5 ms·

> Nuclear power is considered a clean energy source because it has zero carbon dioxide emissions; This is flat out wrong. Containing, mining, recycling and lon

> Nuclear power is considered a clean energy source because it has zero carbon dioxide emissions; This is flat out wrong. Containing, mining, recycling and long term storage are so extremely costly and energy hungry that it does not make any economically sense in mid term to use nuclear power. And do not forget. Nuclear is not renewable. It has to be mined. There are mines which will be empty sooner than generally expected. And any kind of mass produced „nuclear battery“ which will eventually end up in land fill is a risk not worth taking. It reminds me of the story about leaded fuel. Yeah maybe a few cars are no problem. But scale up the pollution and boy will you be in trouble.

korijn 4y ago
Isn't it still miles ahead of coal in terms of "clean energy-ness", despite all the costs and flaws? Honestly curious, I'm not at all an expert.
fsflover 4y ago
>> Nuclear power is considered a clean energy source because it has zero carbon dioxide emissions; > This is flat out wrong. No, it's not: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26673987 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26673987 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26603464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26603464.
- jannemann 4y ago
  Every energy source does require some sort of energy to make it possible to harvest it. And nuclear is no exception. We do not have any sustainable way to filter out enough carbon dioxide with any of the hypothetical excess energy. So saying there is a any energy source without any carbon dioxide emission is wrong.
  - gruturo 4y ago
    > Every energy source does require some sort of energy to make it possible to harvest it. And nuclear is no exception Indeed, and neither are solar, wind, hydro or any other - they all have environmental impact for producing the panels, turbines, dams, etc. So there are actually no exceptions at all, anywhere, which makes the classification completely useless. Could we get back to the topic now?
Manuel_D 4y ago
Nuclear has the lowest net CO2 emissions per unit of energy besides hydroelectricity [1]. Waste recycling would make known terrestrial reserves last for several thousand years. Furthermore, seawater extraction would make nuclear effectively unlimited [2]. You can pedantically point out that nuclear isn't truly unlimited. But once you're getting to the point of energy sources lasting millions of years, the term "renewable" becomes academic. You could just as easily point out that the sun will eventually run out of hydrogen. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources#Global_warming_potential_of_selected_electricity_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emis... 2. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-seawater-extraction-makes-nuclear-power-completely-renewable/?sh=21ca1d7b159a https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-s...
- jannemann 4y ago
  https://youtu.be/0kahih8RT1k https://youtu.be/0kahih8RT1k
- natmaka 4y ago
  The more we obtain uranium (prospecting, mining, milling...), the more we add to the associated carbon footprint. Therefore a sustained growth of installed nuclear capacity will lead us to exploit mines at always lowering ore grades => more emissions. The media may be 110g CO‐eq/kWh by 2050. Source: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2051332 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2051332
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    The same issues apply to the materials needed to manufacture wind turbines, solar panels, and the batteries needed to mitigate intermittency. Uranium's incredible energy density means increases in raw uranium costs is negligible (enrichment is a much more expensive part of the overall nuclear fuel cost). From the previously linked article: > Over the last twenty years, uranium spot prices have varied between $10 and $120/lb of U3O8, mainly from changes in the availability of weapons-grade uranium to blend down to make reactor fuel. > So as the cost of extracting uranium from seawater falls to below $100/lb, it will become a commercially viable alternative to mining new uranium ore. But even at $200/lb of U3O8, it doesn’t add more than a small fraction of a cent per kWh to the cost of nuclear power.
belorn 4y ago
Following that there does not exist an energy source that is zero carbon dioxide emissions. Just mining iron cost a lot of energy, pollutes the environment and cost a lot of energy. All current built wind and solar panels that include steel are built using processes that burn fossil fuel. If we look at plastic used in those the picture get even worse.
senectus1 4y ago
Its mostly carbon friendly, but not even slightly environmentally friendly.

korijn 4y ago

Isn't it still miles ahead of coal in terms of "clean energy-ness", despite all the costs and flaws? Honestly curious, I'm not at all an expert.

fsflover 4y ago

>> Nuclear power is considered a clean energy source because it has zero carbon dioxide emissions; > This is flat out wrong. No, it's not: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26673987 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26673987 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26603464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26603464.

jannemann 4y ago
Every energy source does require some sort of energy to make it possible to harvest it. And nuclear is no exception. We do not have any sustainable way to filter out enough carbon dioxide with any of the hypothetical excess energy. So saying there is a any energy source without any carbon dioxide emission is wrong.
- gruturo 4y ago
  > Every energy source does require some sort of energy to make it possible to harvest it. And nuclear is no exception Indeed, and neither are solar, wind, hydro or any other - they all have environmental impact for producing the panels, turbines, dams, etc. So there are actually no exceptions at all, anywhere, which makes the classification completely useless. Could we get back to the topic now?

Manuel_D 4y ago

Nuclear has the lowest net CO2 emissions per unit of energy besides hydroelectricity [1]. Waste recycling would make known terrestrial reserves last for several thousand years. Furthermore, seawater extraction would make nuclear effectively unlimited [2]. You can pedantically point out that nuclear isn't truly unlimited. But once you're getting to the point of energy sources lasting millions of years, the term "renewable" becomes academic. You could just as easily point out that the sun will eventually run out of hydrogen. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources#Global_warming_potential_of_selected_electricity_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emis... 2. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-seawater-extraction-makes-nuclear-power-completely-renewable/?sh=21ca1d7b159a https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-s...

jannemann 4y ago
https://youtu.be/0kahih8RT1k https://youtu.be/0kahih8RT1k
natmaka 4y ago
The more we obtain uranium (prospecting, mining, milling...), the more we add to the associated carbon footprint. Therefore a sustained growth of installed nuclear capacity will lead us to exploit mines at always lowering ore grades => more emissions. The media may be 110g CO‐eq/kWh by 2050. Source: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2051332 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2051332
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  The same issues apply to the materials needed to manufacture wind turbines, solar panels, and the batteries needed to mitigate intermittency. Uranium's incredible energy density means increases in raw uranium costs is negligible (enrichment is a much more expensive part of the overall nuclear fuel cost). From the previously linked article: > Over the last twenty years, uranium spot prices have varied between $10 and $120/lb of U3O8, mainly from changes in the availability of weapons-grade uranium to blend down to make reactor fuel. > So as the cost of extracting uranium from seawater falls to below $100/lb, it will become a commercially viable alternative to mining new uranium ore. But even at $200/lb of U3O8, it doesn’t add more than a small fraction of a cent per kWh to the cost of nuclear power.

belorn 4y ago

Following that there does not exist an energy source that is zero carbon dioxide emissions. Just mining iron cost a lot of energy, pollutes the environment and cost a lot of energy. All current built wind and solar panels that include steel are built using processes that burn fossil fuel. If we look at plastic used in those the picture get even worse.

senectus1 4y ago

Its mostly carbon friendly, but not even slightly environmentally friendly.