this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2026
668 points (97.4% liked)
Science Memes
20830 readers
221 users here now
Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- Infographics welcome, get schooled.
Research Committee
Other Mander Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- !abiogenesis@mander.xyz
- !animal-behavior@mander.xyz
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !arachnology@mander.xyz
- !balconygardening@slrpnk.net
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !biology@mander.xyz
- !biophysics@mander.xyz
- !botany@mander.xyz
- !ecology@mander.xyz
- !entomology@mander.xyz
- !fermentation@mander.xyz
- !herpetology@mander.xyz
- !houseplants@mander.xyz
- !medicine@mander.xyz
- !microscopy@mander.xyz
- !mycology@mander.xyz
- !nudibranchs@mander.xyz
- !nutrition@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
- !photosynthesis@mander.xyz
- !plantid@mander.xyz
- !plants@mander.xyz
- !reptiles and amphibians@mander.xyz
Physical Sciences
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !chemistry@mander.xyz
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !geography@mander.xyz
- !geospatial@mander.xyz
- !nuclear@mander.xyz
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !quantum-computing@mander.xyz
- !spectroscopy@mander.xyz
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and sports-science@mander.xyz
- !gardening@mander.xyz
- !self sufficiency@mander.xyz
- !soilscience@slrpnk.net
- !terrariums@mander.xyz
- !timelapse@mander.xyz
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Extremely.
Even adding in construction and mining, it has the lowest carbon per KWh out of any option. Even Hydro comes out worse, due to the years of carbon and methane emissions from the decaying plant matter at the bottom of the newly formed lake.
Wind and solar are down there, but the mining costs and the low output per unit tend to bump the numbers.
Noted, that's just the carbon released. There are other metrics, and nuclear tends to meet most all of them because it's very heavily regulated.
Humanity's relationship with producing energy continually blows my mind, and it's one of the main things that makes me think that maybe we do live in a simulation.
We discovered fossil fuel energy, which was fine for a bit to kick off the industrial revolution, but obviously is super harmful in the long term. Then just as it was starting to become a problem, the universe went "okay, here's this magic rock that just gives off energy, you can use that to generate massive amounts of power with no carbon." And we just went "nah."
So then, the universe is like, "alright then, how about this: you can just get it from the sun, the air and water. Again no carbon and it's infinite free energy forever, you're welcome." And again, we were like "no we want to just burn fossils." Even now at the ecosystem is visibly collapsing around us we're adopting it somewhat, but still dragging ass on it like crazy.
It's like whoever's running the simulation keeps dropping the difficulty level to help us not die, and we just won't accept it. I fully expect in the next century or so we'll figure out cold fusion, build like two plants and humanity will just collectively go "BORING" and dig up more coal again.
it isn't "humanity" who stands in the way of moving on from fossil fuels, it's a few hundred extremely wealthy assholes who own the fossil fuel industry
This page's "Life cycle CO2 equivalent (including albedo effect)" page says Nuclear is just a hair worse than onshore wind in the median case, significantly worse than both on- and offshore wind in the worst case (worst for both types), and slightly better in the best case. In best case, hydro actually beats nuclear.
Also, TIL tidal power isn't commercially in use. I swear we were learning about it in school 20 years ago, and were not even told then that it wasn't viable.
Including the effects of albedo seems rather straightforward and worth doing. Of course it neglects some more complicated factors, like opportunity cost of staying on fossil fuels in the meantime for the 20+ years it takes to build nuclear. A convenient part of the reason that the biggest proponents of nuclear tend to be those politicians and special interests who also support fossil fuels.
You don't need giant 20 year plants.
Small Modular Reactors can be built and deployed much faster.
You don't need to power an entire state with a single plant. You can scale it down to powering a single town. That's the current push, mass production of SMRs.
Coal ash (from some mines) contains so much uranium that if emissions like this were detected near NPP all hell would break loose, but nobody cares. Energy content of that uranium can be higher than what was released during coal combustion
"coal ash is worse" doesn't make nuclear waste clean and non toxic. Both are dirty, just different kinds of dirt. Geothermal is an excellent "boil water" technology independent of weather and without toxic waste.
Coal ash is dumped into a retaining pond by the ton.
Nuclear waster is highly controlled and produced by the pound and sealed into giant casks that can be struck by a full speed train without beaching.
I'm not defending coal, so stop trying that whataboutism BS with me.
Read the second sentence of my comment.
there are still coal powerplants around and any replacement is better. geothermal doesn't work everywhere
So what. That's why power lines exist. Coal is BS, nuclear is BS. A healthy mix of renewables is possible right now.
