4 ms·

You're absolutely right, and they probably are a significant proportion of generation. However, a key part of optimization is identifying low hanging fruit - re

You're absolutely right, and they probably are a significant proportion of generation. However, a key part of optimization is identifying low hanging fruit - replacing (or augmenting) these plants could help reach climate change goals in really short order. Fission is known for being slower to deploy than other green energy sources, but if we could eradicate this carbon source in 5-8 years, then... damn... that's really impressive. Sadly, I doubt that will happen.

dgfitz 5y ago
Taken with a grain of salt, this seems to be most of the low-hanging fruit: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3140808/chinese-cities-among-25-big-producers-greenhouse-gases-study https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3140808/chin...
- prawn 5y ago
  Can you clarify what you are indicating are the low-hanging fruit? Major cities around the world? Or particularly, Chinese cities?
- komali2 5y ago
  Doing what, though? Because: > “Another major reason is that many high-carbon production chains were outsourced from developed nations to Chinese cities, thus increasing the export-related emissions of the latter.” The solution possibly is something more radical than what you're thinking, because the PRC forcing emissions reductions and driving up manufacturing costs could just cause these industries to jump to the next exploitable developing region. I'm thinking more along the lines of strategies to reduce consumerism in general, or match global product prices to their "true" cost considering environmental damage - ideas most pro-infinite-growth capitalists find untenable.
amluto 5y ago
If some country decided that the operation of these power plants was a sufficiently offensive attack, they could bomb them. This would probably be a disaster for quite a few reasons, but it would strongly discourage the plants from operating. A gentler approach would be a well designed cross border emission tax. This could make operation of these plants economically impractical.
- zdragnar 5y ago
  The plants are being run because they are cheap and have plentiful supply, not because they are the most desirable form of production. Merely adding a new tax would be the most regressive solution available, as it disproportionately hurts the poorest- the consequences would take longer but could end up just as severe. Maybe they dont have access to plentiful natural gas, or grid storage for renewables. Maybe they simply dont have an economy healthy or government free enough of corruption to invest in the capital required to transition. A more reasonable approach would be to set up a program that fronts the necessary investments while letting the locals retain control... effectively a free loan. It would certainly meet the criterion of "gentler", at least, and probably cheaper than fuelling the planes and the bombs as well- those things are crazy expensive.
  - tbarbugli 5y ago
    Germany, Japan and SK are extremely wealthy countries. I am sure they can manage if they really want to. Germany in particular made the stupid decision of shutting down nuclear plants (Fukushima overreaction) and it is pushing this narrative of being a green energy country… to me it sounds like an easy problem to solve once there is enough political attention.
    - imtringued 5y ago
      Nobody, not even Germans think it is a green country, they aren't pushing that narrative. Who told you that lie? Most likely you fell victim to American newspapers lying to you that Germany is pushing a green narrative. After all they lied about Germany moving back to coal. What happened is that Germany willingly delayed reductions in CO2 emissions. It clearly cared about the nuclear shutdown more than the coal shutdown. However, the articles are always about how emissions went up "because more coal" when that never happened. It's lies upon lies. Germany is a country that is standing still, neither getting better nor worse and likes it that way. It's not green and nobody pretended that it is green.
  - adrianN 5y ago
    Most countries are very far away for the amounts of renewable production where one needs grid scale storage before being able to build more wind turbines and PV.
AtlasBarfed 5y ago
I am a massive stan for nuclear and alternative, but the most expedient is probably natural gas turbines. What should have happened 20-60 years ago is modular LFTR reactors, they had them at Oak Ridge. Closet sized reactors could probably scale quickly.

dgfitz 5y ago

Taken with a grain of salt, this seems to be most of the low-hanging fruit: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3140808/chinese-cities-among-25-big-producers-greenhouse-gases-study https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3140808/chin...

prawn 5y ago
Can you clarify what you are indicating are the low-hanging fruit? Major cities around the world? Or particularly, Chinese cities?
komali2 5y ago
Doing what, though? Because: > “Another major reason is that many high-carbon production chains were outsourced from developed nations to Chinese cities, thus increasing the export-related emissions of the latter.” The solution possibly is something more radical than what you're thinking, because the PRC forcing emissions reductions and driving up manufacturing costs could just cause these industries to jump to the next exploitable developing region. I'm thinking more along the lines of strategies to reduce consumerism in general, or match global product prices to their "true" cost considering environmental damage - ideas most pro-infinite-growth capitalists find untenable.

amluto 5y ago

If some country decided that the operation of these power plants was a sufficiently offensive attack, they could bomb them. This would probably be a disaster for quite a few reasons, but it would strongly discourage the plants from operating. A gentler approach would be a well designed cross border emission tax. This could make operation of these plants economically impractical.

zdragnar 5y ago
The plants are being run because they are cheap and have plentiful supply, not because they are the most desirable form of production. Merely adding a new tax would be the most regressive solution available, as it disproportionately hurts the poorest- the consequences would take longer but could end up just as severe. Maybe they dont have access to plentiful natural gas, or grid storage for renewables. Maybe they simply dont have an economy healthy or government free enough of corruption to invest in the capital required to transition. A more reasonable approach would be to set up a program that fronts the necessary investments while letting the locals retain control... effectively a free loan. It would certainly meet the criterion of "gentler", at least, and probably cheaper than fuelling the planes and the bombs as well- those things are crazy expensive.
- tbarbugli 5y ago
  Germany, Japan and SK are extremely wealthy countries. I am sure they can manage if they really want to. Germany in particular made the stupid decision of shutting down nuclear plants (Fukushima overreaction) and it is pushing this narrative of being a green energy country… to me it sounds like an easy problem to solve once there is enough political attention.
  - imtringued 5y ago
    Nobody, not even Germans think it is a green country, they aren't pushing that narrative. Who told you that lie? Most likely you fell victim to American newspapers lying to you that Germany is pushing a green narrative. After all they lied about Germany moving back to coal. What happened is that Germany willingly delayed reductions in CO2 emissions. It clearly cared about the nuclear shutdown more than the coal shutdown. However, the articles are always about how emissions went up "because more coal" when that never happened. It's lies upon lies. Germany is a country that is standing still, neither getting better nor worse and likes it that way. It's not green and nobody pretended that it is green.
- adrianN 5y ago
  Most countries are very far away for the amounts of renewable production where one needs grid scale storage before being able to build more wind turbines and PV.

AtlasBarfed 5y ago

I am a massive stan for nuclear and alternative, but the most expedient is probably natural gas turbines. What should have happened 20-60 years ago is modular LFTR reactors, they had them at Oak Ridge. Closet sized reactors could probably scale quickly.