Submitted by MCgamingMC t3_10m76k1 in dataisbeautiful
Comments
HungryLikeTheWolf99 t1_j61i09z wrote
Aw, man - I'm one of those last people populating the wood part of the chart! It's renewable and nearly carbon neutral (not completely, but most of the carbon in the tree will be oxidized and released as a gas if it rots on the ground in the woods).
InterPunct t1_j61kc3l wrote
Sad, but no doubt it will prevail. Makes economic and practical sense.
st4n13l t1_j61lr1u wrote
Unfortunately that's only true if all of the wood comes from trees that fall naturally or felled as part of forest maintenance, and even if that's true on your local scale, it's certainly not scalable.
KittyBizkit t1_j61lycm wrote
But not political sense. Too many NIMBY folks who are scared of nuclear power because they don’t understand it or overestimate the dangers involved. Coal kills more people every year than nuclear, but most people are far more afraid of nuclear.
HungryLikeTheWolf99 t1_j61m2xa wrote
Yeah, that's what we do. We take standing dead trees, trees that have fallen within the last year, or trees that people are taking out anyway that wouldn't be used for anything.
And I'd never claim it's highly scalable, but if one has the ability, it's a heck of a lot better than just burning nattyG.
[deleted] t1_j61ms7u wrote
st4n13l t1_j61msgp wrote
Yeah I wasn't arguing with you. Just pointing it out for others that this isn't some simple solution we've overlooked. Absolutely agree that if it is an option it's better than fossil fuels.
InterPunct t1_j61oxjg wrote
>but most people are far more afraid of nuclear.
Godzilla, after all.
fortnitefunnies3 t1_j61p04h wrote
It’s not that far fetched of a fear
KittyBizkit t1_j61qbiw wrote
Except when you compare it against coal emissions. Coal kills more people per kilowatt generated by a wide margin.
EspHack t1_j61qchj wrote
if you find the actual kwh usage, we've been stuck since the 70's, cuz nuke bad
computers are all the rage because its the only tech that can improve within the same power budget, we dont have supersonic electric planes powered by lasers, efficiency be dammed, because again, nuke baddd
energy would be so cheap our standard of living would make the current one look like the 1700's, our freaking sidewalks/streets would be heated in winter
fortnitefunnies3 t1_j61qdj9 wrote
Well yeah but nuclear fallout is bad
HungryLikeTheWolf99 t1_j61r5an wrote
Mmmmm no, you're going nuts, bot.
KittyBizkit t1_j61svgi wrote
This is exactly what I am talking about. People like you vastly overestimate the dangers and probability of them.
eddy_talon t1_j61wvjw wrote
Nuclear fallout comes from nuclear detonations. Power plants don't have the capacity to make nuclear detonations.
fortnitefunnies3 t1_j61x2ca wrote
I’m a proponent of nuclear power too. I’m just trying to explain the opposition
Potato_Octopi t1_j6201jp wrote
Kind of doubt we'd have great EVs 30 years ago.
crimeo t1_j621cen wrote
If you replant and cycle your logging, it's neutral too. Drive around the pacific northwest, you can visually see almost the full loop around a hill range where there are different strips in a row in varying levels of regrowth cycling around.
Only cutting and then just leaving it for pasture or waste or development is one way
crimeo t1_j621r55 wrote
Literally more people per megawatt have died from even SOLAR from things like falling off their roof installing panels than from all non military nuclear damage.
For coal, its orders of magnitude worse
YachtingChristopher t1_j621v9g wrote
What does that have to do with this chart or nuclear power?
crimeo t1_j621w6k wrote
There is no such thing as nuclear fallout from civilian power plants.... so say wha?
KittyBizkit t1_j62305m wrote
From the sounds of it, you ARE the opposition.
I think this is kinda like people who are afraid of flying because of plane crashes. But realistically you are far more likely to die in a car crash in the way to the airport than in a plane crash after you get there.
fortnitefunnies3 t1_j623b76 wrote
So I am actively saying I am for nuclear power plants
Fit-Plant-306 t1_j628utc wrote
Quadrillion is my new favorite word….
Potato_Octopi t1_j62bo80 wrote
A lot of the petroleum is for transport. Not much is electricity generation.
YachtingChristopher t1_j62i7qq wrote
Ah! Got it. Is there data for that breakdown anywhere? I'd love to see it, though that makes perfect sense.
No-Asparagus6190 t1_j62lchl wrote
Cuz nuke bad?
tinainthebar t1_j62y5fh wrote
That's an interesting claim, certainly believable if you look at direct deaths (which globally is probably under 100 - almost entirely from Chernobyl, especially if you count Kyshtym as military).
I'd love to see the source
Estimating, and attributing things like cancer correctly (reduction in life span and life quality) from things like construction and dismantling, uranium mining, etc is trickier.
On the other hand so is the mining for the metals needed for solar, and the construction risk per kWh I would guess are orders of magnitude higher for solar (especially rooftop solar)
I'm sure both are dwarfed by the impact from oil, gas and coal though.
vtTownie t1_j63moq2 wrote
Managed forests aren’t scalable? How tf you think we build houses?
st4n13l t1_j63psd0 wrote
It's not scalable as a carbon neutral practice
Dirtey t1_j63r4vz wrote
And lots of Americans are still acting like they are not the problem. They are faaar behind most EU countries.
gabotuit t1_j63t6o1 wrote
Because of the big number bias… wait until you get a couple hundred nuclear reactors and the compounded effects of little accidents and the very long term effects
EspHack t1_j64b8tl wrote
nuclear power
crimeo t1_j64gw0c wrote
I figured it all out on reddit but it seems to be > the max 1,000 comments ago :(
Potato_Octopi t1_j64j3rc wrote
Yeah eia has buttloads of data.
YachtingChristopher t1_j61cfq1 wrote
Sad that nuclear could have filled that whole chart 30 years ago.