this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
429 points (91.3% liked)

World News

38586 readers
2152 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Everyone seems to be focused on electricity production, but ammonia production (ie nitrogen fixation) for fertilizer is often overlooked. Right now it is accomplished mostly with natural gas. If we're supposed to do it instead with wind and solar, we're going to have to rely on simple and inefficient electrolysis of water to generate the hydrogen needed for the Haber process. Nuclear power plants have the advange of producing very high temperature steam, which allows for high temperature electrolysis, which is more efficient.

When you consider our fertilizer needs, it becomes clearer that nuclear power will have to play the predominant role in the transition away from fossil fuels.

[–] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

No on all fronts.

The only reactor designs with any sort of history don't produce steam at high enough temperature for the sulfur cycle and haber process.

The steam they do produce costs more per kWh thermal than a kWh electric from renewables with firming so is more economic to produce with a resistor.

Mirrors exist. Point one at a rock somewhere sunny and you have a source of high temperature heat.

Direct nitrogen electrolysis is better than all these options.

Using fertilizer at all has a huge emissions footprint (much bigger than producing it). The correct path here is regenerative agriculture, precision fermentation and reducing the amount of farmland needed by stopping beef.

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 3 points 1 year ago

One way or another, I'm pretty sure that we need fertilizer. What is the source of GHG if the fertilizer is produced without natural gas or other fossil fuels?

[–] MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, we're definitely going to have to set up more nuclear power plants specifically to make fertilizer. Nuclear heads are literally brain dead

[–] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Fertilizer which they can't make because the steam isn't hot enough.

Every single pro nuclear argument is a fractal of terrible ideas and gaslighting.