@DPUGT2
link
fedilink
29M

I can’t wait until we finally decommission all these CO2-spewing nuclear reactors. Maybe we can then start to repair climate change!

I don’t think nuclear reactors spew CO2. Why would they and where does the carbon come from?

I think the biggest problem is all the concrete that goes into building them.

Then there’s the concrete needed for nuclear waste dumps. You have to consider the whole life-cycle of the plant before comparing.

@DPUGT2
link
fedilink
39M

Exactly. The concrete for just one nuclear reactor could build apartment buildings for 192 quadrillion humans (not that there are so many). We’re talking teratons of carbon dioxide, per plant. It’s just too much. I mean, I don’t like the coal plants that we’re using during the transition to true renewable energy, but that’s only the tiniest fraction of carbon dioxide that is produced during the construction of a single nuclear plant.

Thankfully, solar and wind don’t use concrete at all. Those installations are anchored into the ground with unicorn farts and pixie dust, making them environmentally friendly and safe for humanity. Say no to big concrete.

@roastpotatothief
link
fedilink
6
edit-2
9M

Following the discussion in the other comments, I did some research.

People usually cite this, which cites this which cites this, which cites this.

You can see there that plant construction and decommissioning are both counted, and that the comparison for nuclear versus renewables is very good.

@DPUGT2
link
fedilink
-19M

Nuclear is dangerous. There is no getting around this. It’s dangerous in many more ways than coal or oil, it’s more dangerous than anything. It is a constant, ongoing natural disaster. No one who calls themselves an environmentalist could possibly downplay the catastrophe that is nuclear.

In what sense is it more dangerous than coal, if not in terms of human or animal deaths, or environmental damage? It’s more dangerous by what measure?

@pingveno
link
fedilink
39M

Of course, no energy source is going to be without its issues and impacts. Wind and solar are intermittent. Battery technology just isn’t there yet for a whole-grid battery, and the amount of resources involved in creating those batteries with current technology would be its own environmental impact. You need a baseline power source, and nuclear fills that niche well.

@roastpotatothief
link
fedilink
3
edit-2
9M

For me, it’s not a choice, you need all of them. None of these technologies can alone feed the huge energy appetites of data-centres.

Tidal power is under-exploited today and has huge potential. Nuclear and bio-diesel could have complementary huge roles. Wind-power is 100x less efficient than tidal, but it can be used inland.

I just want people to do their sums. Politicians are today planning nuclear plants, but forgetting about the huge fallout from decommissioning and toxic waste.

@pingveno
link
fedilink
29M

Yeah, it’s gotta be all of the above. We don’t have time to eliminate viable options just because they have some downsides.

0xCAFe
link
fedilink
29M

Sad, but true…

deleted by creator

Green - An environmentalist community
!green

    This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!


    RULES:

    1- Remember the human

    2- Link posts should come from a reputable source

    3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith


    Related communities:


    Chat rooms:

    • 0 users online
    • 1 user / day
    • 8 users / week
    • 26 users / month
    • 139 users / 6 months
    • 1.61K subscribers
    • 943 Posts
    • 1.68K Comments
    • Modlog