1002
Well, this is something!
(files.mastodon.social)
Meanwhile in Germany:
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2023
1002 points (93.7% liked)
Europe
8484 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe ๐ช๐บ
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, ๐ฉ๐ช ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Even though it certainly isn't renewable, Uranium is not a fossil fuel. That would imply it's made with the remains of dead organisms.
While all power plants have a one time carbon cost to build and decommission, there is a continuous carbon cost to mining nuclear fuel. I think that's what GP was hinting at.
Nuclear fuel lasts so long in modern reactors that it's kinda a silly point though.
What you need to be looking at is lifetime carbon costs per kWh, that's the only real meaningful comparison.
A Single tank lasting long is not necessarily a good thing. It means you have to put in the effort up front. It also does not negate the cost of fuel/W
It's even worse than fossil fuel:
Carbondioxide has its natural circle, if we stop burning fossil fuels nature can remove carbondioxide by itself.
This does not work for uranium or plutonium, and the pathetic tries to get it into a circle have polluted e. g. Sellafield UK and other countrisides.