156
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

With climate change looming, it seems so completely backwards to go back to using it again.

Is it coal miners pushing to keep their jobs? Fear of nuclear power? Is purely politically motivated, or are there genuinely people who believe coal is clean?


Edit, I will admit I was ignorant to the usage of coal nowadays.

Now I'm more depressed than when I posted this

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] [email protected] 53 points 10 months ago

Because it got cheaper than natural gas.

Nobody thinks it's clean, they just don't care.

[-] [email protected] 53 points 10 months ago

There are concerns outside of the list you wrote. For example:

  • people need energy and coal is a source of energy
[-] [email protected] 50 points 10 months ago

And they’re going for coal in some places because the political situation has made other reliable energy sources unavailable:

  • the Russia-Ukraine war has destroyed natural gas supply lines to Europe
  • anti-nuclear activism has resulted in lack of nuclear investment

Outside of coal, nuclear, and natural gas, there aren’t many options for reliable sources of electricity.

[-] [email protected] 18 points 10 months ago

Why are people so against nuclear? It doesn't make any sense.

[-] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Nuclear is probably the safest form of power when proper protocols are put in place but it's hard to do that when the largest country in Europe (Russia, both by size and population) is currently in a war

[-] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

Safer than wind and solar?

[-] [email protected] 15 points 10 months ago

Oddly enough, it's safer than wind.

Solar's a little better in that regard, but all three are so much safer than any high-carbon sources of energy that any of them are great options.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

This. Nuclear safety requires active habit keeping and protocols, hence is dependent on social stability.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago
  • Fukushima
  • Chernobyl
  • 3-Mile Island to name a few
[-] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

I want to add, it also take a while to get it going and the upfront costs are several billions of dollars. There also needs to be some kind of training or something to get the right personnel.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

Yes yes, we know people don't understand statistics.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago

3 Mile Island occurred while "The China Syndrome" was in theaters.

That's mostly it. A hit-job sensationalist film came out right before a minor incident that resulted in ZERO injuries, damage to the environment, or loss of containment, but was major news largely because of the film.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

Because of Godzilla is my best guess. CGI is so good these days people think it’s real.

load more comments (14 replies)
[-] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

the Russia-Ukraine war has destroyed natural gas supply lines to Europe.

Didn't the US bomb them, tried to blame Russia at first, and are now trying to blame Ukraine? With friends like that, who needs enemies?

The big problem with nuclear is scalability and infrastructure. The power plants take long to construct and require huge investment. Even if that's solved and the whole world goes nuclear tomorrow, there's huge doubts about there even being enough easily minable Uranium. Honestly solar and wind should be the way to go, but then there's the intermittency issue. Which is an issue fossil fuels don't have. At this point degrowth is desperately needed to avert the worst effects of global warming.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] [email protected] 42 points 10 months ago

Again? Did we stop?

It doesn't look like anyone has mentioned metallurgical coal yet. Even if you don't burn it for energy, the carbon in steel has to come from somewhere and that's usually coke, which is coal that has been further pyrolised into a fairly pure carbon producing a byproduct of coal tar.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

Metallurgical coal only makes up for rather small part of coal mining, around 7% of all coal production goes towards it, and while the process produces more GHG than just burning it for power it has a less profound impact because it's just smaller. It's also one of the places where we can't really find an alternative, to produce steel you need to use bitumen coal because they have more carbon and less volatiles than charcoal.

On top of that steel is extremely recyclable meaning that any steel produced can be reused pretty much 1:1 with only a small amount of energy needed.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

How much of that carbon is emitted Vs embedded in the steel matrix? 50%?

[-] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

I'm not actually sure. I imagine it depends on how exactly it's mixed in.

The green alternative would be to go back to charcoal (or "biochar" if you want to sound fancy), but it might be a bit more expensive.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] [email protected] 16 points 10 months ago

Why "going back to it" have we ever stopped?

