this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2024
83 points (92.8% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5240 readers
726 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world. About 1C of total warming. Second chart: about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability. Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases. About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
83
U.S. Seeks to Boost Nuclear Power After Decades of Inertia | Measures moving through Congress to encourage new reactors are receiving broad bipartisan support (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 8 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
36 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mipadaitu@lemmy.world 17 points 8 months ago (4 children)

Best time to build a nuclear reactor was 20 years ago.

Second best time is now.

[–] suppenloeffel@feddit.de 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Isn't nuclear one, if not the most, expensive form of energy production once you factor in stuff like maintenance and disposal?

Not trying to do the whole hot take thing here, I genuinely don't get why investing in nuclear is still pursued versus investing in renewable sources when mobility and land isn't an issue.

EDIT:

“Tackling the climate crisis means we must modernize our approach to all clean energy sources, including nuclear,” said Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado. “Nuclear energy is not a silver bullet, but if we’re going to get to net zero carbon emissions by 2050, it must be part of the mix.”

kind of provides at least a partial answer: Time. Though this quote gave me graphite control rod vibes:

Some Democrats and Republicans in Congress have criticized the N.R.C. for being too slow in approving new designs. Many of the regulations that the commission uses, they say, were designed for an older era of reactors and are no longer appropriate for advanced reactors that may be inherently safer.

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

There's a lot to unpack in nuclear being the most expensive form of energy production, like:

  • While nuclear absolutely must be held to extremely rigorous safety standards, I seem to remember that the fossil industry leveraged the nuclear panic in the 80s to lobby all manner of bullshit red tape on top of good regulations, and that has dramatically increased time and financial cost to building new reactors.

  • Does that also factor in all externalities, like radiological waste from coal fire plants, and the damage from carbon emissions contributing to climate change? Or are we only counting the externalities of nuclear?

  • Are we also including new generations of reactors, which are supposedly safer, produce less waste, and less able to be used for nuclear weapons production? Or are we just looking at the reactor designs from 70 years ago that represent all of what's in operation in the US today? Can you imagine trying to argue for solar or wind with designs from 70 years ago? It'd be a pretty hard sell.

[–] suppenloeffel@feddit.de 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Thank you for taking the time.

I'm pretty sure that nuclear power is vastly more expensive to produce and maintain. Especially when comparing to solar/wind, since fossil power isn't desirable at all due to emissions.

Solar and wind generation is so much more efficient than even two decades ago, newer designs of nuclear plants aren't really any more efficient, but safer and more expensive. So I'm still not getting the push for more nuclear.

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I think for me, the best argument is having an energy backbone. I, admittedly, have little evidence on this front, but I'm skeptical about the long term cost effectiveness of grid scale batteries. Batteries don't last forever, and these are fuck off big batteries, and we're going to need a lot of them by yesterday, and they have to work, and they have to not burn down the entire grid capacity if one of the batteries cooks off (something lithium is terrible at, but I don't think they use lithium at grid scale, usually). And on top of that, from what I recall, grid scale batteries are really, really, really expensive, though I'm not 100% sure if I'm remembering that rught. It just seems like it would make more sense, both in terms of logistics and economics, to have an energy backbone comprised of safer, modern fission reactors.

[–] suppenloeffel@feddit.de 2 points 8 months ago

Yeah, I mostly agree on that. Nuclear may be more expensive and risky, but it's also very predictable. That kind of enables it to act as a sort of safety net to smooth over the variable nature of renewables, though changing the output of a nuclear power plant is a very slow process, AFAIK.

I'm not against nuclear power per se, I'm viewing it as more of a band-aid until more mature and universal grid buffers can fill the gap smoothing out the renewable input. Nuclear may very well be a necessary step for some nations to reach their climate targets, I'm not informed enough to judge that. But I fear that the money invested, lobbying and public opinion influenced by that seemingly easy alternative directly hinder the development and deployment of technologies that lead to a renewable, cheap and reliable grid.

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

I think we could go back another decade or two and still be correct.

[–] Hugohase@kbin.social 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Best time to build a reactor is never. Better to use the fuckton of money for cheaper and better renewables...

[–] Ooops@kbin.social 6 points 8 months ago

But then you would need another excuse in ~2 decades but having build not enough expensive nuclear power, still struggling to get the ones in production finished and still burning fossil fuels...

And we all know that destroying the planet for profits is the actual goal here.

The exact same people spending huge sums on deying climate change for decades are now paying for "it's all too late and we are doomed anyway, so why try to do anything" and "nuclear power, especially future designs far from actually being production ready, will safe us" messaging.

[–] drknowledge@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Hydro and wind kill more people per terawatt hour. That leaves solar (and possibly tidal as that development ramps up). Putting all your eggs in just one form of renewables (solar) would be an insane risk. Base loads need to be addressed in order to phase out the fossil fuels.

There are more options with modern reactor designs. Small modular reactors can be built and brought online cheaper and faster than previous designs. That would allow a faster ROI (reducing fossil fuel usage faster).

Solar, wind, tidal and nuclear should be scaled simultaneously to reach our goals and not think it's just one or the other.

[–] derGottesknecht@feddit.de 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Wind kills 0.04 per TWH, nuclear 0.03 and solar 0.02. Why is nuclear acceptable for you and wind not?

[–] drknowledge@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Wind IS acceptable. Read the last paragraph. The first part of the comment is merely addressing the people that suggest solar only as it's the only source with less attributed deaths per terawatt hour. I'm also partial to the Norwegian hydro model.