this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
1147 points (95.0% liked)

World News

39396 readers
2840 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Nuclear power is the ONLY form of clean energy that can be scaled up in time to save us from the worst of climate change.

Long term nuclear is great...

But building new plants uses a shit ton of concrete. So we're paying the carbon cost up front, and it can take years or even decades to break even.

So we can't just spam build nuke plants right now to fix everything.

30 years ago that would have worked.

[–] Ertebolle@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago

But building new plants uses a shit ton of concrete. So we’re paying the carbon cost up front, and it can take years or even decades to break even.

That's not remotely on the same scale, carbon-wise. Global output is like 4 billion tons of concrete per year, a nuclear plant uses like 12 tons per megawatt; an all-in nuclear buildout would use a tiny, tiny fraction of global concrete production and the carbon costs aren't even remotely equivalent.

(also, wind power uses way, way more concrete)

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Building any sort of new power plant uses a shitload of concrete, so that cost isn't as dramatic as this would seem.

I think nuclear is dramatically overstated in terms of short term feasibility, but concrete use is not the reason why.

[–] echo64@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

do you have a source for this carbon cost? i can't find any figures about even the amount of concrete in a nuclear plant nevermind the co2 cost of that.

I do find a lot of literature that states that the lifecycle co2 cost of nuclear is on part with solar and wind per kwh so i find your assertment about the payback time being decades a little unlikely to say the least.

[–] nalyd@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

I don't think it's a far fetched statement, but I'm also not sure if it's true.

I know concrete has a pretty big carbon footprint, but, I don't know how that scales in relation to the carbon savings of nuclear power.

[–] MigratingApe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

(What’s with the downvotes?)

Small scale reactors that require almost no maintenance and produce enough power for a single city are the hot topic right now due to what you just mentioned. As a side product, they provide hot water for the city.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

(What’s with the downvotes?)

Lots of people know virtually nothing about nuclear even tho they're avid supporters of it. So when you point out a downside, they get mad.

As a side product, they provide hot water for the city.

Hot water (technically superheated steam) is the main (and only immediate) product of a nuclear reactor...

Trying to directly use secondary coolant as hot potable water just makes zero sense though. It's waaaaay more efficient to move the electricity and then heat different water.

I mean, you're talking about an open loop nuclear system...

No sane engineer would ever do that. A small primary loop leak and your dosing everyone, all to just essentially lose efficiency.

Where did you even see that suggested?

[–] gibmiser@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Imagine living in a snowy city where hot water is pumped through the sidewalks to people's homes. No frozen pipes, no shoveling snow. No people freezing to death...

[–] dojan@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

You still need to clear snow and ice. The hot water pipes are insulated to ensure that the hot water remains hot until it goes into radiators and faucets. You'd lose all that heat if you use it to heat sidewalks.

My city does this. Hot water is pretty cheap here if you're hooked up to the municipal network. If you have an electric water heater you'll go bankrupt in the winter.

[–] Wooki@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

8 years to build, not 30. Instead we are building many many more coal and gas plants. What a terrific alternative. Fallacy of renewables without storage is done. It’s never going to happen.