325
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Metal_Zealot@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

With climate change looming, it seems so completely backwards to go back to using it again.

Is it coal miners pushing to keep their jobs? Fear of nuclear power? Is purely politically motivated, or are there genuinely people who believe coal is clean?


Edit, I will admit I was ignorant to the usage of coal nowadays.

Now I'm more depressed than when I posted this

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] thru_dangers_untold@lemmy.ml 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes, countries like Germany are turning to coal as a direct result of nuclear-phobia.

The US, with all its green initiatives and solar/wind incentives, is pumping more oil than Saudi Arabia. The US has been the top oil producer on whole the planet for the last 5-6 years. The problem is getting worse.

[-] klisklas@feddit.de 44 points 1 year ago

Sorry, this is just false info. Germany is not turning to coal as a result of your called nuclear phobia.

I will repeat my comment from another thread:

If you are able to read German or use a translator I can recommend this interview where the expert explains everything and goes into the the details.

Don't repeat the stories of the far right and nuclear lobby. Nuclear will always be more expensive than renewables and nobody has solved the waste problem until today. France as a leading nuclear nation had severe problems to cool their plants during the summer due to, guess what, climate change. Building new nuclear power plants takes enormous amounts of money and 10-20years at least. Time that we don't have at the moment.

[-] skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]

[-] luk3th3dud3@feddit.de 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Germany has not build any new coal plants. At least not in the last five years.

Edit: Why are people down voting a factual statement? Go ahead and provide better info if you got it.

[-] skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]

[-] luk3th3dud3@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago

Hmm I think what you mean is that some coal plants have been put into active maintenance. IIRC this was rather a countermeasure in case of absence of gas supplies. They are not part of the regular energy market.

Anyway, I think there is not only one way forward. Countries like France choose to use a big portion of nuclear, Germany does not. And every way has its own challenges. What is important is that energy supply should be independent of oppressor states and moving into a direction of carbon neutrality.

[-] xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org -5 points 1 year ago

Renewables are great until the sun stops shining and the wind stops blowing.

[-] Kissaki@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago

And that's more likely than enriched Uranium becoming unavailable or locally unobtainable?

[-] xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If you haven't noticed, the sun stops shining for several hours every day and how much the wind blows changes pseudo-randomly on a hourly basis. Are problems with uranium supply more common than that? Not to mention that uranium can be recycled.

[-] Metal_Zealot@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

As people pointed out in another thread, nuclear energy is NOT the future and also a really bad short term solution,so countries like Germany are going back to coal short term to make the transitions to renewables in the meantime.

It's not a great solution, but without Nordstream, there's really not much else more sensible to do right now, just to make the transition.

[-] Lemmyvisitor@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 year ago

what makes nuclear energy a bad option?

[-] AnAngryAlpaca@feddit.de 18 points 1 year ago
  • It takes 20 years to build
  • nobody knows how much nuclear fuel will cost in 20 years
  • you have to take out a big loan and make interest payments on it for maybe 30 years before you start making a profit
  • if you don't have enough water for cooling because of climate change, the plant must shut down
  • if your neighbor decides to start a war against you, your nuclear plants become a liability, see Ukraine.

I think smaller, decentralized renewable energy is cheaper in the short and long run and has a much lower risk in case of accidents, natural Desasters or attacks.

[-] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 1 year ago

SMR (small modular reactors) are looking like they could become the next hip thing in nuclear power tech.

Basically a lot lower initial investment and offer a lot more flexibility.

Linky link

The link has a lot of info on them

I really don't see that as a good progression. We want to focus on renewables because that's the most sustainable way to go. Why go back to nuclear again?

That said if you are saying that's where the industry is moving even though that's probably not the best approach, fair enough. My opinion has zero effect on the industry.

[-] dotmatrix@lemmy.ftp.rip 17 points 1 year ago

A single new reactor takes decades to build and costs billions. Investing in solar, wind, the grid and storage instead will generate more energy, faster, and for less.

[-] theKalash@feddit.ch -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's not "instead of".

You're supposed to run nuclear along side renewables. Opposed to running fossile fuels alongside renewables. Either way, something has be running besides renewables.

[-] schnokobaer@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago

Opposed to running fossile fuels alongside renewables.

But that's literally what you're gonna have to do for 20+ years if you decide to go both ways and also build new nuclear plants. Put all your budget into renewables at once and you instantly cut down on the fossil fuel you'd otherwise burn while waiting for your reactor to go online, all while you're saving money from the cheap energy yield which you can reinvest into more renewables or storage R&D to eventually overcome the requirement to run something alongside it.

[-] kugel7c@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

No 100% renewables is viable. You don't need anything running beside it.

[-] A7thStone@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

50+ years of fear from fossil fuel company propaganda.

[-] DrQuint@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago

"BuT thE WaSTe diSPoSaL PrObLEm"

Meanwhile coal:

"Oh that thing that's more radioactive than nuclear waste? Yeah, just toss it in the air. Who cares"

[-] DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 1 year ago

I don't necessarily agree, but the usual arguments against are cost, lead time, and waste.

this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
325 points (93.3% liked)

Asklemmy

43942 readers
642 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS