4 ms·
If climate change prevention is the target, then its also an no for nuclear. Nuclear reactors need tons of cement, the fuel needs an complicated and energy inte
by stop50 6mo ago
If climate change prevention is the target, then its also an no for nuclear.
Nuclear reactors need tons of cement, the fuel needs an complicated and energy intensive process with a lot of waste.
- vanviegen 6mo agoOkay, but how do those emissions compare to burning fuel to gain the same amount of energy?
- OneDonOne 6mo agoBy that logic solar power should also be banned, due to the amount of coal required per panel (0) both for reduction and Czochralski process. And remember, solar panel factories don't run on solar power. (0) https://co2coalition.org/2024/05/21/coals-importance-for-solar-panel-manufacturing/ https://co2coalition.org/2024/05/21/coals-importance-for-sol...
- markus92 6mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_Coalition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_Coalition
- OneDonOne 6mo agoHow does that change the fact that solar panels cannot be manufactured without high quality coal? (0) And doesn't that undermine the "cement for nuclear power" argument? (0) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335083312_Why_do_we_burn_coal_and_trees_to_make_solar_panels https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335083312_Why_do_we...
- pjerem 6mo agoThat’s false but hey, you have proofs I guess ?
- AnthonyMouse 6mo agoCO2 per kWh is lower for nuclear (12g/kWh) than it is for solar (41g/kWh): https://www.solar.com/learn/what-is-the-carbon-footprint-of-solar-panels/ https://www.solar.com/learn/what-is-the-carbon-footprint-of-... That link is also using an average including older reactors that require more highly enriched uranium (enrichment is energy-intensive), newer designs that can run on natural or low enrichment uranium can do 1.31g/kWh: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/energy-research/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2023.1147016/full https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/energy-research/article...