn't change anything.
        yongjik 6y ago
- dTal 6y ago
  Seems to be begging the question a bit. If 100% of energy came from nuclear, then maintaining it (and all other activities) would be 0-emissions. Construction work and transportation can surely be done electrically.
  - funcDropShadow 6y ago
    But producing and using cement would still emit CO2. That is part of the chemical reaction when it is mixed at a building site.
    - dTal 6y ago
      True. But in the long term, beyond the course of the cement's lifespan, that carbon will eventually be re-absorbed. Strictly speaking, therefore, cement is carbon-neutral. At any rate - it's a truly miniscule amount of carbon anyway, when amortized over the plant's lifespan. If all of our power came from nuclear, we would not be worrying about greenhouse emissions from the concrete in their construction.
Klinky 6y ago
This would be great if CO2 was the only waste product of a nuclear plant, but it's not. You not only needed to keep building plants, but also designate proper waste storage sites, which are still up in the air to this day, and some sites like Hanford are utter ecological disasters. It also did not help that the 70s ended with the Three-Mile Island disaster and serious construction flaws being found at Trojan. Then in the 80s Chernobyl blasted nuclear fallout into the atmosphere which certainly didn't help nuclear's image. I wouldn't say the "Anti-nuclear team" won, nuclear industry shot itself in the foot with a very cavalier and lax safety attitude, and leaving behind many scary ecological disasters in its wake.
- msla 6y ago
  Why do people always forget that coal plants spew radiation into the environment? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    There's a significant difference between diffuse radioactivity and the sort of waste nuclear plants put out, though. In both impact on humans, and mitigation.
    - DuskStar 6y ago
      Right - diffuse radioactivity is harder to contain or clean up.
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        Less necessary to do so, though.
        DuskStar 6y ago
        Well, no - not if the linear no threshold theory of radiation dosages is correct. If it is, then that diffuse radiation leads to cancer just as surely as acute radiation exposure.
epistasis 6y ago
The reason that we stopped building nuclear wasn't because of anti-nuclear forces, but because of terrible mismanagement of builds in the US, mismanagement that didn't happen elsewhere in the world. Rates of builds were declining before Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and those were the events that turned the public against nuclear. There was a great 1985 article about this in Forbes, which I highly recommend: https://blowhardwindbag.blogspot.com/2011/04/forbes-article-reference-nuclear.html?m=1 https://blowhardwindbag.blogspot.com/2011/04/forbes-article-... Ideally we wouldn't have wasted those decades, but we must go forward with the greatest speed with the best tech we have now.
deeviant 6y ago
Also, since we have no good permanent waste storage facility, with a great deal of waste generated being stored in the generation sites themselves, we'd be absolutely glowing with nuclear waste.

onli 6y ago

Yes, that's the a common talking point that is false, "Nuclear energy does not produce CO2, or almost none". But you only see that it is false if you look at complete lifecycle analysis of building the plants, running the plants, mining and transporting the uranium, transportintg the waste, dismantling the plant etc. You can try to argue that the US would have less carbon emissions than today - something I'm inclined to believe given how much fossil fuels are used today - but in no way would it be zero.

