+- Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum (https://www.scivillage.com)
+-- Forum: Science (https://www.scivillage.com/forum-61.html)
+--- Forum: Meteorology & Climatology (https://www.scivillage.com/forum-72.html)
+--- Thread: Article Low hanging fruit: replace coal with nuclear power plants (/thread-15050.html)
Low hanging fruit: replace coal with nuclear power plants - C C - Dec 2, 2023
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/low-hanging-fruit
INTRO: Climate policy focused on reducing emissions often looks like a Rube Goldberg device, with complexity built upon complexity such that policy levers may or may not impact the intended outcome — which is reducing the emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels all the way to net-zero.
Today, I share a simple proposal that would reduce global carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels by 25% by 2035, and at a cost far less than the emissions reductions expected under the Biden Administration’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). My analysis below is in round numbers, and please feel free in the comments to challenge my work and offer your own math for emissions or economics.
In a 2021 paper, Grant et al. concluded that just 5% of the world’s coal power plants were responsible for about 73% of carbon dioxide emissions from global electricity generation. With about 3,000 coal power plants globally in their analysis,1 that equates to about 150 power plants being responsible for ~25% of total global emissions from the burning of fossil fuels (assuming electricity makes up ~35% of global total emissions).
If the world committed to replacing those ~150 +/- coal plants with nuclear power plants by 2035 — perhaps negotiated under the provisions of the Paris Agreement — that would reduce total global emissions by ~25%, or almost 9 gigatonnes carbon dioxide (GtCO2), from the 2022 level of >34.3 GtCO2. That’s huge.2
How much would the replacement generation cost? (MORE - details)
RE: Low hanging fruit: replace coal with nuclear power plants - Syne - Dec 2, 2023
We would have likely had many more nuclear power plants decades ago if it weren't for the leftists eco-nuts screaming about nuclear waste.
I guess if scaring these morons about the supposed imminent end of the world will get them to rethink that idiot position, it might be worth something after all.
RE: Low hanging fruit: replace coal with nuclear power plants - confused2 - Dec 7, 2023
Looking at UK data [for one supplier].. coal is the only used at times of high demand, renewables supply as much of the baseload as possible. Nuclear power stations can't be turned up and down very quickly so in the UK more nuke power would tend to replace renewables rather than coal.
Live data for a UK power distributor, the lower graph shows 'carbon intensity':
https://agile.octopushome.net/dashboard
eidt .. the prices are for a homeowner (not wholesale buyer)