3 ms·

On the contrary, nuclear power is the greenest energy generation source (in terms of CO2/kWh over the full lifecycle), by far. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21os

by sofixa 3y ago

On the contrary, nuclear power is the greenest energy generation source (in terms of CO2/kWh over the full lifecycle), by far. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/80580.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/80580.pdf

pfdietz 3y ago
Unless you consider the CO2 emitted while you wait for the nuclear plant to come online and displace fossil fuels. Lifecycle emissions also assume all the parts are being made with current energy mix. In the zero fossil fuel future, where is the CO2 emission for PV coming from? Concrete production? PV uses much less concrete than nuclear per levelized unit of power.
- vlovich123 3y ago
  Panels don’t spring from the ether. From mining the silica and other materials that go into PV, to transporting it, refining it, transporting it again, manufacturing the panel and transporting them again across the world (since this all happens in Asia). I too am surprised by the claim that nuclear outperforms its way better and I’m a strong believer that nuclear is the only thing that can get us closer to net 0 than any other. Here’s a link comparing lifecycle co2 and it does show that nuclear is better: https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low...
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - vlovich123 3y ago
      You realize we’re nowhere near decarbonizing the manufacturing sector and the related transportation right? Like probably not even 2075. Think diesel trucks, diesel excavators, diesel power tools, diesel boats, etc etc. You have to take the world as it is not as you’d like it to be. You also mention the time spent waiting for nuclear to come online but fail to consider that PV has consistently failed to reduce fossil fuel usage (in absolute or percentage numbers) even as the market share of it has skyrocketed. That would indicate that at best solar panels are helping offset energy growth from using fossil fuels although in practice it’s more likely that it’s been eating market share from things like biomass and other alternative fuels. Sure in some hypothetical future it might be a lot less. But notice how you complain about not factoring in the manufacturing time of a nuclear plant in terms of lifetime CO2 emissions but then conveniently ignore the time we’d need to supplant those same co2 emissions with solar + batteries? That’s a terribly bad faith argument. Also more PV installations don’t help get us to true net 0 because some manufacturing needs such high levels of heat that they collocate with power plants that generate heat (fossil fuels or nuclear). Not to mention what do you with boats? I’m pretty sure we’d need nuclear on shipping boats to get rid of that massive amount of CO2. PV and wind power plants can’t help with that either. There’s some talk about electrifying the ports but best case attached solar in ports will be used to get to net 0 while at port (but still massive emitters during transit). Lifecycle emissions today definitely matter because we have to build a realistic trajectory. And in 2050 when PVs have failed to help us achieve net 0 the argument will come up again “oh but now nuclear is too expensive / takes too long to build” etc. we should be investing in and building nuclear power aggressively not continuing to put our eggs in the perennial disappointment that is PV power plants.
      - ViewTrick1002 3y ago
        > You also mention the time spent waiting for nuclear to come online but fail to consider that PV has consistently failed to reduce fossil fuel usage (in absolute or percentage numbers) even as the market share of it has skyrocketed. You should look at flows rather than stocks. > However, stocks are a lagging indicator. Stocks follow flows; the car fleet follows car sales. Flows are the leading indicator. In the early stages of a transition, flows present a very different story to stocks. For instance, it is frequently noted that fossil fuels account for over 80 percent of global primary energy and this number hasn’t budged meaningfully for decades. > Rarely mentioned is the fact that renewables have been taking an increasing share of the growth in energy supply, and all of the growth in 2019-21. Moving the focus from stocks to flows moves the conclusion from no change to radical change. Concentrating on the size of the fossil fuel system today is like focusing on the large number of horses in 1900 — it was as good a guide then as it is now. https://www.theclimatebrink.com/cp/138702709 https://www.theclimatebrink.com/cp/138702709 For example, China's fossil use is set for structural decline since renewables more than make up the required grid expansions. