5 ms·
Let’s just ignore the carbon released by cement production.
by natch 6y ago
Let’s just ignore the carbon released by cement production.
- tpmx 6y agoIn Europe: That cement (which is used to create concrete) is by far mostly going into the huge foundations needed for the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of 150m+ tall wind power plants that only produce power sometimes.
- lostlogin 6y agoYes, but compare their CO2 footprints to nuclear. Have you a source that shows Nuclear is better? I hunted around a while back and got a large range of answers, but nuclear seemed consistent worse. Eg see page 29 of this link. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter7.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5...
- tpmx 6y agoThe error bars make that graph unusable for this purpose.
- lostlogin 6y agoThat’s exactly the point I was trying to make - it isn’t clear that nuclear power has less C02 emissions than wind turbines. It’s also something that needs a very long view to calculate - nuclear waste needs storing and protecting and wind turbines aren’t being decommissioned all that much.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- sampo 6y agoIn that figure, if you look at the median (the black line), it's quite small. There is this one very anti-nuclear Stanford professor, who has managed to publish some estimates where the carbon footprint of nuclear power is way larger than in other estimates. These numbers are probably now forever part of the literature, and they make the range of published numbers quite large in every literature survey. Sometimes this activist professor also sues people for libel, if they publish results disagreeing with his. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Z._Jacobson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Z._Jacobson
- lostlogin 6y agoWow. Have you any idea how much his study pushed up the mean or got a summary of how his study differed? As you say, the estimates vary wildly and I haven’t really got any idea where his sit relative to others
- tpmx 6y agoFor this thread, your previous uninformed comments sadly made my post three levels up end up at -2, so all of this is kinda hidden. Please post again with this "newfound knowledge" in future threads.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- tpmx 6y agoI find ideology-driven scientists to be very dangerous to humanity prosperity and progress. Of course he's insanely active on Twitter. Last post 8 minutes ago.
- hans1729 6y agoLets just ignore the fact that we can't build the required storage period. The energy comes cheap and clean, until you consider the storage and the upkeep of those building for milleniums. Then again, who cares about milleniums if Damocles climatic sword hovers over our heads today
- Kuinox 6y agoYes, cement production for the windmills: https://youtu.be/0vE6QkvcV-s?t=13 https://youtu.be/0vE6QkvcV-s?t=13
- jhgb 6y agoWindmills didn't use cement. I assume they used lime mortar like most medieval structures.
- Kuinox 6y agoYes my bad, not cement, it's not mortar but concrete, 150-300m^3 of concrete per 2MW windmill.
- jhgb 6y agoWindmills didn't have 2MW power output either.
- Kuinox 6y agoDid you actually watched the video ? "Turbines in the 1 to 2 MW range typically use 130 to 240 m3 of concrete for the foundations". https://www.ge.com/renewableenergy/wind-energy/onshore-wind/2mw-platform https://www.ge.com/renewableenergy/wind-energy/onshore-wind/...
- jhgb 6y agoYou were talking about windmills a moment ago, now you're talking about turbines? You're very confusing.
- Kuinox 6y agoSo, you obviously didnt watched the video. Yes my bad, in my native language windmill and wind turbine are the same word. I was talking about wind turbines, as you can see in the video.
- kieranmaine 6y agoThis problem is being worked on. I recently listened to this podcast which outlines two approaches to low carbon concrete - https://www.npr.org/transcripts/923966126 https://www.npr.org/transcripts/923966126 Take away points: * The first approach is to use a different mix that can nearly half the temperature required to produce the concrete. This can reduce the CO2 emissions to produce the concrete by up to 40% * The second approach uses pure CO2 to cure the concrete which locks away more CO2 in the concrete * The concrete produced by these approaches need to be fully tested before the methods can be rolled out and costs reduced
- acidburnNSA 6y agoLifecycle emissions of wind, solar, and nuclear are well known to be very low carbon. Lifecycle includes the cement used in their production [1]. When you're job isn't to turn immense flows of carbon + oxygen into CO₂ and energy (like fossil and biofuel do), it's easy to be low carbon. [1] https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low...
- gehsty 6y agoIf you are going to use cement to build anything, a nuclear power station is probably the best use for it. I don’t think anyone is ignoring the problem, having huge amounts of zero carbon power is the starting point for lots of things that will let us solve a lot of the harder problems like cement, or jet fuel etc.