3 ms·

I'd love some sources comparing the carbon emissions from building them, because otherwise I'm a big supporter of nuclear energy. I'd rather go solar/wind/hydro

I'd love some sources comparing the carbon emissions from building them, because otherwise I'm a big supporter of nuclear energy. I'd rather go solar/wind/hydro but I think they have some (not all) of the issues you've noted as well.

candeira 5y ago
The carbon cost of extraction and transportation of fuel should also be added to the spreadsheet, both for nuclear and for fossil fuel generation. Finally, if we're accounting for the cost decommissioning old nuclear stations and long-term storage of nuclear fuel, we should also account for the externalities of fossil fuel power, such as health consequences of pollution, the existential risk from global warming, and turmoil due to geopolitical tensions.
KennyBlanken 5y ago
Google image search on "energy source carbon footprint" and see that even the charts with very low carbon impact estimates for nuclear still place it at roughly twice wind, and more than solar. Look at what power companies, investors, grid operators, and most countries are putting money into. Not nuclear. If you think it's just because the public finds it unpalatable, well, the public finds a lot of things unpalatable and that doesn't stop industry and investors from doing whatever they want. Solar and wind deployment in the US is growing massively as the price of solar panels and wind turbines plunge, especially solar. Battery storage is also plunging in price and rapidly maturing into grid-scale solutions like flow batteries. Nuclear hasn't gotten cheaper over many, many decades and it provides a kind of power we don't need - base load. In many countries there's an excess of renewable power on many days. Solar is highly distributed which helps decentralize the grid and localize power generation, lowering losses. It's a lot more efficient for your EV to get power from your neighbor's rooftop panels than from a power plant hundreds of miles away.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  How many of those countries rapidly building new green planta are actually below France's GHG emissions? Germany definitely isn't, much of Europe isn't (and where they are, they typically also use nuclear). The USA is laughanly far off. So, it seems to me that while many grids are switching to renewables, they are still far away from matching Nuclear's emissions.

candeira 5y ago

The carbon cost of extraction and transportation of fuel should also be added to the spreadsheet, both for nuclear and for fossil fuel generation. Finally, if we're accounting for the cost decommissioning old nuclear stations and long-term storage of nuclear fuel, we should also account for the externalities of fossil fuel power, such as health consequences of pollution, the existential risk from global warming, and turmoil due to geopolitical tensions.

KennyBlanken 5y ago

Google image search on "energy source carbon footprint" and see that even the charts with very low carbon impact estimates for nuclear still place it at roughly twice wind, and more than solar. Look at what power companies, investors, grid operators, and most countries are putting money into. Not nuclear. If you think it's just because the public finds it unpalatable, well, the public finds a lot of things unpalatable and that doesn't stop industry and investors from doing whatever they want. Solar and wind deployment in the US is growing massively as the price of solar panels and wind turbines plunge, especially solar. Battery storage is also plunging in price and rapidly maturing into grid-scale solutions like flow batteries. Nuclear hasn't gotten cheaper over many, many decades and it provides a kind of power we don't need - base load. In many countries there's an excess of renewable power on many days. Solar is highly distributed which helps decentralize the grid and localize power generation, lowering losses. It's a lot more efficient for your EV to get power from your neighbor's rooftop panels than from a power plant hundreds of miles away.

tsimionescu 5y ago
How many of those countries rapidly building new green planta are actually below France's GHG emissions? Germany definitely isn't, much of Europe isn't (and where they are, they typically also use nuclear). The USA is laughanly far off. So, it seems to me that while many grids are switching to renewables, they are still far away from matching Nuclear's emissions.