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/13/chinas-carbon-emissions-set-for-structural-decline-from-next-year https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/13/chinas-carb...
        vlovich123 3y ago
        No I’m looking at flows. Look at the change in % of fossil fuels to other energy sources over time. When Nuclear goes up, fossil fuels goes down, when it goes down fossil fuels go up. When solar/wind go up, fossil fuels are untouched. https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix Also, again - PVs can only replace grid energy (well not even then because we don’t have an answer for storage & there’s nothing being built anytime soon & we don’t really have anything realistic in the R&D pipeline). Plenty of energy use in the production of PVs is off-grid and we’re doing terribly on replacing that. PVs manufacturing isn’t going to be net-0 for a very very very long time.
        pfdietz 3y ago
        > PVs can only replace grid energy PV can replace anything. The question is cost. At historical experience rates, PV energy will be under $0.01/kWh by the time the world is solar powered. Resistive heat using this would be comparable in cost to combustion of currently cheap US natural gas, perhaps even cheaper. It would literally be cheaper to use that to heat up a large mass of rock and use that to make steam to make power, than it would be to make that steam (and then generate power) with a nuclear reactor instead.
    - RecycledEle 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - pfdietz 3y ago
        [flagged]
      - pfdietz 3y ago
        It's not a double standard, it's arguing two possible ways his claim could work. I'm showing that his claim doesn't work in either interpretation.
- coldpie 3y ago
  The answer, of course, is to do both. PV is great and we should be building massive amounts of it. Nuclear is also great and we should also be building massive amounts of that. They each have pros & cons.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    No "of course" about it. Nuclear is struggling to find any reasonable use case. Nuclear and renewables not complementary; you can't economically back up renewables with nuclear.
    - coldpie 3y ago
      I'm not aware of any existing or even near-future feasible renewable solution for indoor heating over the winter months in northern climates, other than nuclear. Nuclear exists, it's proven, it works. And it's not even that expensive. We could build two of the famously overpriced Georgia nuclear plant for the price one guy paid to shut down a social media website. We could build three of them for the price Microsoft paid to buy a video game company. And we could definitely get prices down if we actually wanted to. I think it's really, really bad policy to be quibbling over pennies when discussing solutions to this literally civilization-ending catastrophe that is staring us in the face. We have to do both. If you're worried about economics, it's way more expensive not to be building out every solution we have available to us. Nuclear is a good solution in many cases. It does us no good to just take it off the table, at least until we actually have better solutions.
      - pfdietz 3y ago
        > I'm not aware of any existing or even near-future feasible renewable solution for indoor heating over the winter months in northern climates, other than nuclear. Make hydrogen during the summer (or wind peaks). Store it underground (Europe has space in salt formations for many PWh of hydrogen, for example), use in winter to generate power during dark-calm periods, drive heat pumps with the power. This is likely to be cheaper than a system that uses nuclear power plants to drive those heat pumps.

