Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

YachtingChristopher t1_j61cfq1 wrote

Sad that nuclear could have filled that whole chart 30 years ago.

36

Potato_Octopi t1_j6201jp wrote

Kind of doubt we'd have great EVs 30 years ago.

8

YachtingChristopher t1_j621v9g wrote

What does that have to do with this chart or nuclear power?

3

Potato_Octopi t1_j62bo80 wrote

A lot of the petroleum is for transport. Not much is electricity generation.

10

InterPunct t1_j61kc3l wrote

Sad, but no doubt it will prevail. Makes economic and practical sense.

3

KittyBizkit t1_j61lycm wrote

But not political sense. Too many NIMBY folks who are scared of nuclear power because they don’t understand it or overestimate the dangers involved. Coal kills more people every year than nuclear, but most people are far more afraid of nuclear.

8

InterPunct t1_j61oxjg wrote

>but most people are far more afraid of nuclear.

Godzilla, after all.

1

fortnitefunnies3 t1_j61p04h wrote

It’s not that far fetched of a fear

−6

KittyBizkit t1_j61qbiw wrote

Except when you compare it against coal emissions. Coal kills more people per kilowatt generated by a wide margin.

6

gabotuit t1_j63t6o1 wrote

Because of the big number bias… wait until you get a couple hundred nuclear reactors and the compounded effects of little accidents and the very long term effects

0

fortnitefunnies3 t1_j61qdj9 wrote

Well yeah but nuclear fallout is bad

−4

eddy_talon t1_j61wvjw wrote

Nuclear fallout comes from nuclear detonations. Power plants don't have the capacity to make nuclear detonations.

4

fortnitefunnies3 t1_j61x2ca wrote

I’m a proponent of nuclear power too. I’m just trying to explain the opposition

−2

KittyBizkit t1_j62305m wrote

From the sounds of it, you ARE the opposition.

I think this is kinda like people who are afraid of flying because of plane crashes. But realistically you are far more likely to die in a car crash in the way to the airport than in a plane crash after you get there.

1

KittyBizkit t1_j61svgi wrote

This is exactly what I am talking about. People like you vastly overestimate the dangers and probability of them.

1

crimeo t1_j621w6k wrote

There is no such thing as nuclear fallout from civilian power plants.... so say wha?

1

crimeo t1_j621r55 wrote

Literally more people per megawatt have died from even SOLAR from things like falling off their roof installing panels than from all non military nuclear damage.

For coal, its orders of magnitude worse

1

tinainthebar t1_j62y5fh wrote

That's an interesting claim, certainly believable if you look at direct deaths (which globally is probably under 100 - almost entirely from Chernobyl, especially if you count Kyshtym as military).

I'd love to see the source

Estimating, and attributing things like cancer correctly (reduction in life span and life quality) from things like construction and dismantling, uranium mining, etc is trickier.

On the other hand so is the mining for the metals needed for solar, and the construction risk per kWh I would guess are orders of magnitude higher for solar (especially rooftop solar)

I'm sure both are dwarfed by the impact from oil, gas and coal though.

1

crimeo t1_j64gw0c wrote

I figured it all out on reddit but it seems to be > the max 1,000 comments ago :(

1

HungryLikeTheWolf99 t1_j61i09z wrote

Aw, man - I'm one of those last people populating the wood part of the chart! It's renewable and nearly carbon neutral (not completely, but most of the carbon in the tree will be oxidized and released as a gas if it rots on the ground in the woods).

8

st4n13l t1_j61lr1u wrote

Unfortunately that's only true if all of the wood comes from trees that fall naturally or felled as part of forest maintenance, and even if that's true on your local scale, it's certainly not scalable.

11

HungryLikeTheWolf99 t1_j61m2xa wrote

Yeah, that's what we do. We take standing dead trees, trees that have fallen within the last year, or trees that people are taking out anyway that wouldn't be used for anything.

And I'd never claim it's highly scalable, but if one has the ability, it's a heck of a lot better than just burning nattyG.

7

st4n13l t1_j61msgp wrote

Yeah I wasn't arguing with you. Just pointing it out for others that this isn't some simple solution we've overlooked. Absolutely agree that if it is an option it's better than fossil fuels.

5

crimeo t1_j621cen wrote

If you replant and cycle your logging, it's neutral too. Drive around the pacific northwest, you can visually see almost the full loop around a hill range where there are different strips in a row in varying levels of regrowth cycling around.

Only cutting and then just leaving it for pasture or waste or development is one way

1

vtTownie t1_j63moq2 wrote

Managed forests aren’t scalable? How tf you think we build houses?

1

st4n13l t1_j63psd0 wrote

It's not scalable as a carbon neutral practice

0

Dirtey t1_j63r4vz wrote

And lots of Americans are still acting like they are not the problem. They are faaar behind most EU countries.

1

EspHack t1_j61qchj wrote

if you find the actual kwh usage, we've been stuck since the 70's, cuz nuke bad

computers are all the rage because its the only tech that can improve within the same power budget, we dont have supersonic electric planes powered by lasers, efficiency be dammed, because again, nuke baddd

energy would be so cheap our standard of living would make the current one look like the 1700's, our freaking sidewalks/streets would be heated in winter

0

Fit-Plant-306 t1_j628utc wrote

Quadrillion is my new favorite word….

0