916
submitted 10 months ago by boem@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 59 points 10 months ago

It's worth pointing out that the renewables break down as such (% of all electricity):

  • Solar: 6%
  • Hydro: 6%
  • Wind: 10%
  • Nuclear: 18%

Nuclear energy is providing more than any other individual source, making up 45% of all renewable electricity.

Next time you hear someone "concerned about global warming" also fearmonger about nuclear energy, it's worth considering where their allegiances lie. Most people are misguided, but when it comes to politicians, it says a lot about how much they actually care about sustainability.

[-] Thrashy@lemmy.world 24 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

There have been studies (this one, for example) that suggest the total radioactivity-related health impacts from coal power exceed that of nuclear power by an order of magnitude. That's not all pollution-related deaths for coal -- just those associated with radon exposure inside of mines, and radioactive materials embedded in coal going out into the environment. For all the fear-mongering about nuclear, it's hard to find a less dangerous source of base load generation using present-day technologies. Maybe once grid-scale batteries are available at scale, they could replace nuke plants, but that's a solution ten years too late for an environmental problem we have to fix right now.

[-] _dev_null@lemmy.zxcvn.xyz 3 points 10 months ago

radioactive materials embedded in coal going out into the environment

They should put it beyond the environment.

[-] r_thndr@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 10 months ago

Tow it outside the environment

[-] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 10 months ago

i wonder where the world we be today if we didnt stop funding nuclear, if gen 4 designs actually had proper money pushing them forward.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

We'd be better suited to reduce emissions, that's for sure.

[-] datendefekt@lemmy.ml 7 points 10 months ago

What is renewable about nuclear? It's not a fossil fuel, but uranium has to be mined and is a finite resource just like oil.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Uranium isn't the only fuel source, for one. Fusion reactors, if we can figure out the underlying science, world likely use hydrogen. New generation reactors can use Thorium, and breeder tractors are able to generate usable fuel from nuclear waste.

Not to mention, uranium is finite but we have enough supply of it to develop other technologies while we still reduce emissions via nuclear.

And this is discounting new technologies which could allow us to create a large artificial uranium supply.

[-] Rawdogthatexe@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago

It's not renewable but we have something like 200 years worth. It's a cleaner stopgap than fossil fuels until we figure out fusion and build up renewable capacity.

[-] BastingChemina@slrpnk.net 1 points 10 months ago

200 years with current technology.

With breeders reactors such as superphenix built in the 90s you can multiply this amount by almost a 100.

After a millennia if we still rely on the same technology and we start to worry about the supply we can start seawater extraction of uranium. Seawater extraction is not considered economically viable right now but it as the potential of bringing the supply nuclear reactors for another few billions years.

So from a practical point of view it could be considered as renewable or close to it.

[-] siririus@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Nuclear has been at that supply level since the 1970s. Other parts of the world have much higher renewable mixes in their energy inputs. For example, Germany:

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-likely-pass-50-mark-renewable-power-this-year-minister-2023-09-18/

Nuclear is not necessary to meet climate change targets. In fact, it's so damned expensive to deploy and maintain, it will harm meeting those targets.

[-] Ibex0@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Don't forget geothermal. California has a little of that

[-] misophist@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Geothermal - 0.4%

Geothermal is not quite to the point where we can represent it with a whole number percentage value, but it's getting there! If we're going to include sub-1% generators, burning wood has geothermal beat out at 0.8%. Geothermal is cool, though!

[-] BastingChemina@slrpnk.net 1 points 10 months ago

Burning wood is extremely important for reaching 100% renewable.

It's one of the only pilotable renewables energy. Even with a lot of battery there is still long period with very little sun and wind that will require to fire up a thermal power station.

Wood is a very good candidate for that.

this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2023
916 points (97.6% liked)

Technology

59287 readers
5178 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS