5 ms·

> nuclear is the only clean base load generation we have. I'm assuming from your phrasing that you're using nuclear to refer exclusively to nuclear fission. A

• nradov 5y ago
  Clean enough compared to the alternatives.
• belorn 5y ago
  In comparison to burning fossil fuels which is the basis of the energy crisis, the emissions, radiation, acquisition of fuel, and operate seems all cleaner for a nuclear reactor than the fossil fuel which it replace. Per GW/h, a fossil fueled power plant is producing a lot of pollution that goes into the air and poison the people and land around it. The outcome from this can be plainly seen in the death per GW/h produced. The only "100%" clean base load generation we have is actually hydro, but there are a few problems with it. We have already maxed out, and even if we tried to build more it would cause significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions from topsoil decomposition. It also happens to have one of the highest deaths per GW/h, although thankfully we tend to attribute that to the weather rather than the technology itself.
  • Teknoman117 5y ago
    This. Nuclear fission isn't "perfect" due to the potential risks involved, but it's one of the best things we have going for us right now. The climate crisis is here, and we have to do something pretty much immediately. We don't have time to argue over what's best anymore. Build things we know work and replace those with something else when something better comes along.
• throwaway894345 5y ago
  It is on par with solar with respect to the emissions per kW. Nuclear power plants emit virtually no radiation when properly operated and maintained (indeed, coal power plants emit more radiation into the environment). In rare cases, accidents happen, but the risk adjusted cost of those accidents is negligible compared to fossil fuel power. I’m not sure what “radioactive impacts” derive from mining Uranium, but I doubt it’s non-negligible compared to the harm imposed my fossil fuels.
  • ajsnigrutin 5y ago
    And compared to solar, they produce power even during cold, winter nights, when you need heat the most. It's not the most efficiant way to heat your homes (fission -> heat -> water -> steam engine -> electricity -> heater), but it brings autonomy to each country (so global issues don't affect your country), and with heat pumps, it's not even that bad at heating.
    • coryrc 5y ago
      Add in district heating and you get cheap heat too. Europe is often dense enough for this to work...
    • bialpio 5y ago
      I was under the impression that the last step can potentially be made pretty efficient if it's "electricity -> heat pump" (but that depends on the conditions). Also - can nuclear power plants operate in combined heat and power mode to provide district heating? That'd probably require them to be close to highly populated areas though.
  • Teknoman117 5y ago
    Nuclear (fission) beats out solar for the most part in terms of CO2 equivalent per kW/h of energy generation. The 6-grams CO2 equivalent per kW/h figure assumes the panel is in ideal conditions (receiving sun for all sun-up hours during the year at equatorial to middle latitudes and operating at a fixed temperature). For a place like Finland, Norway, or Sweden, this goes up 50-grams CO2 equivalent per kW/h (less power produced over lifespan given a fixed manufacturing footprint). Nuclear is at 4-grams per kW/h. Wind is also about 4-grams per kW/h (again, assuming ideal conditions). Meanwhile, the most efficient coal fired plants are like 700 grams of CO2 per kW/h and most are at 1000-1200 grams per kW/h...