3 ms·

>build 4 nuclear plants for each one we currently have to achieve a 100% decarbonized grid Uhh, mining and uranium enrichment and transportation all require fo

by bob29 4y ago

>build 4 nuclear plants for each one we currently have to achieve a 100% decarbonized grid Uhh, mining and uranium enrichment and transportation all require fossil fuels, and more fossil fuel energy than a fueled nuclear produces in electrical energy. Increasing 4x nuclear plants would increase fossil fuel consumption in the nuclear supply chain. Nuclear isn't some secret technology you've just discovered thats being suppressed by environmentalists. It literally ended the biggest war ever and was pursued for decades afterwards. Unless you know a secret, if its feasible it would have been done.

Manuel_D 4y ago
> Uhh, mining and uranium enrichment and transportation all require fossil fuels, and more fossil fuel energy than a fueled nuclear produces in electrical energy. Incorrect. Nuclear power actually has the second lowest net CO2 emissions per energy source, second only to hydroelectricity. Less than solar and wind: 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...
- bob29 4y ago
  So wrong its funny. Maybe if you assume the pre-existance of the nuclear supply chain due to a weapons program. I challenge you to actually follow the sources on any of estimates like that, or the hilarious "12g c02/kwhr" quote. It's all ESTIMATES (not measurements) FROM The nuclear industry. But keep on believing.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    The estimates are from the IPCC, not from the nuclear industry. This is stated in the article.
    - bob29 4y ago
      The IPCC did not do primary research. They cite a source. That source did not do primary research, either. The actual data comes from an estimate from the industry itself. The estimates came from costs. Estimating embodied fossil fuel energy based on cost is a not a bad estimation technique except when a huge amount of your supply chain is subsidized.

by bob29 4y ago

Manuel_D 4y ago

> Uhh, mining and uranium enrichment and transportation all require fossil fuels, and more fossil fuel energy than a fueled nuclear produces in electrical energy. Incorrect. Nuclear power actually has the second lowest net CO2 emissions per energy source, second only to hydroelectricity. Less than solar and wind: 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...

bob29 4y ago
So wrong its funny. Maybe if you assume the pre-existance of the nuclear supply chain due to a weapons program. I challenge you to actually follow the sources on any of estimates like that, or the hilarious "12g c02/kwhr" quote. It's all ESTIMATES (not measurements) FROM The nuclear industry. But keep on believing.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  The estimates are from the IPCC, not from the nuclear industry. This is stated in the article.
  - bob29 4y ago
    The IPCC did not do primary research. They cite a source. That source did not do primary research, either. The actual data comes from an estimate from the industry itself. The estimates came from costs. Estimating embodied fossil fuel energy based on cost is a not a bad estimation technique except when a huge amount of your supply chain is subsidized.