• assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year 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.

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year 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.

    • datendefekt@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year 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.

    • Ibex0@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

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

      • misophist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year 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.