That's one hell of a claim. In fact such an outrageously bold one that you shouldn't be able to post a comment like that without citing a reputable source.
Not OP but
https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy
It's not that bold or outrageous... It's been common knowledge for over 40 years.
Basically since the dawn of nuclear power plants we knew it was the cleanest form of energy generation. That was literally its selling point.
The problem was the fear of radiation if shit went wrong.
The consequence of this legitimate fear is crazy security and the cost of it. To the point where the cost of new nuclear now struggles to compete with renewables. The new generation plants EPR are catastrophic in terms of budget and schedule.
The thing is, it's not a legitimate fear.
Radiation needs respect, but it's not the magic death sauce that Movies and the Oil industry claim it is.
We swim in a sea if radiation every moment of every day.
I studied physics at university, I also had the opportunity to visit Fukushima Daichi after the catastroph and one of the new EPR. Enrichied fuel used in nuclear power plants and the byproducts of the reactions are dangerous. The multiple security measures are not there for the pleasure of spending budget.
Dangerous, but slightly less so than you'd think.
Unless you already know that LNT is bullshit.
Also, the evacuation of Fukushima caused far more death than any radiation exposure.
Especially considering how much radioactive contamination is found in fly ash from coal power plants. And fly ash disposal is mostly unregulated. https://nicholas.duke.edu/news/radioactive-contaminants-found-coal-ash
The Nuclear industry actually makes an effort to clean up after itself. Coal wouldn't be such a big deal if they captured the carbon before it hit the atmosphere.
It would take far more than just capturing carbon to make coal clean.
Radioactivity isn't clean.
Coal plants put out more radioactive material than even the bomb factories they call nuclear power plants. Newer plant designs are FAR more fail safe too, and some can actually 'eat' the waste from older plants.
New nuclear is right up there with renewables, with the added bonus of being great for baseloads. The only problem is we needed to be building it 20 years ago, since it takes a long time to design, permit and build them properly. If we try to rely on them now, it will be too late.
That's been rigged by design due to... interests... it doesn't take that long to build one.
Fully agreed, though it's also something you really don't want done on too much of an accelerated timeline. Rushing the construction, when the fail-safes rely on it, and it will be an absolute bitch to fix later, is a poor plan.
Unfortunately the red tape has become far too risk adverse. E.g. the reactors china is now building were designed in the UK. The UK government killed 5 attempts to get them built through red tape and time killing. Eventually a Chinese scientist found out about the plans. (With permission) he contacted the Chinese government. Sufficient to say, those plans formed the basis for the newer Chinese reactors they are building out now. They are also exporting the expertise, since most western countries have had their skilled engineers reach retirement, before passing on their skills and knowledge.
In practice, you are looking at 5-10 years minimum, from site selection to power on.
True
Still beats 20.
Very true. It unfortunately doesn't include the delays from bureaucracies throwing excessive red tape at the project, with the goal of, if not killing it, kicking the decision down the road till it's someone else's problem. The UK government has been problematic on that front.
I might be an optimistic pessimist.
Class A whataboutism. Both are dirty, neither is clean.
It's relative harm. New nuclear is far cleaner than coal, and can slot into it's place in the grid. We should have done this decades ago, but the plans languished till china found out about them. (Much to the designers joy)
It's also not an either/or situation. As china is demonstrating, there is a limit to how quickly you can roll out renewables. Doing other, pollution reduction in parallel makes sense.
Taking nuclear off the table was the biggest win the oil barrons pulled off.
On a plus side, we will finally find out if fusion is viable in the next 5-10 years. The first over-unity test reactors, designed for sustained operation are being built.
Renewables are cheaper than building new reactors. Fusion is always viable in 10 years.
Fusion has been 10 years away, with proper funding. It never got that funding. It struggled to maintain the break even funding to keep skilled people employed, and the lights on.
The difference is that over unity has been achieved, in a normally sustainable manner. The funding is such that it's 5-10 years at current funding. Most of that is building the actual test plants.
I fully agree that renewables are currently the best cost option. The catch is that they are not viable everywhere. They are also inherently low density, so can get expensive in certain areas.
Basically, we want a mix of options, to fit local requirements. Nuclear (and later fusion) should be part of the plan.
In practice, I'm of the take what we can get. We need to crash CO2 output, and we need to do it yesterday. Anything speeding that up is a win, as far as I'm concerned.
Fusion got billions in funding and it led barely anywhere. Meanwhile renewables are the cheapest mass market options.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
Nuclear isn't good.
Fully clean technologies exist already.
Nuclear is cleaner than any other power option.
It's just Oil Industry lies that make it seem "dirty". Lies that started at the very beginning.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0009279723004544