244
German Chancellor Scholz speaks out against new nuclear power
(www.reuters.com)
Growth in german wind capacity is slowing. Soo... then the plan is to keep on with lignite and gas? Am I missing something?
Installed Wind Capacty - Germany
Okay, now factor in environmental costs.
…which is hugely worse for nuclear? What is your point?
Nuclear power plants require eye watering amounts of concrete.
They require continuous (and ever-increasing) extraction of fissile matter such as uranium ore (a limited resource, by the way - if we used nuclear power instead of fossil fuels we would run out pretty quickly, too, all things considered).
Nuclear power also consumes (and irradiates) vast quantities of water.
They are huge nightmares for biodiversity as they are massive projects usually flattening large swathes of land.
They produce waste which is not only irradiated and hazardous but also a major security risk, so it has to be safeguarded… and/or sealed into a hole in the ground where it will remain a risk for years to come.
The building projects themselves are astronomical in scale and require huge quantities of materials to be shipped by fleets and fleets of trucks followed by a lot of industrial work. Then in a couple of decades the site has to be decommissioned which is even more work.
Estimates for the lifetime emissions (extraction, commission, operation, etc.) CO2EQ of nuclear power are commonly thought to be between 60-100g per kWh. Solar power is somewhere in the region of 20-40g per kWh, and wind is somewhere around 10-20g per kWh.
So again, no, nuclear energy is not what we want. Support ONLY renewables. Nuclear power is wasteful.
Objectively not. Precious metal mining is more than a thousand times worse for the environment than Uranium or Thorium mining.
Sure, in the 1950s. Modern nuclear reactors can be built in existing Coal plants. Most reactor types don't require any additional shielding besides what is already present.
We have mined enough Uranium to power the entire world for the next 10,000 years; there is currently enough Uranium in just known mines for the next 1,000,000 years of current global power usage. And that's just Uranium. Thorium is a viable technology with the first reactors already online for commercial use.
No, it doesn't. This is just outright a lie, one I have no idea where you got. The internal loop never leaves the building, the external loop is never irradiated.
They have a smaller impact than solar or wind farms, by a factor of 100.
They produce less toxic waste than Coal power plants, and all of the world's projected nuclear waste for the next 100,000 years fits into existing facilities.
This is the exact same for renewables, worse, arguably, since wind farms have to be off shore to be efficient and cargo ships are more than a thousand times worse for the environment than any form of overland transport.
From the charts I've seen lately, offshore is much more expensive than onshore per kwhr for wind by a large margin. If that's the case, is offshore even valuable anymore?
Yes, given there is no 'empty land,' you are always destroying something if you create a windfarm on land. On the other end of this, offshore windfarms unironically create local ecosystems. If your goal is not just decarbonization, but decarbonization in order to better the health of the planet, which it should be, then offshore would be the best option.
See: Germany tearing down land wind farms in order to mine more coal. Those turbines aren't going to be repurposed, they're going to scrap yards.
What do you know that countries with state funded labs full of scientists haven't figured out?
Nothing? That's my point. They HAVE figured this out. Get your head out of your ass and take an opportunity to actually learn something instead of just being aggressively wrong on the internet. The only people in the industry who think we should provision nuclear power plants are those who would financially benefit from continued investment in nuclear. Just look it up.
If renewables are the answer, why does germany still rely on lignite? If it was figured out, wouldn't they be exporters of carbon free energy to Europe? (France is!) Instead of resisting nuclear, renewable advocates ought to go after fossil fuel subsidies. Fighting nuclear gives lignite "the green light."
Because the last German government did everything it could to make it harder to get more renewables. Just look at Bavaria for example where the little sister f the CDU is still inpower. You are allowed to build wind turbines in very few spots
Renewable advocates famously silent and okay with fossil fuel subsidies
Because the fossil fuel industry and their lobbyists are absolutely, ridiculously, hideously wealthy, and it benefits them for it to be that way?
France lost their place as largest energy producer in the EU in 2022, because France has been having issues with their nuclear power stations.
"France usually exports more power than it imports, but structural problems with its nuclear fleet, which show no signs of improving, saw exports from the country halve compared to the previous year, while Sweden exported 16 terawatt hours"
Sweden has over 60% of their energy generation from renewables, by the way.
Take a look at this graph:
See that blue line that starts out at the top, then it drops off a cliff? That's coal. Look at it dropping.
The yellow line that's just below it, that's been slowly decreasing until it sharply started dropping? That's nuclear.
Look at my boy wind power, that little gray line, going into orbit, flying like the wind.
Solar PV is that purple line that's trending upwards.
Oil is also slowly decreasing.
So no, you're wrong. Stop digging your heels in and admit when you are wrong.
Lol, what am I wrong about? Nuclear is a a carbon free techonolgy that we have that can prodce the energy we need? Germany dumped nuclear to go full renewable and it flopped? France exports a ton energy to Europe? What did I say that was wrong?
I think your brain is full of ideas that came from somewhere else.
Watch this, I can make you ragequit this entire argument with this one comment with like a 90% confidence rate:
Prove either of these two statements as false:
The total cost per kWh of nuclear electricity is more expensive than common renewable sources of electricity.
The total amount of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions for nuclear is greater than the carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of common renewable sources of electricity.
Either that or you can loftily declare yourself above this argument, state that I am somehow moving the goalposts, say that "there's no point, I'll never change your mind" or just somehow express some amount of increduiity at my absolutely abhorrent behaviour by asking you such a straightforward question? You may also choose "that's not the question I want to talk about, we should answer MY questions instead!"
But go ahead and prove me wrong, I'll be waiting!
Nice. Topic change.
For real though, you've got a lot of energy on this. That's great. Use it to go after fossil fuels, they're the ones damaging the climate. Costs are indeed a concern with expanding nuclear but money's not a problem. Emissions are. If we need more we'll just print more like we always do.
Ah yeah, that's the stuff, right there. It's like fucking heroin right into my veins. I ask you directly to contradict the entire underlying basis for my entire original argument and you declare that it's a "topic change". I don't know why you love defending the nuclear industry so much, but man, the entertainment value alone, it's great stuff.
How about you take that little hit to your ego, admit that you were wrong, and start being right? We've all been there man, I used to be a big supporter of nuclear energy too, you can join me in recovery and we can fight against investments in both fossil fuels AND nuclear AT THE SAME TIME. It's almost unbelievable I know but we're actually capable of more advanced thought than "the mineral fuel enemy of my fossil fuel enemy is my friend". Every million dollars spent on nuclear would have been better spent as half a million on renewables and then burying the other half a million in a hole in the ground. Obviously spending the whole million on renewables would be good as well but I know that it's just not the same generating power without having some big hole in the ground being dug as part of that process so I'm willing to come to a compromise.
I won't fight against anything that helps the climate, even if it's expensive. It's unfortunate that anyone would. Do you really think when our grandchildren inherit the land, they'll be proud that their ancestors saved money when caring for the atmosphere?
This isn't about being right or wrong, or arguing about stupid things with a loon from the internet. It's about the atmosphere, don't forget that.
Again, compared to nuclear, renewables are:
Name a single good fucking thing nuclear does better than renewables.
omg who are you even talking to? It seems like your copy-pasting responses without reading who you're talking to. You're coming off a little looney which is unfortunate because it makes what your talking about sound looney too.
"I can't argue with your logic so I'll just call you crazy instead", that's an absolute classic, good choice
I didn't respond to the wrong person, you're just mad that you're losing an argument because your position is wrong.
Subsidize nuclear as much as renewables and the price equalizes.
This is incorrect, objectively.