4 ms·

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 co

by 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.

by onli 6y ago

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.