When do we get the next one?

  • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • ebikefolder@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • ebikefolder@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

            • ebikefolder@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              So why are we still using fossil fuels then?

              You already gave the answer: Because they should have started sooner.

              • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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.