this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
91 points (94.2% liked)

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

5024 readers
554 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
91
22 Countries Pledge to Triple Nuclear Capacity in Push to Cut Fossil Fuels (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 9 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Given the high cost and long lead times involved, I'm incredibly dubious about this one actually happening.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sonori@beehaw.org -1 points 9 months ago (3 children)

It’s worth noting that the high cost and long lead times are mostly just a US thing, many nations can go from inception to fully complete in three to five years. There also isn’t much overlap with the resources needed for cheaper solar and wind. I’m just glad that it’s not more natural gas “bridge” plants.

[–] b9chomps@beehaw.org 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

It’s worth noting that the high cost and long lead times are mostly just a US thing, many nations can go from inception to fully complete in three to five years.

I was curious about this claim and checked out the IAEA website and just checked random cointries and found several reactors that have been under construction for way longer.

I have never heard of a power plant or new reactor of an existing plant being build in that time frame. Do you have examples?

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 3 points 9 months ago

The Soviets did that in the 70s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Russia#Reactors_in_operation

Also Japan did it as well with the BTR-4 design a bit later. That was the reactor type which had a melt down in Fukushima.

[–] sonori@beehaw.org 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Offhand Wolseong in Korea brought thier two new reactors online in five and seven years, and have a nationwide average of six years. Qinshan in China brought two new Candean reactors online in four and five years, with a nationwide average of five years aswell.

As the other commenter mentioned Japan has systemicly built reactors in four years, though Fukushima 2 does well to demonstrate the danger or just running old American designs forever given how much better the modern reactors at the plant did than the older ones.

https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/42/105/42105221.pdf