Nuclear power

[The Grand Nudger]

Those increased rates come back. Since the us alone accounts for 27% of global emissions, with 40% or more of that attributed to the generation of electricity - and given that refitting the us grid for nuclear would put us about on par with refitting it for wind, and better off than solar.

That's a huge chunk - and other countries may choose to continue burning fossil fuels - but they already consume less and it might be difficult to sit there staring at a country like the us producing as much electricity as the us produces doing it safer, cleaner, and cheaper and saying "fuck it, we're gonna stick with coal for shits and giggles!".

[Jehanne]

Stop mining coal in the US.

It will never happen.  More nuclear power plants will be built, which the developing World will not be able to afford, and so, they will get the coal.  Win-win for Western capitalism.

[The Grand Nudger]

The developing world has the advantage of not having sunk as much into fossil fuel infrastructure as we have. They're on the front end of feeling the effects of climate change, and they're already shouldering the burden in human and environmental costs (in the immediate term) for what fossil fuels they do consume, too.

[Anomalocaris]

Stop mining coal in the US.

It will never happen.  More nuclear power plants will be built, which the developing World will not be able to afford, and so, they will get the coal.  Win-win for Western capitalism.

Actually, of the 55 nuclear power plants under construction around the world,  only 9 are in what would normally be considered developed countries.   46 are in developing world.

Median projection shows substantially more nuclear plants will be built in the developing world over the next 30 years tham will be retired in the developed world, so the center of gravity of nuclear generation will shift to countries that are now still in developing status. 

---

If Humanity burns all of the fossil fuels that are available, then it is conceivable that we will annihilate ourselves; that's the issue here.  You can build all the nuclear power plants that you want; there won't be enough of them to supply the entire World with the energy levels of Western consumption.  As such, if we do not consume the fossil fuels, the rest of the World will.

Fossil fuels currently account for 60% of global energy production. Nuclear accounts for 10%. Explain to me why those fossil fuels can't be replaced by nuclear. I see no physical reason.

And, you've proven my point.  Replace the 200+ coal plants in the United States with nuclear power ones.  The coal that exists all throughout the United States will still be mined and will be shipped overseas to be burned in coal fired plants elsewhere.

Stop mining coal in the US. For that matter, stop mining it everywhere. All you need to do is regulate it a tenth as strictly as the nuclear industry and it ceases to be profitable.

Right now the big problem is China, which accounts for roughly 2/3rds of global coal consumption. They're trying to ween themselves off of it, which we should be encouraging.

And if all you're going to do is run around throwing up roadblocks and wailing that the sky is falling then you aren't terribly useful. Try proposing some useful solutions.

China consumes 5 times as much coal each year as the next largest coal consuming country. But that does not represent 2/3 of the world’s coal annual consumption.   It’s actually just a little under half.

[Jehanne]

Only one nuclear power plant exists in Africa, in the country of South Africa; Africa is 16% of the World's population. Carbon emissions continue to rise at 2 to 3 ppm per annum over the last decade up from 0.5 ppm during the 19th-century and 1 ppm during the middle of the 20th-century, and so, nuclear power isn't reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

[The Grand Nudger]

Africa contributes the least to global waring as a continent, but.... yes, that nuclear plant is about on par with an equivalent amount of wind generation. They would contribute more if they burnt fossil fuels for that power..just as every country with any alternatives to fossil fuels running would contribute more, in the absence of those alternatives.

[Anomalocaris]

Only one nuclear power plant exists in Africa, in the country of South Africa; Africa is 16% of the World's population.  Carbon emissions continue to rise at 2 to 3 ppm per annum over the last decade up from 0.5 ppm during the 19th-century and 1 ppm during the middle of the 20th-century, and so, nuclear power isn't reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Yes, and how much would carbon emission have been if base loaded generation served by nuclear power is served instead by some other form of base loaded generation available between middle of 20th century and now?

The fundamental reality is existing nuclear power technology is economical only if concentrated generation of at least 800-1000mw capacity makes sense and the economic value of stable 24/7 generation at ball park 80–1000 mw is high.  This in turn requires fairly high degree of transmission infrastructure development, which necessitate a fairly high and concentrated electric demand occassions by considerable economic development.

Much of Africa had simply been too poor and underdeveloped to benefit from nuclear power.   70% of total electric demand in subsaharan Africa is in the nation of South Africa.   600 million Africans, twice as many people as in the US, have no access to electricity at all.  Overall the demand is too low, too dispersed, spread over too many national jurisdictions, too uneven across the day, and transmission infrastructure too spotty and too low in capacity.  The threshold of economic developement required to enable nuclear power to pay is probably somewhere in the upper half of middle income level in terms of GDP,  say annual GDP per capita on PPP basis of $10,000-15,000, for a population base of several tens of millions, Much of Africa is at a third of that or less. 

It’s like this.  A shiny new factory is of much more value where roads and supply chain is already well developed.    Where these are absent, cottage workshops may make more sense. 

As a more tangible indication of what level of develop is required for nuclear power to begin to make sense,   China only started to develop nuclear power during the last 20 years.      When large parts of Africa achieves GDP per capita on par with where China was 20 years ago, nuclear power will likely blossom in Africa too.

[Leonardo17]

There is the issue of nuclear waste. Yes, If we dispose of them correctly today, perhaps in 400 / 500 years future generations can teleport them to the sun or perhaps even make use of them. But today, even in developed countries these wastes are sometimes simply tossed into lakes, rivers, oceans etc. And there is no way of knowing what will happens to these materials in developing countries. In some countries, they might just burry them. This page is interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ci..._accidents

2) A lot of greenhouse gas is emitted in the construction and maintenance of nuclear plants. And the energy is not “clean” in anyway.

So the priority must be solar, wind, geothermal and than nuclear energy.

I’ve read the posts: But the effects keeping the use of fossil fuels at current levels in the long-term is the same as a full-scale nuclear war with Russia. It is simply not feasible.

The advantage of clean energies it that they will be rapidly adopted by third world countries without the need to exert any pressure on them. All they need is materials and the know-how.

But I believe that nuclear can play a part in our energy mixture. Especially in the production of Hydrogen fuel for trucks, ships and perhaps the production of new Hydrogen-based fuels for airplanes.

[Anomalocaris]

I believe some new reactors are designed as single use devices that will are manufactured with its fuel sealed inside the reactor vessel.  The onboard fuel will run the reactor for 30 years and once spent, the reactor vessel can not be opened up for refueling,  instead the reactor vessel will function as transport and storage container of its own spent fuel indefinitely.

[Jehanne]

As I posted already in this thread (but, it just needs to get emphasized again, and I'm sorry!), nuclear power is absolutely pointless if the oil that the United States drills and produces is simply sent elsewhere to be burned as fossil fuels. Ditto for coal.