by sofixa 3y ago

pfdietz 3y ago

Unless you consider the CO2 emitted while you wait for the nuclear plant to come online and displace fossil fuels. Lifecycle emissions also assume all the parts are being made with current energy mix. In the zero fossil fuel future, where is the CO2 emission for PV coming from? Concrete production? PV uses much less concrete than nuclear per levelized unit of power.

vlovich123 3y ago
Panels don’t spring from the ether. From mining the silica and other materials that go into PV, to transporting it, refining it, transporting it again, manufacturing the panel and transporting them again across the world (since this all happens in Asia). I too am surprised by the claim that nuclear outperforms its way better and I’m a strong believer that nuclear is the only thing that can get us closer to net 0 than any other. Here’s a link comparing lifecycle co2 and it does show that nuclear is better: https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low...
- pfdietz 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - vlovich123 3y ago
    You realize we’re nowhere near decarbonizing the manufacturing sector and the related transportation right? Like probably not even 2075. Think diesel trucks, diesel excavators, diesel power tools, diesel boats, etc etc. You have to take the world as it is not as you’d like it to be. You also mention the time spent waiting for nuclear to come online but fail to consider that PV has consistently failed to reduce fossil fuel usage (in absolute or percentage numbers) even as the market share of it has skyrocketed. That would indicate that at best solar panels are helping offset energy growth from using fossil fuels although in practice it’s more likely that it’s been eating market share from things like biomass and other alternative fuels. Sure in some hypothetical future it might be a lot less. But notice how you complain about not factoring in the manufacturing time of a nuclear plant in terms of lifetime CO2 emissions but then conveniently ignore the time we’d need to supplant those same co2 emissions with solar + batteries? That’s a terribly bad faith argument. Also more PV installations don’t help get us to true net 0 because some manufacturing needs such high levels of heat that they collocate with power plants that generate heat (fossil fuels or nuclear). Not to mention what do you with boats? I’m pretty sure we’d need nuclear on shipping boats to get rid of that massive amount of CO2. PV and wind power plants can’t help with that either. There’s some talk about electrifying the ports but best case attached solar in ports will be used to get to net 0 while at port (but still massive emitters during transit). Lifecycle emissions today definitely matter because we have to build a realistic trajectory. And in 2050 when PVs have failed to help us achieve net 0 the argument will come up again “oh but now nuclear is too expensive / takes too long to build” etc. we should be investing in and building nuclear power aggressively not continuing to put our eggs in the perennial disappointment that is PV power plants.
    - ViewTrick1002 3y ago
      > You also mention the time spent waiting for nuclear to come online but fail to consider that PV has consistently failed to reduce fossil fuel usage (in absolute or percentage numbers) even as the market share of it has skyrocketed. You should look at flows rather than stocks. > However, stocks are a lagging indicator. Stocks follow flows; the car fleet follows car sales. Flows are the leading indicator. In the early stages of a transition, flows present a very different story to stocks. For instance, it is frequently noted that fossil fuels account for over 80 percent of global primary energy and this number hasn’t budged meaningfully for decades. > Rarely mentioned is the fact that renewables have been taking an increasing share of the growth in energy supply, and all of the growth in 2019-21. Moving the focus from stocks to flows moves the conclusion from no change to radical change. Concentrating on the size of the fossil fuel system today is like focusing on the large number of horses in 1900 — it was as good a guide then as it is now. https://www.theclimatebrink.com/cp/138702709 https://www.theclimatebrink.com/cp/138702709 For example, China's fossil use is set for structural decline since renewables more than make up the required grid expansions. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/13/chinas-carbon-emissions-set-for-structural-decline-from-next-year https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/13/chinas-carb...
      - vlovich123 3y ago
        No I’m looking at flows. Look at the change in % of fossil fuels to other energy sources over time. When Nuclear goes up, fossil fuels goes down, when it goes down fossil fuels go up. When solar/wind go up, fossil fuels are untouched. https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix Also, again - PVs can only replace grid energy (well not even then because we don’t have an answer for storage & there’s nothing being built anytime soon & we don’t really have anything realistic in the R&D pipeline). Plenty of energy use in the production of PVs is off-grid and we’re doing terribly on replacing that. PVs manufacturing isn’t going to be net-0 for a very very very long time.
        pfdietz 3y ago
        > PVs can only replace grid energy PV can replace anything. The question is cost. At historical experience rates, PV energy will be under $0.01/kWh by the time the world is solar powered. Resistive heat using this would be comparable in cost to combustion of currently cheap US natural gas, perhaps even cheaper. It would literally be cheaper to use that to heat up a large mass of rock and use that to make steam to make power, than it would be to make that steam (and then generate power) with a nuclear reactor instead.
  - RecycledEle 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      It's not a double standard, it's arguing two possible ways his claim could work. I'm showing that his claim doesn't work in either interpretation.
coldpie 3y ago
The answer, of course, is to do both. PV is great and we should be building massive amounts of it. Nuclear is also great and we should also be building massive amounts of that. They each have pros & cons.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  No "of course" about it. Nuclear is struggling to find any reasonable use case. Nuclear and renewables not complementary; you can't economically back up renewables with nuclear.
  - coldpie 3y ago
    I'm not aware of any existing or even near-future feasible renewable solution for indoor heating over the winter months in northern climates, other than nuclear. Nuclear exists, it's proven, it works. And it's not even that expensive. We could build two of the famously overpriced Georgia nuclear plant for the price one guy paid to shut down a social media website. We could build three of them for the price Microsoft paid to buy a video game company. And we could definitely get prices down if we actually wanted to. I think it's really, really bad policy to be quibbling over pennies when discussing solutions to this literally civilization-ending catastrophe that is staring us in the face. We have to do both. If you're worried about economics, it's way more expensive not to be building out every solution we have available to us. Nuclear is a good solution in many cases. It does us no good to just take it off the table, at least until we actually have better solutions.
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      > I'm not aware of any existing or even near-future feasible renewable solution for indoor heating over the winter months in northern climates, other than nuclear. Make hydrogen during the summer (or wind peaks). Store it underground (Europe has space in salt formations for many PWh of hydrogen, for example), use in winter to generate power during dark-calm periods, drive heat pumps with the power. This is likely to be cheaper than a system that uses nuclear power plants to drive those heat pumps.