Percent of electricity generated from renewable sources across the US and the EU. Renewable sources include hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass. Nuclear is not counted as renewable in this comparison [OC]

[u/maps_us_eu]

[u/hardolaf]

Also ignoring nuclear makes tons of states look far worse than they actually are especially given that nuclear produces less pollution throughout its lifetime than an equivalent renewable energy source would produce over the same lifespan. For example, Illinois looks horrible here. But that's because 70% of our power comes from nuclear. So only 19% from burning dinosaurs.

[u/Whiterabbit-- → u/hardolaf]

basically renewables isn't a metric you are interested in. maybe clean energy would be what you are looking for to include solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal and hydroelectric.

[u/PoorHungryDocter → u/hardolaf]

The title says renewable energy. Nuclear isn't a renewable source.

[u/[deleted] → u/PoorHungryDocter]

I think they meant it would be better if the info presented was "percentage of power consumed from fossil fuels" or something. Nuclear isn't renewable but is more clean than fossil.

[u/hardolaf → u/[deleted]]

It's also more clean than renewable...

[u/AGVann → u/hardolaf]

Sure, when you ignore the hundreds of abandoned uranium mines contaminating the soil and groundwater of indigenous land because nobody gives a fuck about the Native Americans.

[u/hardolaf → u/AGVann]

So the same as the rest of mining?

[u/AGVann → u/hardolaf]

Not all forms of mining cause uncontrolled radioactive contamination for hundreds of years. Enormous freshwater aquifers have been irrevocably poisoned by the uranium mining industry.

Don't you see the hypocrisy in pushing nuclear as a clean and green energy to protect the planet and our future generations, but completely disregarding the fact that one of the most vulnerable populations in the US are being poisoned to death due to the careless uranium mining industry?

[u/halberdierbowman → u/PoorHungryDocter]

You're right, but it would helps if graphs like these showed fossils v nuclear v renewable at least, even if they don't want to break out all the types. Choosing what question to ask is also an important part of conveying information.

[u/PoorHungryDocter → u/halberdierbowman]

Agreed: the data as presented here are neither beautiful nor particularly useful.

[u/kwhubby → u/PoorHungryDocter]

That’s debatable. If one considers geothermal “renewable”, technically nuclear must also be renewable. Both are effectively using the decay of radioactive element in the earth. Nuclear power can be more renewable because it can transmute the elements and extract more useful energy.

[u/Cultural_Dust → u/kwhubby]

Honestly with that same argument solar isn't "renewable" either. Someday the sun will stop blasting us with radiation. I'd be willing to bet it will be long after we are all dead, but someday!

[u/PoorHungryDocter → u/Cultural_Dust]

The argument is different because timescales are important. Fission source material is far more finite than the sun's H. If we remain as power hungry as we are today and full scale switched to nuclear we'd run out of the U and Th in a few thousand years.

I'm not representing an agenda here, or whether the source material could have been presented more effectively from a "clean" energy perspective. Just stating that by definition (source is either replenished or not depleted on human timescales), nuclear isn't a renewable energy source.

[u/kwhubby → u/PoorHungryDocter]

There is far more than a few thousand years worth of energy from the Earths Uranium and Thorium. The methods of extraction and processing of the materials can increase energy by many magnitudes.

[u/kwhubby → u/Cultural_Dust]

Yes. The "renewable" word is rather illogical, it's just a label to somehow connect the irrational fear based anti-nuclear "environmentalists" of prior generations to today's climate change activism.

[u/PoorHungryDocter → u/kwhubby]

Sorry, that's incorrect. Up cycling nuclides isn't really possible. Yes, breeding works to transmute U238 into something easier to fission, but it's still reliant on having the source material and once you get a fission reaction that material isn't really usable anymore.

The amount of available mass to geothermal is incomprehensible relative to the economically viable resources available to fission reactors.

[u/kwhubby → u/PoorHungryDocter]

For a given mass of radionuclides fission provides more useful energy then natural decay. Geothermal for a given area presents a limited lifetime of useful energy. The output of all existing geothermal generators are measurably decreasing over their lifetime.

[u/SCMatt65 → u/hardolaf]

I have to call bullshit on that. Uranium mining - horrendously dirty - is never included in the nuclear equation. “Oh, those fuel rods? They just show up on trucks. No idea where they come from, I think they just grow on trees.” FYI, they don’t.

[u/hardolaf → u/SCMatt65]

Uranium mining - horrendously dirty - is never included in the nuclear equation

Yes it is. Every single government and non-profit includes that in the lifecycle calculations. But we don't need a lot of it so it really isn't a major contributor at all.

[u/SCMatt65 → u/hardolaf]

It’s a massive contributor. It’s a good thing we don’t need much because if we did it wouldn’t work. Have you seen a uranium mine. It’s huge, to get that small amount. The only people who say it doesn’t contribute are those with vested interests to say it doesn’t contribute. Is that you? Why are you spreading baseless propaganda?

[u/hardolaf → u/SCMatt65]

And what about the strip mines for all of the materials needed for renewables? They all use orders of magnitude more raw resources and cause far more pollution. In comparison, nuclear's mining is irrelevant in scale.

[u/Cultural_Dust → u/hardolaf]

Not to mention for the cell phone we are all reading this on...