165
Current Climate: A New Nuclear Reactor Goes Online In Georgia
(www.forbes.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2023
165 points (95.6% liked)
Green - An environmentalist community
5234 readers
41 users here now
This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!
RULES:
1- Remember the human
2- Link posts should come from a reputable source
3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith
Related communities:
- /c/collapse
- /c/antreefa
- /c/gardening
- /c/eco_socialism@lemmygrad.ml
- /c/biology
- /c/criseciv
- /c/eco
- /c/environment@beehaw.org
- SLRPNK
Unofficial Chat rooms:
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
@Claidheamh
Nuclear is also very expensive. Bioenergy is the one I missed. That is far cheaper than nuclear and could be scaled up easily. I'm sure there will be a need for both the existing nuclear and indeed some fossil fuels for a while yet. But I think we should focus on getting our renewable energy resources in place in advance of building any new nuclear plants.
It may be expensive to build, but it's much cheaper to run. Just compare France's and Germany's energy prices.
Bioenergy is just more emissions we really can't afford to put into the atmosphere. It's basically just a fancy name for "burning wood".
@Claidheamh straw too. Biofuels are in fact carbon neutral. But yes release CO2. Nuclear also produces CO2 mainly due to the mining, processing and transportation of the fuel. But far less than say coal or gas. The reality is that some new reactors are going to be built. But I believe the money would have been better invested in onshore wind.
>Biofuels are in fact carbon neutral.
That's what their marketing would like you to believe. But they're only carbon neutral if you take into account the carbon being sequestered by the growth of plants before they're burned. By that measure they're just as carbon neutral as coal.
> Nuclear also produces CO2 mainly due to the mining, processing and transportation of the fuel.
That's not nuclear that produces CO2, that's mining, processing, and transportation. It's transversal to anything you build, be it nuclear, bioenergy, wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, anything. In the ideal conditions of your power being entirely carbon-free, then so is all of that.
Wind, solar, geothermal etc. need constant mining of fuel?
They need one-time mining of construction material to build those things, and that's it, for the next few decades.
>and that’s it
Point is that's just as big an "it" as the nuclear costs. Which, in a zero emissions world, is a very small "it". I'm not arguing against renewables, I'm arguing against fossil fuels. We need to replace all of it ASAP, and realistically nuclear is the easiest, most reliable way to reach that goal. Just compare Germany and France's emissions per capita, and then the distribution of their power source, and electricity costs.
ASAP? Take a look at planning and construction times of nuclear plants. Like Hinkley Point C in the UK for instance. Announced in 2010, generation now postponed to 2026, years behind schedule and billions over budget. And that's on an already pre-existing nuclear site.
Cost? Estimated 100 GBP/MWh. The difference to market prices will probably be coughed up by the taxpayer.
Renewables are way faster to install, for a fraction of the cost.
They should have started sooner and with more plants. But it's still much better for that nuclear plant be complete in 2030, than never. Delays and mismanagement aren't unique to nuclear, and no excuse to stop from building it.
>Renewables are way faster to install, for a fraction of the cost.
So why are we still using fossil fuels then? The best time to start building alternatives is yesterday. Second best time is now.
You already gave the answer: Because they should have started sooner.
So that's all I'm saying. Let's do all in our power to get rid of carbon emissions ASAP. The fact that it takes time is no excuse not to start.
Well no, because coal is deep deposits of carbon which have essentially left the carbon cycle. By digging it up and burning it we are adding carbon back which otherwise wasn't already an issue. Biofuels by definition rely on the carbon currently in the carbon cycle so they do not have this issue.
Sure, but the carbon in coal was captured from the atmosphere by plants previously (that's what I meant by "by that measure"). Let's just leave the carbon where it is, whether coal or plants, and not burn any more of it back into the atmosphere, please.
I'm saying they are fundamentally different and it is 100% true in theory that biofuel is carbon neutral. The plants scrub co2 from the atmosphere, then release that biomass out. It is physically not capable of releasing more than it scrubs except for conversion of co2 to higher co2 equivalent GHG.
Coal and oil are talking carbon from reserves which are currently not causing GHG effects and moving that carbon out to the atmosphere.
What's the difference for the greenhouse effect between burning dead reserves or living reserves?
The dead reserves, coal and oil, are NOT currently greenhouse gases (GHG). They have no effect on global warming, they are essentially inert.
Growing and burning living reserves takes currently active GHG, literally they use carbon from the air to grow their biomass (I.e. leaves, stems, everything). That ghg is temporarily stored in the plants, then equally released into the atmosphere from exactly where it came from.
The carbon can't be created or destroyed in either process from nothing, it's coming from somewhere. When burning the fuel that carbon is released to the atmosphere in the form of co2 and other products. Fossil fuels, from inert carbon repositories that haven't been in the atmosphere for many millions, hundreds of millions, of years. For biofuel, it's carbon that may have been in the atmosphere at most like... A year ago. As soon as yesterday.
Does that help clear things up? I was intentionally repetitive in case one method was more effective than the other.
I know all that, but I don't think you're understanding the point I'm making. Grow all those plants, and leave the carbon there. It's a much better use of our resources than burning it all again straight after. Let them become coal. And then continue not burning it.
You asked what the difference was and claimed that biofuels aren't carbon neutral and that both are equivalent. I explained why they are carbon neutral in theory and why they are very different from burning fossil fuels.
Carbon capture and biofuels are approaching two extremely different problems. Carbon capture is not mutually exclusive with biofuels, they aren't even close to alternatives. Framing them as alternatives is ridiculous. Literally different problems, carbon capture doesn't produce power (the opposite, in fact) and biofuels are extremely inefficient land use for carbon capture, and slow.
That just sounds like absurdly naive or bad faith black and white thinking, honestly. It doesn't make sense as a claim.
I don't support any continued burning it fossil fuels. That's what every previous generation said and look at the thermometer.
@lntl nor do I
In that case you should be in favor of nuclear, as it's the only real replacement we have for fossil fuels, no matter what Shell and BP will try to tell us.