EuropeAs with everything, politicians are at least 15 years too late in their thinking.
Nuclear... what? Families? DNA? Chemistry? "Nuclear" isn't a noun, nor "digital" or "cyber".
We have decent universal education and literacy, let's not imitate the functionally illiterate.
Thank you for not letting it slide.
Can we also work on mass nouns pluralized with an S (eg e-mail), missing delimiters after sub-clauses and lists (the "American Ghost comma"), and also "please bellow find following"?
Nuclear has been tripping over it's own dick for 40 years. Solar is now the more viable option.
I disagree. Next to hydropower (which is limited by geography) it has been the champion of non-fossil electricity generation so far. Still, the fossil fuel lobby is a powerful foe.
Simply put, we should invest in all non-fossil options, and where solar is geographically viable, it is great. In other places however, where peak electricity demand coincides with the coldest, darkest parts of the year dispatchable production is strictly necessary, which is where nuclear shines.
Well but what to do with the waste?
I think in general it is a good source for energy, but unless we find a solution other than storing it somewhere in the earth, we should not use it.
I'm so happy the Netherlands is going to build 4 of them - yes, solar and wind is cheaper, but Nuclear provides a stable base that doesn't exist with solar and wind, and we are going to need that stable base.
Except that it wasn’t according to people actually invested in researching energy matters.
The strategic mistake was and still is, when her party throttles solar and wind in favor for fossils (on a national level) or when they hinder transitioning to EVs.
They’re sabotaging decentralization and renewables wherever possible and make up stories about sunsetted (nuclear) or future (fusion) technologies.
And sleeping on battery technology.
I'd say both are mistakes. Nuclear has a long-term implementation process due to how long it takes to build. Of course solar and wind (and other clean technologies that we're not even aware of yet) will be the future but there are times where those technologies fall short (cloudy day, no wind). That's where nuclear could be a base-line option to help us until we find a permanent solution. I know it comes with it's own challenges but it's still infinitely cleaner than coal or anything like that.
Of course fusion looks really promising but that technology still needs a lot of time in the oven before it will be usable on a large scale. Nuclear has been proven to work.
Of course fusion looks really promising
Fusion reactors have been constantly 30 years away for deacades.
All nuclear power programmes are really just a reserve of know-how, equipment and manpower to maintain the capability of keeping or developing a nuclear weapons programme. The electricity generation does work, but it really is more of a fig leaf to make the massive expenses and the inherent risks of running nuclear reactors more palatable to the general public. Of course having a relatively weather independent baseline electricity generation capability is a good thing, too, but as all thermal power stations, nuclear power stations aren't completely weather independent either, as they do rely on large quantities of water for cooling.
Except that nuclear cannot be throttled and is no base line option.
Wind, solar, batteries and gas play well together in central Europe. Other countries have other resources, like water.
In addition hydrogen is complementary for heavy industries and can be produced when all batteries are filled up.
Nuclear can be throttled, we do it all the time.
In electricity generation, it typically can't be throttled reasonably in a way that allows quick reaction to changing demand. Most reactors' power output is regulated by changing the chemistry of the coolant, which can only be done gradually, Using quicker control rods for everyday power adjustment rather than only for shutdown and startup, is avoided to avoid uneven, and therefore inefficient fuel burn. While it could be done, it would make nuclear power even more uneconomical than it already is by forcing more frequent shutdowns for fuel changes.
Nuclear load following is routinely done in France. You can see more details here: https://www.nice-future.org/docs/nicefuturelibraries/default-document-library/france.pdf
Like solar, batteries can compensate for the difference between supply and demand.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that the other options are better. I'm just saying that nuclear can be a good temporary step in between to buy us time to perform the complete transition. And I get what you're saying about hydrogen but with the issues surrounding drinking water I don't know if we should really lean on that too much.
It's hardly viable as a temporary step when the time to bring a new one online is 20 years. The economics are already bad today and have been trending to be worse every year, while renewables and batteries are trending in the complete opposite direction.
The time for transitionary measures has passed. Renewables and batteries are here today. All we need to do is build it.
The core difference here is: if we speed things up we can increase wind and solar and battery storage in the blink of an eye. Take a look at China’s new capacity.
Nuclear not so much. Combined with the follow up questions of end storage or even getting the cheap uranium (Russia) there is no real reason to debate.
New reactors take decades to build. We need to have energy autonomy and move towards net 0 now. We can't wait for shiny new reactors, which will be ready in 2050, if we start planning now.
