4 ms·

It isn't sufficient but CO2 emissions have been dropping substantially for some time: by about one-third per capita and 20% total from their respective peaks [1

by jmyeet 3y ago

It isn't sufficient but CO2 emissions have been dropping substantially for some time: by about one-third per capita and 20% total from their respective peaks [1]. Solar price for both installation and power production has dropped like a rock since 2010 but that's expected to continue [2]. The beauty of solar is that it has no moving part and is the only form of direct power generation. Everything else involves moving a turbine, which increases costs (capital and opeartional), maintenance and complexity. This is also why I simply don't believe nuclear fission power generation has a future: it's way too expensive and takes too long to build. Small modular reactors are a fad that ignore the greater efficiencies of larger vessels. [1]: https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states [2]: https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/articles/2030-solar-cost-targets https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/articles/2030-solar-cost-t...

vlovich123 3y ago
Nuclear fission could do direct power output, we just have criminally crippled the industry which resulted in serious underfunding and thus lack of research for the past 70 years: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_energy_conversion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_energy_conversion Solar by itself can’t replace power generation needs no matter how cheap panels get without batteries. They can only offset some demand (same for wind). And we just don’t have the capacity to do grid scale batteries - we barely have enough for electric cars and we’re ramping that up as fast as we can. The best time to have built a nuclear power plant was 20 years ago. The second best time is now. There just simply isn’t an alternative right now to drastically increasing fission capacity. China is doing it too. We have no excuse in the West aside from protecting oil interests. The expense and time to build are not intractable issues - we just don’t do it enough to have economies of scale at play. Same goes for waste - without a double sided market nuclear is more expensive than it needs to be and legislation is blocking the second side of the market for spent fuel, which unlike fossil fuel emissions isn’t waste and can be reused for lots of applications instead of being buried in the ground (+ can be reused in breeder reactors)
- KennyBlanken 3y ago
  The nuclear industry has had trillions of dollars worth of subsidies thrown at it for coming up on a century and it has done nothing but get more expensive. We can't afford to pour more money into maybes when we have proven, simple, extremely safe, highly distributable technologies like solar and wind.
  - ewweezdsd 3y ago
    The problem with solar and wind is that you also need to build sufficient storage infra for those days when it's cloudy and not windy.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      That's about the same price as nuclear. That's not because storage had a mystery breakthrough in price you missed, it's just that nuclear is that expensive.
  - vlovich123 3y ago
    Source? Subsidies are hard to define and measure of course & even harder to compare across technologies, but renewables have definitely seen a trillion dollars worth of subsidies already (it was getting $200 billion a year since 2016 & that's not when subsidies started). According to [1] we get more energy output for every $ invested in nuclear than we do wind or solar. > We can't afford to pour more money into maybes when we have proven, simple, extremely safe, highly distributable technologies like solar and wind. I guess me and you disagree in that I view nuclear as proven, safe [2] & highly distributable (the Candian nuclear reactor is in many countries). There's a lot of FUD around nuclear & a not insignificant amount of it is funded by oil companies because they recognize how big a threat nuclear is to them [3]. It's aided by the fact that there may be legitimate security concerns although it's really hard to separate that from fear mongering to maintain the current status quo world order based around oil. > Wind: In an average year, nobody would die. A death rate of 0.04 deaths per terawatt-hour means every 25 years, a single person would die; Nuclear: In an average year, nobody would die – only every 33 years would someone die. Solar: In an average year, nobody would die – only every 50 years would someone die. So nuclear sits roughly between solar & wind in terms of deaths to generate said power & this includes all nuclear accidents (& of course single large scale events distort the typical deaths observed whereas solar & wind are baseline deaths that doesn't really change with improved tech as it does with nuclear). There's no safer, cheaper & as scalable a technology to wean off of fossil fuels. I wish there were & it would be nice if solar & wind were that, but they're not. [1] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/energy-subsidies.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspec... [2] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy [3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-fossil-fuel-interests-bankrolling-the-anti-nuclear-energy-movement/?sh=4d841a1e7453 https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-f...
seiferteric 3y ago
> CO2 emissions have been dropping substantially for some time Context? You mean in the US? Or Globally? Or just per capita? My understanding is that CO2 emissions continue to increase overall.
- amanaplanacanal 3y ago
  The link is US. Yeah worldwide it’s still increasing.
- wizofaus 3y ago
  Yep, they're definitely still rising, despite a slight drop in 2020 (thanks, COVID). Not sure there's any point in talking about per-capita emissions. That US emissions have been falling since ~2007 (and China appears to be leveling off) is some reason for hope but the likes of India, Indonesia and other large developing nations are more than making up for the difference.
padjo 3y ago
CO2 emissions have been exported from west to east, they still haven’t come down one bit and the rate of growth has barely deflected despite 20+ years of concerted effort.

