this post was submitted on 17 May 2024
-2 points (0.0% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

7686 readers
195 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world. About 1C of total warming. Second chart: about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability. Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases. About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
-2
Five Things the “Nuclear Bros” Don’t Want You to Know About Small Modular Reactors (blog.ucsusa.org)
submitted 2 years ago by solo@kbin.earth to c/climate@slrpnk.net
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A realistic understanding of their costs and risks is critical.

What are SMRs?

  1. SMRs are not more economical than large reactors.

  2. SMRs are not generally safer or more secure than large light-water reactors.

  3. SMRs will not reduce the problem of what to do with radioactive waste.

  4. SMRs cannot be counted on to provide reliable and resilient off-the-grid power for facilities, such as data centers, bitcoin mining, hydrogen or petrochemical production.

  5. SMRs do not use fuel more efficiently than large reactors.

[Edit: If people have links that contradict any the above, could you please share in the comment section?]

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

Nuclear power is simply a smokescreen. It's proponents ultimately just want fossil fuel dependency to last as long as possible by promising silver bullet solutions that will never become reality, instead of focusing on solutions that exist and are effective today.

[–] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth 1 points 2 years ago

Why not use one of the safest and cleanest ways of producing power?

The wind doesn’t blow all the time, neither does the sun shine all the time, and not everyone is around thermal or wave sources.

Battery tech is coming along, and we are building more gravity batteries, but nuclear can close right in and replace most fossil fuel plants.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

We sure can't slip anything by you, can we? Curses...

[–] vividspecter@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This is why it's always the conservative parties advocating for it, as they are in bed with the fossil fuel industry.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Have you got anything to back that up with? Because the problems with nuclear power have been almost exclusively caused by conservative governments. The ludicrous licensure requirements are the largest factor in driving the cost of nuclear facilities so far out of the realm of feasibility, and those have been imposed almost exclusively by conservative governments (~~with a special shoutout to Al Gore~~ Okay that's unfair, his legislation on nuclear power was largely based on anti-corruption ideals and not the ideals of the anti-nuclear movement)