[-] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago

I was going to say, coal remains around 1/3 of our electric generation worldwide (as of 2022): https://www.statista.com/statistics/269811/world-electricity-production-by-energy-source/

Coal can't be reused, created, or otherwise obtained outside of mining. Until we remove our dependency on coal, mining will continue.

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] [email protected] 15 points 10 months ago

Climate change 'looming'? Dude, it's already here.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

Oh good, let's quibble about semantics instead of actually discussing the meat of the problem.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 15 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Because of the war against nuclear plants. Our green party shut down nuclear plants in favor for renewable energy. But as predicted, renewables don't meet our demands. So the green party started building gas plants to compensate instead of keeping nuclear running.

So why? Because of green idiocracry that demand the impossible of green energy (at this moment) and nuclear = evil

[-] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago

I blame the release of both Factorio and Victoria 3.

[-] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago

When did they stop?

[-] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It's a cheap, non intermittent, easily scalable, and highly available source of energy compatible with existing infrastructure. When the choice becomes rolling electricity blackouts/shutting down factories, or coal powered electricity due to extremely poor planning for the future, coal will win every time. I wish we just started getting renewables running decades ago. Most of the limited electricity in South Africa is produced from coal power plants or diesel generators.

I'm typing this during a rolling electricity blackout. Really not looking forward to my cold shower in the next few minutes

[-] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Yes, countries like Germany are turning to coal as a direct result of nuclear-phobia.

The US, with all its green initiatives and solar/wind incentives, is pumping more oil than Saudi Arabia. The US has been the top oil producer on whole the planet for the last 5-6 years. The problem is getting worse.

load more comments (22 replies)
[-] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago

Obligatory: we didn't stop.

There's also good reasons to have a fistful of generation plants with coal or natural gas.

To put it simply, nuclear is clean, far cleaner than just about anything else we have. If you compare the waste product with the energy produced... It's just not an argument that nuclear loses versus something like coal. Where coal puts out its waste mainly in the form of smoke, nuclear waste, like discarded nuclear power rods, are a physical and far more immediately dangerous thing. The coal waste kind of blends in, and lobbyists have been throwing around "clean coal" for a while... Although coal use has gotten a lot more efficient and produces less waste than before, it's still far more than what nuclear could do. "Clean" coal is a myth, it's just "less bad" coal, with good marketing.

Regardless, coal and natural gas fired plants can ramp up and down far quicker than nuclear possibly could. Where nuclear covers base demand and can usually scale up and down a bit to help with higher load times, to cover peak demand, coal and natural gas can fire up and produce power in a matter of minutes. With nuclear, they have to ramp up slowly to ensure the reaction doesn't run away from them, and to ensure all the safety measures and safeguards are working as intended as the load increases. It's just a fat more careful process.

The grid is hugely complex, and I'm simplifying significantly. But from the best of my understanding, nuclear can't react fast enough to cover spontaneous demand. So either coal or natural gas needs to exist for the grid to work as well as it does.

Wind is unpredictable and solar usually isn't helping during the hours where the grid would need help with the demand. The only viable option is with grid scale energy storage, which can hold the loads while the nuclear systems have a chance to ramp up.

There's still far more coal fired plants in the world than we need for this task alone, so there's still work to be done... But I suspect coal use will diminish, but not be eliminated from grid scale operation for a while.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago

Because renewable energy and nuclear energy require significant capital investment, which the private sector and governments in the age of 'fiscal discipline' are not willing to make.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago
[-] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago

Ukraine war plays a big part of it

[-] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago

In my country, because of a decades long fearmongering and disinfomation campaing that destoyed the nuclear energy industry. So now we're stucked with coal to keep the power running at night and during winter.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

Tf you mean stopped

  • a German
[-] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

People will do everything that givesthem an advantage in anykind of way. If coal is an affordable resource to fulfill a need it will be mined and put to use.

You may change the view on a thing for a few persons, but never of all of them.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
156 points (92.9% liked)

Asklemmy

42480 readers
1690 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS