40+ years of generating clean CO2-free energy.
Designed with slide rules and drafting tables.
An unbelievable accomplishment!
Designed with slide rules and drafting tables.
An unbelievable accomplishment!
But this reactor uses tons of CO2 as coolant! /s
[Its] impact is 34 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period
https://unfccc.int/news/new-methane-signs-underline-urgency-...
2. Nuclear waste is not as trivial as you make it sound, especially if you consider the length of time it has to be managed.
However, even present-day renewable technology can apparently provide 80% of project US energy demand of 2050: https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/can-the-world-ru... ; and expected to provide 70% of Denmark's demand by next year already (same article) - despite the non-uniform output of Solar and of Wind. And technology marches on.
3. If countries link up their grids, there would be some mitigation of the non-uniformity of Solar and Wind output.
4. Energy storage technology.
5. CO_2 is a big issue. But non-renewable energy sources which run the risk of causing nuclear holocausts - while not entirely out of the question should be considered only to the extent renewable sources cannot be exploited instead.
6. IIANM One can also significantly decrease the amount of CO_2 emissions from fossil-fuel-fired plants through different process technology. It's not clear to me that between that and construction of nuclear plants, the latter wins out (although I don't have a strong opinion on the matter).
This is an incredibly disingenuous comparison. Nuclear waste is not even remotely as much of a problem as CO2 emissions. Nuclear waste can be encased in concrete and buried in remote areas. There are also several areas already irradiated by nuclear bomb testing, so putting the waste there is moot (This applies to the Yucca Mountain facility). The hypothetical situations in which nuclear waste could result in human contamination are borderline absurd. Sure, if society collapses and all records of these waste locations are lost, and if some future civilization decides to dig a mile deep in a remote area with no natural resources, and if they decide to crack open these concrete caskets because all knowledge of 21st Century languages are lost so they can't read the warnings, and if they manage to do all this without knowledge of radiation then humans might get contaminated.
By comparison, CO2 emissions get pumped straight into the atmosphere
> It is indeed a significant accomplishment. Let's keep it that way by ceasing operation on time and not risk tarring the accomplishment with a reactor failure.
Yeah, and then turn around and build more coal and gas plants because the other alternatives cannot provide consistent power at the same price point. This is what happened in Germany and Japan. Anti-nuclear runs contrary to the principles of clean energy. In fact some estimates indicate that the coal plants built in Japan following the reactor closures after the Fukishima Daichi plant failure will actually end up emitting more radiation than the incident itself.
By contrast, how do you reduce the CO2 output of coal? Do the same thing and replace the electricity the plant generates with nuclear and solar?
For nuclear, CO2 emitted by the concrete should obviously be counted. But uranium mining?
As you say, vegan vs carnivore (and red vs other meats) would be a factor just as whether the electric power comes from renewable or fossil power.
And to get super complicated you could then weigh the cost of healthcare if the rider is using less physical exertion.
And the gasoline used to run the mining vehicles and transport vehicles are already counted in other carbon emission categories - namely transportation. So if you included them in the power generation emissions estimate you're likely double counting them.