• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • MigratingApe@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      (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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      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.

    • zik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Long term nuclear is great

      It’s the most expensive option so I’m not sure why people here are so keen on it. It’s much cheaper and faster to scale up renewable energy and in-fill with batteries and gas. Then phase out gas over time for a mix of things like pumped hydro, tidal, etc… This is already working in a lot of places and doesn’t involve long build times like nuclear.