by jmyeet 3y ago

vlovich123 3y ago

Nuclear fission could do direct power output, we just have criminally crippled the industry which resulted in serious underfunding and thus lack of research for the past 70 years: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_energy_conversion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_energy_conversion Solar by itself can’t replace power generation needs no matter how cheap panels get without batteries. They can only offset some demand (same for wind). And we just don’t have the capacity to do grid scale batteries - we barely have enough for electric cars and we’re ramping that up as fast as we can. The best time to have built a nuclear power plant was 20 years ago. The second best time is now. There just simply isn’t an alternative right now to drastically increasing fission capacity. China is doing it too. We have no excuse in the West aside from protecting oil interests. The expense and time to build are not intractable issues - we just don’t do it enough to have economies of scale at play. Same goes for waste - without a double sided market nuclear is more expensive than it needs to be and legislation is blocking the second side of the market for spent fuel, which unlike fossil fuel emissions isn’t waste and can be reused for lots of applications instead of being buried in the ground (+ can be reused in breeder reactors)

KennyBlanken 3y ago
The nuclear industry has had trillions of dollars worth of subsidies thrown at it for coming up on a century and it has done nothing but get more expensive. We can't afford to pour more money into maybes when we have proven, simple, extremely safe, highly distributable technologies like solar and wind.
- ewweezdsd 3y ago
  The problem with solar and wind is that you also need to build sufficient storage infra for those days when it's cloudy and not windy.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    That's about the same price as nuclear. That's not because storage had a mystery breakthrough in price you missed, it's just that nuclear is that expensive.
- vlovich123 3y ago
  Source? Subsidies are hard to define and measure of course & even harder to compare across technologies, but renewables have definitely seen a trillion dollars worth of subsidies already (it was getting $200 billion a year since 2016 & that's not when subsidies started). According to [1] we get more energy output for every $ invested in nuclear than we do wind or solar. > We can't afford to pour more money into maybes when we have proven, simple, extremely safe, highly distributable technologies like solar and wind. I guess me and you disagree in that I view nuclear as proven, safe [2] & highly distributable (the Candian nuclear reactor is in many countries). There's a lot of FUD around nuclear & a not insignificant amount of it is funded by oil companies because they recognize how big a threat nuclear is to them [3]. It's aided by the fact that there may be legitimate security concerns although it's really hard to separate that from fear mongering to maintain the current status quo world order based around oil. > Wind: In an average year, nobody would die. A death rate of 0.04 deaths per terawatt-hour means every 25 years, a single person would die; Nuclear: In an average year, nobody would die – only every 33 years would someone die. Solar: In an average year, nobody would die – only every 50 years would someone die. So nuclear sits roughly between solar & wind in terms of deaths to generate said power & this includes all nuclear accidents (& of course single large scale events distort the typical deaths observed whereas solar & wind are baseline deaths that doesn't really change with improved tech as it does with nuclear). There's no safer, cheaper & as scalable a technology to wean off of fossil fuels. I wish there were & it would be nice if solar & wind were that, but they're not. [1] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/energy-subsidies.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspec... [2] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy [3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-fossil-fuel-interests-bankrolling-the-anti-nuclear-energy-movement/?sh=4d841a1e7453 https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-f...

seiferteric 3y ago

> CO2 emissions have been dropping substantially for some time Context? You mean in the US? Or Globally? Or just per capita? My understanding is that CO2 emissions continue to increase overall.

amanaplanacanal 3y ago
The link is US. Yeah worldwide it’s still increasing.
wizofaus 3y ago
Yep, they're definitely still rising, despite a slight drop in 2020 (thanks, COVID). Not sure there's any point in talking about per-capita emissions. That US emissions have been falling since ~2007 (and China appears to be leveling off) is some reason for hope but the likes of India, Indonesia and other large developing nations are more than making up for the difference.

padjo 3y ago

CO2 emissions have been exported from west to east, they still haven’t come down one bit and the rate of growth has barely deflected despite 20+ years of concerted effort.