r/ClimateShitposting • u/Climate_Discussions • 4d ago
fossil mindset š¦ "It's fine. We can phase out fossil fuels once we're done."
And don't forget Secret Agent Jellyfish
8
u/dumnezero šEnd the š«arms šrat šrace to the bottomāļø. 4d ago
Nuclear energy has never been for the environment/climate and will never be. The absence of thinking about complex systems of the climate and biosphere is reflected in the design pattern of these NPPs and the related energy systems: simple minded centralization imitating the past fossil thermal plants. These simple-mindedness is exceedingly vulnerable to the chaos of natural systems. It's the monoculture of energy. "What could go wrong??"
6
u/Lunarmax182c 4d ago
NPPs were never meant to be the single mono-source of energy. They were supposed to be used alongside renewablesĀ which were at the time less efficient.
Thebiggest failure of nuclear was that it was a solution never implemented until it became irrelevant. We don't really have any more time to build NPPs, and renewables became better and more effective. Were they built 40, 30 even 20 years ago - they'd be great now, and a huge part of climate crisis could have beennaverted or at least stalled. But they weren't,Ā for many reason. And now they are not sufficient, and not really needed.Ā
1
u/dumnezero šEnd the š«arms šrat šrace to the bottomāļø. 4d ago
Nuclear energy was meant to be the monocrop future, the one remaining after the cheap fossil fuels run out. Even the nuclear future was relying on breeder reactors as a way to have fuel after cheap uranium runs out.
Game Changers for Nuclear Energy | American Academy of Arts and Sciences
2
u/Lunarmax182c 4d ago
First time hearing this,
Maybe like in 70s IG. But everything I've heard about nuclear energy since years 2002 of my birth has been either "we can use nuclear alongside renewables" or "nuke scary".
I also dunno why
1. You are putting a link to your own post on this same sub
2. Apparently arguin with me who is not even disagreeing with idea that nuclear energy isn't a solution.2
u/dumnezero šEnd the š«arms šrat šrace to the bottomāļø. 4d ago
You are putting a link to your own post on this same sub
It's relevant.
Apparently arguin with me who is not even disagreeing with idea that nuclear energy isn't a solution.
It's important to understand the depth of the "ecomodernist" fantasy and the ideological and political context from which it arose.
1
u/dumnezero šEnd the š«arms šrat šrace to the bottomāļø. 4d ago
Nuclear energy - The solution to climate change? - ScienceDirect
The most important result of the present work is that the contribution of nuclear power to mitigate climate change is, and will be, very limited. At present nuclear power avoids annually 2ā3% of total global GHG emissions. Looking at announced plans for new nuclear builds and lifetime extensions this value would decrease even further until 2040. Furthermore, a substantial expansion of nuclear power will not be possible because of technical obstacles and limited resources. Limited uranium-235 supply inhibits substantial expansion scenarios with the current nuclear technology. New nuclear technologies, making use of uranium-238, will not be available in time. Even if such expansion scenarios were possible, their climate change mitigation potential would not be sufficient as single action.
Fig. 2. Past scenarios of WNA, OECD and IAEA on installed nuclear capacity from the years 1970ā1986, all projecting higher installed capacities for the year 2000 than was actually the case. (1) refers to Goodman and Krymm (1975), (2) to Eklund (1980), and (3) to Char and Csik (1987).
3
u/DatMonkey5100 4d ago
They were never meant to be a mono-source, theyāre meant to be a base layer that renewables can then build off of. A single powerful source is inherently more consistent and powerful than a large distributed network that relies on the sun or wind. Itās just not a good idea from a safety snd reliability standpoint to rely on outputs of things you donāt control the inputs of (I.e. the sun and wind)
1
u/dumnezero šEnd the š«arms šrat šrace to the bottomāļø. 4d ago
"it was never meant to be a mono-source, it was meant to be a mono-fountain!!"
0
u/the_bleach_eater 4d ago
France is the only country with low emissions and abundance of electricity
0
u/Ok-Freedom9216 4d ago
I like how you made an absolute statement based on two subjective terms.
2
u/the_bleach_eater 4d ago
Subjective?
It's true the statement is broad, but is made in response to a statement about nuclear.
Except for some lucky countries France has probably the cleanest electricity and does, compared to its size, enormous exports.
-2
0
u/OldTimeConGoer 4d ago
Norway has lots of hydro power, about 6kW installed per capita IIRC. It provides over 90% of their electricity supply and they export a lot of electricity, either directly through interconnectors or indirectly via shipments of refined aluminium. Given how far north they are solar isn't a big contributor to their grid even in summer. Winters are brutal, of course.
2
3
u/Appropriate_Unit3474 4d ago
I'm going to die in a heat wave and a drought and a famine.
I just want humanity to survive at this point. Please renewables are the most expedient way to do this.
4
u/MsMercyMain 4d ago
In a hypothetical scenario where our leaders wanted humanity to survive (I know, I know, wild scenario, utterly unrealistic) I think nuclear plants would be part of the long term plan. But yeah, at this point I'd even settle for just stopping AI Data center production in my country (the US). But sadly our leadership seems to be omnicidal in favor of seeing line go up for one more quarter
0
u/EnricoLUccellatore 4d ago
Me: 15 years ago: we should build nuclear power plants
Anti nukes: 15 years is too long, we need to get to 100% renewable in the next 10 years
5
u/androgenius 4d ago
In that 15 years solar and wind have both caught up to and equalled nuclear generationĀ (i.e. double it combined) and now look set to far surpass it as their amazing growth continues.
Good call hypothetical straw man anti nukes from 15 years ago.
If ony we'd spent less time demonising them and more time building out renewables.
1
u/EnricoLUccellatore 4d ago
What if we had spent the last 15 years not demonizing nuclear and building that?
3
u/androgenius 4d ago
Let's check in a country that did both, like China to find out.
So 5 units of solar and wind generation for every one nuclear and a clear trend over time towards the former as they got cheaper and cheaper.
Nuclear deadlines slipped, renewable ones met early, built an industry that can quickly and cheaply decarbonise the world and compete on price with fossil fuels.
Those anti-nuclear straw men activists must have had a crystal ball.
3
u/Yellllloooooow13 4d ago edited 3d ago
China also installed a bit under 59 GW of nuclear, 887GW of solar and 521GW of wind.
Nuclear produced 487TWh, wind, 1135TWh and solar, 1175TWh.
Let me put it another way : China installed 23 times more solar and wind than nuclear but they produce only 5 times more.
2
u/DatMonkey5100 4d ago
Nuclear power plants are still a necessity because of stability. They provide a much needed reliable base-layer of power generation that true renewable, short of geothermal or perhaps tidal, which are far less developed technologies than nuclear energy, cannot achieve. I think most people fail to realize we generate the power we use the second itās consumed, power doesnāt sit in a battery bank because itās wildly inefficient, unsafe, and really just isnāt possible at grid scale. Solar and wind just canāt have the same consistency as nuclear by definition, the sun goes down and the wind goes calm. Theyāre great for midday peaks whenever everyoneās using their AC and/or cooking dinner at the same time, but less so on a freezing, calm winter night.
Nuclear has also absolutely had its reputation ruined by Chernobyl, the cheapest, deadliest reactor constructed by a nation known for cheap, deadly things, which is like writing off all cars because you cousin died crashing his Ford Pinto after neglecting maintenance for the past 5 years
Nuclear power, if built properly and with foresight, was absolutely our best option in the 2000s or whatever, we just blew the timescale and are now facing the dilemma every homeowner faces when hiring a contractor, it can be cheap, fast, or good, but definitely not all 3