When it comes to energy, wind and solar are the only sensible bet. Nuclear and CCS just aren’t going to cut it, and the evidence is substantial. We need the simple options that work WITH our environment, not the complex & expensive technologies that reflect the same extractive/exploitative attitudes as fossil fuels. There’s a huge amount of helpful information in this IPCC graphic (full version here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/figures/summary-for-policymakers/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FigureSPM7.png , Guardian article here: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/20/down-to-earth-ipcc-emissions?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other ). #energy #climate
@helenczerski How exactly does nuclear not cut emissions as well as wind/solar? Neither link addresses that.
@indyradio Heat can be reclaimed and reused.
Nuclear is more efficient than wind/solar in many ways, especially land usage, and both options produce non-biodegradable waste.
I just want to know what exactly causes nuclear to have less potential contribution to net emission reduction when nuclear is an emission-free option.
@indyradio @helenczerski @LouisIngenthron But they shut it down to replace it with coal. 🤦
@indyradio @helenczerski @LouisIngenthron So were the nuclear power stations.
@indyradio @helenczerski @LouisIngenthron You keep the nuclear power stations going till you have the capacity to replace them with renewables, smart grid, and storage.
Or you burn fossil fuels.
@indyradio @helenczerski @LouisIngenthron You can reschedule.
@indyradio @helenczerski @LouisIngenthron the warming from adding heat to the environment is absolutely negligible compared to the heat insulated by CO2 emissions. It's orders of magnitude greater.
@LouisIngenthron The full IPCC report does. Nuclear plants are hugely complex and resource-intensive, and there are also the carbon emissions associated with long-term storage of fuel (which has so far NEVER been done - the first real long-term nuclear storage for ANY historical waste will only come online in 2028).
@helenczerski @LouisIngenthron What's the long term storage plan?
@jautero @helenczerski Can't see many carbon emissions there. Just a strongly worded warning.
@helenczerski Do you have a link you can share to that, please?
@helenczerski Just read through the part of the report for nuclear and it does not explain this discrepancy. In fact, it starts with "Nuclear power can deliver low-carbon energy at scale (high confidence)".
As for the first long-term storage opening in 2028, maybe it would have come sooner if nuclear had half the subsidies that renewables have now....
@LouisIngenthron In this congressional report: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RS22858.pdf you can see how the historical subsidies (at least from the DOE) stack up. Over the last 71 years, 48% of the total has gone to nuclear, and 13% to renewables. The problem with nuclear is not lack of subsidy - it’s been almost entirely bankrolled by governments throughout. And although it may be able to deliver low carbon energy, it’s extraordinarily expensive compared with anything else.
@helenczerski Last 71 years? How about the last 30?
@LouisIngenthron You can see for yourself in the table (at least for the last 40): still twice as much for nuclear as renewables.
@helenczerski My apologies. I stand corrected.
