Submitted by chopchopped t3_y67tc9 in Futurology
Reply to comment by Spiderbanana in Nation’s First Nuclear-Powered Clean Hydrogen Production Announced. The Nine Mile Point Generating Station, the oldest operating U.S. nuclear power plant, will soon house the nation’s first nuclear-powered clean hydrogen production facility by chopchopped
A nuclear power plant already has 0 carbon output. No reason we should stop it from doing this.
If we had more, we could decarbonize the grid easily and actually have a robust power grid. It's too bad the fear mongering campaigns have worked so well.
Sorry if I was not clear on what I wrote. I'm not speaking about nuclear power plants being carbon intensive, I say that if you still run carbon intensive powerplants (like coal or gas) alongside for your baseload electricity needs. Globally it comes back to the same as using your carbon intensive powerplants to produce hydrogen. You even add one additional poorly efficient factor in the mix compared to having your carbon intensive energy sources directly used for transportation (engines).
>A nuclear power plant already has 0 carbon output.
Not to be persnickety, Just helping create a better argument, but that's not entirely true there, It's neglible compared to other baseload supplies, but Backup SEGs, maintenance vehicles and such do make it >0. Be better argument to say near zero, or a similar caveat. If anything to block that grasping-at-straws argument from derailing a discussion.
It absolutely does make a cleaner watt, esp compared to Coal which will still be the worst in that aspect. Aside from emissions from the boilers, you have the trains bringing in the coal, all the equipment to mine it (though the conversion to electric is pretty cool, and late to the party imho). Another good point to bring up is how the US Navy has 83 Nuclear powered ships floating in the ocean, showing a properly maintained and serviced generator can, and will, be a very safe option. I mean not for the sailors, because of all the cancer that navy nukes get, but that's more due to everything around the reactors. And troops are disposable, Right every asshole who voted against the PACT Act?
Unfortunately we'll likely not see full decarbonization solely from generators due to the need for peaker plants that can fire up quickly to meet unexpected demands. Nuke for base load, Solar for daytime peak, Wind for evening peak, Hydro for grid incursions and any gaps that need filled quickly, and finally natural gas to back them all up. I do hope we can change that combination within my lifetime, but I'm pressing X for doubt on that reality appearing anytime soon.
With current technology, it’s doesn’t get much cleaner than the good old reliable atom ☢️
to be persnickety, they also they have employees that generate carbon and some such as security guards have guns that when discharged produce carbon, etc
>A nuclear power plant already has 0 carbon output.
>
>This is a lie the processes for mining and refining uranium ore and making reactor fuel all require extremely large amounts of energy. Nuclear power plants also are built with large amounts of metal and concrete, which require large amounts of energy to manufacture. Fossil fuels are used for mining and refining uranium ore, and fossil fuels are used when constructing the nuclear
power plant, so the emissions from burning those fuels should be
associated with the electricity that nuclear power plants generate.a lie
Useless comment. If you're going that far, then there isn't a source of power on earth that meets the green requirements.
Including solar, wind, batteries, etc all of which are more carbon intensive to manufacture at scale, especially factoring in mining and refining base materials, than nuclear power.
No, it is not useless, it is pointing out the obvious lie that the nuclear industry keeps promoting that nuclear fission is somehow "carbon free"
By your logic solar and wind are not carbon free
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments