• Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Nuclear power is hardly a carbon-free power source. Even if the construction, mining, refining, and transport of the fuel was done with electricity, the concrete for the plant would release a lot of CO2.

    It’s less than a fossil fuel, to be sure, but calling it carbon-free assumes you just plop down a reactor and it starts making power, which isn’t the case.

    • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Sure, but all those same problems apply to wind and solar too. It isn’t like the concrete to anchor the wind turbine just appears there. If we are going to call wind carbon-free, nuclear is too.

      But, coming back to my point, one actively burns fossil fuels in order to use renewables. They are paired with natural gas plants out of necessity for just base-load power. If one is serious about a carbon-free energy grid, nuclear is the best option out there using today’s technology. We should have been building out nuclear since the 70s energy crisis and we should be building it out today. France did, and it is why Germany is now buying power from them in spades.

      • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Jimmy Carter worked on nuclear power in his Navy days. He could have chosen to build nuclear plants but didn’t, mostly because of his experience with nuclear accidents. I’ll trust Jimmy more than some guy on the Internet.