• Zagorath@quokk.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 days ago

    This page’s “Life cycle CO2 equivalent (including albedo effect)” page says Nuclear is just a hair worse than onshore wind in the median case, significantly worse than both on- and offshore wind in the worst case (worst for both types), and slightly better in the best case. In best case, hydro actually beats nuclear.

    Also, TIL tidal power isn’t commercially in use. I swear we were learning about it in school 20 years ago, and were not even told then that it wasn’t viable.

    Including the effects of albedo seems rather straightforward and worth doing. Of course it neglects some more complicated factors, like opportunity cost of staying on fossil fuels in the meantime for the 20+ years it takes to build nuclear. A convenient part of the reason that the biggest proponents of nuclear tend to be those politicians and special interests who also support fossil fuels.

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

      You don’t need giant 20 year plants.

      Small Modular Reactors can be built and deployed much faster.

      You don’t need to power an entire state with a single plant. You can scale it down to powering a single town. That’s the current push, mass production of SMRs.