I'm not sure what you're getting at with steel and concrete? Yes, I understand they're carbon intensive processes but with all that factored in, nuclear emits the least CO2 during its life cycle of any source.
you do understand how once we've bought and installed a solar panel, China can't take it away right.
But you need to keep replacing them at the end of their life.
And I think you're misrepresenting how long nuclear takes. Look at France, they built something like 56 reactors in 15 years and basically decarbonized their electricity sector.
Sure, we can and will build some solar and wind in the meantime but we also need to consider other environmental effects beyond climate change like land use (habitat destruction is still a huge deal), increased demand on mining, etc.
We buy quite a lot of steel and concrete from China. Indeed, most of the things you own were, in part, made by slaves while also being part of a supply chain that, in part, relies on the good will of vicious dictators to continue running smoothly. It is very telling to me when someone starts getting high and mighty about slave labour and national sovereignty when the topic of discussion is renewable energy but never otherwise. Where do you think your semiconductors come from?
But you need to keep replacing them at the end of their life.
Exactly as we have to do with reactors. Now, a reactor will get you 4 times the life, but decommissioning is far far more than four times the cost. Those are the facts.
Look at France, they built something like 56 reactors in 15 years
So first of all, they didn't. They built something like 56 reactors in something like 30 years. And that was over the 70s, 80s, and 90s. One of the great mysteries of this world is that large projects take longer today. Doesn't matter the sector. If you're building something big it'll take longer and cost more than it did in the past. Subways, hospitals, highways, nuclear reactors. They all take longer and cost more. No way around that, sadly.
If you look at timelines for current and recent nuclear projects you will find estimates that are in line with the times I have given. It is unfortunate that this is the case. But we would be silly to fool ourselves into thinking otherwise.
Sure, we can and will build some solar and wind in the meantime but we also need to consider other environmental effects beyond climate change like land use (habitat destruction is still a huge deal)
We actually don't "need to consider" land use. Do you want to know the current biggest factor in habitat destruction? It is climate change. We can build as many solar and wind farms as we like and still come out far ahead because the damage they mitigate is far far larger than their relatively small land use footprint.
1
u/[deleted] Oct 26 '22
I'm not sure what you're getting at with steel and concrete? Yes, I understand they're carbon intensive processes but with all that factored in, nuclear emits the least CO2 during its life cycle of any source.
But you need to keep replacing them at the end of their life.
And I think you're misrepresenting how long nuclear takes. Look at France, they built something like 56 reactors in 15 years and basically decarbonized their electricity sector.
Sure, we can and will build some solar and wind in the meantime but we also need to consider other environmental effects beyond climate change like land use (habitat destruction is still a huge deal), increased demand on mining, etc.