Our main objective should be to lower barriers for people to generate their own power. When local communities manage their own grids they have faster response times to blackouts or climate events.
Just google where nuclear fuel comes from and then think again, spoilers it's russia.
South Africa has uranium.
Look at where moth Cobolt or Lithium comes from.
There seemingly is very little to no ethical mining or rare earth metals.
Luckily sodium ion batteries are now a thing and they're perfect for grid storage.
Uranium needs to be processed first, and the major uranium processing facilities Europe has been using are in Russia and this kind of equipment isn't something you can quickly build yourself.
European capacities are not that small.
https://fissilematerials.org/facilities/enrichment_plants.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urenco_Group
If Germany hadn't shut down their nuclear power plants their energy mix would now be mostly coal, some nuclear and very little renewables. There was some political will to replace nuclear power with renewables, there still is not that much political will to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources. Gas-Kathi wants more gas after all and is trying to sabotage renewables again.
I would bet that the same interest groups have made Merkel switch off nuclear power as the ones who let Gas-Kathi stick to gas. If Germany hadn't shut down those plants those interest groups wouldn't exist and there would be cheap energy from nuclear, solar and wind.
It's wasn't a mistake. You got played. Corrupt politicians and activists canceled investment in nuclear to push Russian gas.
No shit you monster.
- shutting down safe (in Germany) nuclear power plants before the end of their lifetime was a mistake
- not planning new nuclear plants was in the in-between lands, to be decided by experts (I am not one) whether they would be needed for a transition to green energy
- turning back on the "turning back" on nuclear fission(!) energy now would be an even bigger mistake
I despise this corrupt monster so much.
Do we really need to call politicians "monster" here?
Not politicans in general, but this person? Well deserved imo. Are you following for how much shit she is responsible? Alternatively psychopath would work.
- Yes
- New plants are way to expensive. It's non longer economical to build those.
- What?
New plants are way to expensive. It’s non longer economical to build those.
It was never economical. Nuclear power was heavily subsidised for other reasons than electricity generation. Any country that runs a sizable nuclear industry for power generation does have the capability to develop a nuclear weapons programme in relatively short order. (Usually a matter of months)
It's basically nuclear deterrent light.
Any country that runs a sizable nuclear industry for power generation does have the capability to develop a nuclear weapons programme in relatively short order.
This is false. Sweden does not have a nuclear programme and does have a sizeable nuclear energy sector.
What?
Was that so hard? Backing out of the exit = planning new fission plants now - that would be bad. As you seem to agree in 2.
I said that because she's a corrupt monster who is likely to come up with a "hey, let's build more nuclear power plants" next.
Ah, OK. True. I just wasn't sure which backing out referred to which
Nuclear seems like a good idea for the future - in cross ocean shipping. Sails have too many limitations and nobody has any ideas for what else could even work (at least not that I've seen, everything fails the sniff test). It has only been done in air craft carriers and submarines (and maybe ice breakers?) that I know of so this is more the only idea I can come up with that could work. It needs a lot of effort to make is work in the real world though.
If(!) we get solid power supply going on dry land, maybe hydrogen & fuel cells...
Getting rid of all nuclear industry was a strategic mistake, but not in terms of electricity generation. Using nuclear energy to generate electricity has never been and will never be economical.
It was a strategic mistake to ditch that gigantic reserve of know-how, equipment and trained personnel, which could have been used for pursuing a military use of nuclear energy, which unfortunately has proven to be necessary due to an ally turned enemy.
It was a strategic mistake to ditch that gigantic reserve of know-how
Germany and the Netherlands have what is needed to build bombs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urenco_Group
This. It makes sense for France and UK to maintain a few nuclear power plants and maybe even build one or two new ones because they are part of the military supply chain for nukes. For the rest of the EU, don't waste money on new nuclear plants.
Well, unfortunately it seems to be prudent for preferably the EU itself, or its members, to pursue nuclear deterrent, thanks to the USA turning from a somewhat reliable ally into an enemy. The UK isn't a member of the EU anymore and has proven not very trustworthy either, and France alone doesn't have a very big nuclear deterrent. Also, it would just be fair to share some of the risks and burdens associated with maintaining such a necessary evil.
In fact, I highly doubt that any country that ever ran a large scale nuclear power programme did so because they actually believed it was an economical way of producing electrical energy. It has always been a know-how, equipment, and manpower pool for maintaining the ability to build a military nuclear programme in short order. Of course that tends to be not very palatable for the public, so it was preferred to tell them the lie of a clean and economical electricity source instead.
