this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2025
54 points (82.9% liked)

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

6895 readers
453 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 17 hours ago

Yes. Give me a bank, insurance, place to build, place to store AND show me how it can run without sibsedies and we can talk. Do the Söder-Challange now

[–] [email protected] 1 points 18 hours ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 21 hours ago

Which strawman is the nuclear energy lobby trying to defeat this time?

Across Europe, the median build time since the year 2000 has dragged out to almost a decade. But it’s not a problem with nuclear power per se; it’s a symptom of the west’s chronic inability to deliver large pieces of infrastructure, an ailment that affects everything from laying high-speed railway lines, to building new housing estates, to filling in potholes.

Ah, yes, the problem is all these regulations that checks notes reduce risk (increase safety):

(this safety:)

There’s also a perception that nuclear power is dangerous, yet the data show it’s as safe as wind and solar.

And

Elaborate backup systems won’t cut it, either.

Implying that nuclear energy is NOT an elaborate system is delusional.

Tim Gregory is a nuclear chemist at the UK National Nuclear Laboratory and author of Going Nuclear: How the Atom Will Save the World (Bodley Head).

Boomers

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

With all the advantages renewables have (please use and develop them!), there are some instances where they can't reasonably be used.

For example, I live in a city of 5 million people that gets very little direct sunlight (weather is cloudy most of the time + city is located 60° North), has highly irregular seasonal winds, has rivers too small to make hydro make sense on such a scale, and barely has good hills for pumped hydro. It is almost exclusively powered by nuclear energy, because under these circumstances, there's barely a greener alternative.

There is also the need to have a backup power source for most solar/wind installations, as through some parts of the year they can only provide negligible output.

Finally, some regions might require temporary power - either due to such seasonal downtimes, or because main grid has failed. For that, Russia and China operate vessels with onboard nuclear power plants to source energy through these periods - and then move on to help somewhere else.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

For example, I live in a city of 5 million people that gets very little direct sunlight (weather is cloudy most of the time + city is located 60° North), has highly irregular seasonal winds, has rivers too small to make hydro make sense on such a scale, and barely has good hills for pumped hydro. It is almost exclusively powered by nuclear energy, because under these circumstances, there's barely a greener alternative.

I heard they're trying out these new devices that can transport power over long distances. Apparently you just need some big ass towers and long cables. Super cool cutting edge stuff.

(The wind is always blowing somewhere.)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Sure, but transporting power over very long distances comes with two issues: losses and disruptions.

Seasonal winds, when they actually happen, are very strong, commonly breaking the cables and necessitating repairs. The longer the cable - the higher is the chance something will break somewhere, and leaving a city of 5 million without power is a no-go. So, the city uses nearby power source (as close as it is allowed for a nuclear plant to stand next to a huge city) and primarily underground cables.

Also, the energy losses associated with such power transfer will be quite massive even at very high voltages. Which, again, isn't cool when the end consumer needs up to 9 GW of power at any given moment.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Sure, but transporting power over very long distances comes with two issues: losses and disruptions.

It's what we do now. Most cities don't have dedicated power plants right next to them, we have national and even multinational grids. If it works for fossil (and nuclear) plants, it works the same for renewables.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

This is the first time I've ever read of China or Russia using "vessels with onboard nuclear power plants to source energy through these periods - and then move on to help somewhere else."

I searched and cannot find any source to back this claim, do you have one?

Because the only vessels I know of with onboard nuclear reactors are naval aircraft carriers and submarines, and neither of those ship classes are designed to deliver power to shore.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

Sure, here's a Wikipedia article:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_nuclear_power_plant

Here's IAEA:

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/floating-nuclear-power-plants-benefits-and-challenges-discussed-at-iaea-symposium

Aside from that, nuclear power is used in some of the icebreakers since the Soviet era:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_icebreaker

Also, I was under the impression China has such ships deployed, while they are actually being built. Russia has an operational one.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Thanks for the links. So there is only one Russian floating nuclear power plant and it has a permanent location in Chukotka. This isn't much like what you described to be honest.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 17 hours ago

It's a relatively new technology, and such is its proposed use.

The Russian plant is stationed there for the time being, yes, but it could be moved elsewhere, which is the beauty of it. It's just that Chukotka relies on it for now.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago

Unfortunately nuclear power plants would lead to higher bills for electricity as it would be up to the people to recoup the cost for building them.

Renewables are better.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago

Today, 700 million people live in extreme poverty (defined as living on less than $2.15 per day). They won’t climb out of it without access to more energy. Making as much energy as possible available to as many people as possible ought to be a defining goal of the 21st century.

And what energy sources can be safely and cheaply deployed in Burundi, Somalia, Liberia etc? Nuclear or solar?

Tim Gregory is a nuclear chemist at the UK National Nuclear Laboratory

I see.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

We certainly cannot afford not to go full renewables, like yesterday.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 days ago

No, but that won't stop people from acting like idiots and giving in to FUD. Look at how many millions are on Xitter, Facebook, and Reddit.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Whenever people try to sell nuclear power, they simply "forget" to tell us...

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I hope thorium reactors become a reality soon, they'll probably fix or lower most of your concerns with current uranium reactors.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

People should stop trying to manifest new reactor types. Especially in the face of climate change which really doesn't leave us much time before shit hits fans even harder. Usually, the lead time on new reactor designs is even longer than on other reactor designs and half the promised features don't materialize, and you'll likely learn that the private company building the plant has accidentally forgotten one crucial element on the spec-sheet.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

Every nuclear power plant in the United States carries no fault insurance by law. They literally are all insured every single one

The rest of these are all just Big Oil talking points because they don't want competition

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago

Some early Fords around the Model T era had a switch on them to flip between running on ethanol or gas. The idea being that farmers would brew their own fuel as needed. Big Oil didn't like that, and so it went away. Where we are now isn't thanks to science and technology, just pure greed off the backs of everyone.

load more comments
view more: next ›