4 ms·
>The carbon released by your normal power plant doesn't vanish as the plant closes. It actually does, the forests in the US alone absorb carbon equivalent to t
by Kon5ole 4y ago
>The carbon released by your normal power plant doesn't vanish as the plant closes.
It actually does, the forests in the US alone absorb carbon equivalent to the emissions from over 100 average coal plants per year. The lifetime emissions from a plant operating for 50 years is gone in 6 months after closing, one might say.
Power plants only account for 1/4 of emissions so the blame for global warming will mainly land on other sources.
Unlike the trillion dollars and counting that are currently being caused by only two nuclear plants and nothing but them.
- pyrale 4y ago> It actually does [...] The lifetime emissions from a plant operating for 50 years is gone in 6 months after closing, one might say. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Mauna_Loa_CO2_monthly_mean_concentration.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_at... From an accounting pov, carbon capture is extremely scarce. If we mark it as an offset to, power plants (or taxis, or whatever), it won't be available for other essential activities. That's probably the most extreme cost we can imagine now. > the blame for global warming will mainly land on other sources. Atmospheric greenhouse gasses are fungible, there is no difference between power plants and any other source from that point of view. 1/4th of emissions is one of the largest budgets, and there's no reason for it to exist, considering we know how to have carbon-free power without much sacrifices.