Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by oldjokes 2561 days ago
One does not follow from the other. Many countries are vastly reducing carbon while not investing in nuclear at all. We're already at the point where the carbon impact of energy production is negligible in many areas, there are much bigger fish to fry if you're truly concerned about carbon.
3 comments
s21n 2561 days ago
Yes, you can still reduce carbon footprint if you're not investing in nuclear. You can invest in renewables, energy efficiency, or reduce emissions in other industries.

But closing working nuclear reactors always leads to higher emissions. You can replace nuclear with renewables, but that means these new renewables would otherwise replace more fossil fuels.

link
javagram 2561 days ago
> Many countries are vastly reducing carbon while not investing in nuclear at all

In this case we are talking about shutting down a plant that could potentially run for 4-5 more years without decommissioning. I suspect the difference will be made up by coal/gas.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davekeating/2019/02/01/germany-... “Coal, the most emissions-intensive fossil fuel, now provides more than 42% of Germany’s power according to the International Energy Agency – a proportion that has been growing since the nuclear decision. The result is that Germany’s carbon emissions have been growing, while their neighbors’ has been declining.”

link
inflatableDodo 2561 days ago
>I suspect the difference will be made up by coal/gas.

Well, it doesn't seem that it is being offset by coal, given that while it has been offline, the UK has also had the longest run of not burning coal for power since industrialisation.

Hunterston is a 1 GW power station and while it has been offline the UK has installed 2 GW in new capacity of offshore wind, if you are looking for what is making up the difference, perhaps start there.

link
javagram 2560 days ago
Was the offshore wind only installed because the nuclear plant was taken offline? I’d assume the wind generation capability would have been installed anyway...

According to https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/...

“Although a significant share of coal-powered energy has been replaced by renewable sources such as solar and wind power, the largest power source in Britain remains natural gas, a carbon-emitting fossil fuel.”

link
tarsinge 2561 days ago
Wasn’t aware of that, do you have some links?
link