Coal is filthy, but this is a myth and also an attempt at paltering.
Someone compared a poorly filtered coal plant running cherry picked coal to a brand new nuclear plant in the middle of its fuel cycle once decades ago and got the expected result.
When you open it and get the fuel out and when you mine the fuel it’s orders of magnitude more. Reprocessing plants like La Hague under normal operation release more of the long lived radiation than fukushima and TMI combined.
The U235 is good for about 3 years, and pinning everything on something that has never had more than a half proof of concept is a bad choice.
Why is it supposed to be easier to get people onboard with nuclear (which is decreasing) than wind and solar (which are increasing at triple the rate of the nuclear construction peak in the 80s and growing at 20% p.a.)?
People are on board with VRE. Some of the are on board with nuclear too, but it’s not working.
Four points:
The profile of other is short spikes 5-100 hours a few times a year.
1 year of delay is equivalent to 20 years of exclusively using fossil fuels for “other”.
It’s not even obvious that adding nuclear reactors would reduce this because they’re so geographically and temporally inflexible. France has 63GW of nuclear capacity, <45GW of average load and 61GW of winter peak load with vast amounts of storage available via interconnect to hydro countries. They still use 5% gas on top of the rest of the “other” (which is about 10-25GW).
5% of other from gas adds about 20g CO2e/kg per kWh to the total. Less than the margin between different uranium sources.
Running 40% of the capacity 10% of the time puts your nuclear energy in the realm of $1-3/kWh. The list of ways of generating or storing 6% of your energy for <$1/kWh is basically endless.
That’s about 4-8TW of capacity worldwide. 1kg of uranium is good for fuelling about 750W of reactor on a 6 year fuel cycle. Loading those reactors would require digging up all of the known and assumed-to-exist uranium immediately.
Nuclear is an irrelevant distraction being pushed by those who know it will not work. You only have to glance at the policy history or donor base of the politicians pushing for it in Sweden, Canada, Australia, UK, Poland, etc etc or the media channels pushing it to see how obvious it is that it’s fossil fuel propaganda.
It is obviously obviously true that it’s a non-solution. It fails on every single metric. All of the talking points about alleged advantages are the opposite of the truth without exception.
“Baseload generator” isn’t a useful concept. And grid reliability (which is a useful concept) is thought about. It just doesn’t fit into a soundbite like winddon’tblowsundon’tshine.
Here’s an example of a full plan https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/major-publications/integrated-system-plan-isp/2022-integrated-system-plan-isp
Or a simpler analysis on the same grid: https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100pct-renewable-grid-for-australia-is-feasible-and-affordable-with-just-a-few-hours-of-storage/
For reference, 5kWh home batteries currently retail for about $1300 so this would add <10% to the capital cost compared to recent nuclear projects. Pumped hydro is about half the price per capacity, but a bit more per watt. The former is dropping at 10-30% per year, so by the time a nuclear plant is finished, storage cost would be negligible.
Here’s a broad overview of a slightly simplified model https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z demonstrating similar is possible everywhere.
Even in the counterfactual case where the ~5% of “other” generation is only possible with fossil fuel, focusing on it is incredibly myopic because the resources spent on that 1% of global emissions could instead be used for the other 70% which isn’t from electricity and has different reliability constraints.
Elaboration on the reasons why would be nice.
Isn’t there a decent argument they’ve abandoned the trademark?
Increase the fines (and scale by income) until they provide sufficient incentive to pay attention and have the tiniest bit of self control. Then the people holding a ticket can beg the engineers to fix the road to remove the need for not being lazy and impatient instead of the people whose kids were just killed.
This just in, millions of deaths a year and billions of tonnes of CO2 aren’t a problem. /s
Russian federation worshipping fascists aren’t left just because they wave a red flag sometimes.
When the word is used in an academic or legal context, that’s what it means. It’s not a “belief”, it’s the definition.
“Believing” that bigotry without systemic power is racism is just playing idiotic semantic games. You know what they mean and yet you’re trying to communicate badly on purpose to “win”.
It’s just an imbecilic fascist word game, and you’re either complicit or you fell for it.
Tool built by narcissist gaslighters is good for bullshit but nothing else? Colour me shocked.
Libertarians (or rather ancaps that stole the word) are far right
The character adapted from daneel plays a major role, but the characterisation is really bad.
Having a category of entity that wasn’t considered in the base assumptions show up and throw a spanner in the works is consistentnwith the theme.
Having a singularity or error which needs correcting works.
Having the same people be the crux of every crisis is incredibly grating.
They also done my boy Daneel real dirty.
There’s also the bit where we have at least two “universe’s most special boy/girl” characters upon whom everything hinges repeatedly when the entire point kf the psycho-history concept is that major events like that happen one way or another regardless of the specific details.
Bite the bullet. Move to slightly worse but non-abusive alternatives. Fund them with the portion of your budget that was previously coerced from you.
If you are climbing rocks in a movie, you are a rock climber.
If you are belaying someone fir a shot who falls and dies because their gear was not checked, then you are responsible in the exact same way.
If you have insufficient training to check it under the direct supervision of an expert without fucking it up, then you shouldn’t be anywhere near it.
They are actors. They can act. Movies break verisimilitude in countless other ways (many of them much stupider).
If the actor were driving the car directly at someone on the road without a license or any driving training or experience then you might have a point with the second part.
Even if you could magically increase the number of nuclear reactors started before 2012 tenfold to keep up with wind and solar, you’d have to triple uranium mining overnight to fuel them for the first time.