kergonath 6y ago
Even counting for the whole life cycle, nuclear is a very small greenhouse gas emitter. One plant lasts decades and a very small amount of ore needs to be mined, because uranium is very energy-dense. I think your point is valid, but lacks generality. Almost nothing we do is carbon neutral. Our energy production certainly isn't. Playing devil's advocate, PV and wind turbines also need to be built, transported, installed, disassembled, and disposed of, all of which emits greenhouse gases.
melling 6y ago
Yes but we would have decades of extra time to deal with global warming. Instead, now we’re trying to shame people into flying less, which amounts to 2.5% of emissions a year..
orwin 6y ago
This was done, the whole calculation, again and again, again and again, like this was done for solar pannels and wind turbine. All the data is there, the IPCC even took the time to vulgarize this part because people don't seems to understand, took the highest evaluation wiht post-70s tech (12gCO2/MWh) and there is STILL people that talk about climate and don't even READ the IPCC document. I don't understand why you would talk about something this important and dont read the BASICS. Like those climate denialist who "prove" that low atmosphere CO2 will make everything greener. WE KNOW! At least climate denialist have the excuse that this information is not easily accessible [0][1]. Everything else is written in the vulgarized papers, it a two hour-long read top, just take some time to inform yourself! This is why nothing will never be done and we are hoping for a technological silver bullet, because people rather act like they care about climate than care about climate. I'm angry. [0] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/TAR-03.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/TAR-03.pdf [1] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-04.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-04.pdf [edit] spacing, swear words.
jjoonathan 6y ago
Did you even glance at the numbers? Tech gCO2/kWh Coal 920 Gas 490 Solar-Util 48 Solar-Roof 41 Solar-Conc 27 Geothermal 38 Hydro 24 Wind-Offshore 12 Nuclear 12 <--- Wind-Onshore 11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emis...
- onli 6y ago
  It's my understanding that these numbers are not undisputed. Even https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00472.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1530-9290... lets enough opportunity to have that calculation be changed, though there does not seem to be any doubt that the emissions are minimal compared to fossil fuels. But that's not a point I made. But you are right, I shouldn't have made it sound as if no one produced such numbers.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - jjoonathan 6y ago
    That's not all you did.
  - retrac 6y ago
    Even if it is a full order of magnitude larger, it still compares quite favourably to fossil fuels.
    - onli 6y ago
      Right, that's part of what I was citing. But the people vehemently opposing nuclear power plants, like me, are generally also opposing fossil fuels. So that doesn't change anything.
      - yongjik 6y ago
dTal 6y ago
Seems to be begging the question a bit. If 100% of energy came from nuclear, then maintaining it (and all other activities) would be 0-emissions. Construction work and transportation can surely be done electrically.
- funcDropShadow 6y ago
  But producing and using cement would still emit CO2. That is part of the chemical reaction when it is mixed at a building site.
  - dTal 6y ago
    True. But in the long term, beyond the course of the cement's lifespan, that carbon will eventually be re-absorbed. Strictly speaking, therefore, cement is carbon-neutral. At any rate - it's a truly miniscule amount of carbon anyway, when amortized over the plant's lifespan. If all of our power came from nuclear, we would not be worrying about greenhouse emissions from the concrete in their construction.

Klinky 6y ago

This would be great if CO2 was the only waste product of a nuclear plant, but it's not. You not only needed to keep building plants, but also designate proper waste storage sites, which are still up in the air to this day, and some sites like Hanford are utter ecological disasters. It also did not help that the 70s ended with the Three-Mile Island disaster and serious construction flaws being found at Trojan. Then in the 80s Chernobyl blasted nuclear fallout into the atmosphere which certainly didn't help nuclear's image. I wouldn't say the "Anti-nuclear team" won, nuclear industry shot itself in the foot with a very cavalier and lax safety attitude, and leaving behind many scary ecological disasters in its wake.

msla 6y ago
Why do people always forget that coal plants spew radiation into the environment? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  There's a significant difference between diffuse radioactivity and the sort of waste nuclear plants put out, though. In both impact on humans, and mitigation.
  - DuskStar 6y ago
    Right - diffuse radioactivity is harder to contain or clean up.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      Less necessary to do so, though.
      - DuskStar 6y ago
        Well, no - not if the linear no threshold theory of radiation dosages is correct. If it is, then that diffuse radiation leads to cancer just as surely as acute radiation exposure.

epistasis 6y ago

The reason that we stopped building nuclear wasn't because of anti-nuclear forces, but because of terrible mismanagement of builds in the US, mismanagement that didn't happen elsewhere in the world. Rates of builds were declining before Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and those were the events that turned the public against nuclear. There was a great 1985 article about this in Forbes, which I highly recommend: https://blowhardwindbag.blogspot.com/2011/04/forbes-article-reference-nuclear.html?m=1 https://blowhardwindbag.blogspot.com/2011/04/forbes-article-... Ideally we wouldn't have wasted those decades, but we must go forward with the greatest speed with the best tech we have now.

deeviant 6y ago

Also, since we have no good permanent waste storage facility, with a great deal of waste generated being stored in the generation sites themselves, we'd be absolutely glowing with nuclear waste.