39 ms·
Finland lobbied EU to declare nuclear power sustainable
- sMarsIntruder 5y agoThey did that because they’re both deep into it and because that’s the right thing to do. Just for comparison let’s have a look at the “green” Germany emissions.
- sharmin123 5y agoAre There Top Signs of a Cheating Lover? What To do Then?: https://www.hackerslist.co/are-there-top-signs-of-a-cheating-lover-what-to-do-then/ https://www.hackerslist.co/are-there-top-signs-of-a-cheating...
- awillen 5y agoThe lack of support for nuclear power is truly astounding, especially as we watch the slow motion car crash of climate change happening around us. It's obviously unsurprising from anti-science Republicans, but the Democratic party as a whole should be deeply embarrassed that they're going toe to toe on irrationality with the other side on such an important issue.
- vlozko 5y agoWhatever Republican’s views are on climate change, they’ve been consistently pro nuclear power.
- kristofferR 5y agoUntil Democrats' start supporting it, at least :/
- hunterb123 5y agoWell we won't know until Democrats start supporting it...
- t-3 5y agoI recall nuclear being part of Hillary Clinton's presidential platform, and Biden has mentioned it as well, though I'm not sure it's a priority for him. Lobbyists are more an issue than political parties when it comes to energy. Nuclear energy doesn't have a powerful lobbying arm like Big Oil, unless you count the military.
- micromacrofoot 5y agoWon't really matter which party supports it because <50% of the population supports is
- elzbardico 5y agoDo they support it in their backyards? I do, but do they?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Alupis 5y agoI have yet to hear an argument from a pro-nuclear power supporter that excluded building plants nearby. Conversely, we tend to see massive wind and solar farms built far away from the people most adamantly insisting they are the only green future...
- thehappypm 5y agoNew Hampshire (the most conservative state in New England, one of the most conservative states in the Northeast) has a nuclear reactor, placed near its extremely short coastline.
- dantheman 5y agoYou need to stop thinking these parties make sense, both are pro science, both are anti-science. They're a random set of beliefs/agendas/policies that are not coherent. For instance, before covid democrats were the party of the anti-vaxxers. They don't represent the majority - their membership and approval has been declining. They're about power and directing money to their constituents.
- kleer001 5y agoI think it goes beyond political party. It sounds like a basic human level misunderstanding and lack of foresight. Also the understandable choice during the heyday to pick the one kind of nuclear power that created weapons as a by product. Unless I'm missing something. Is there a world-wide acceptance of nuclear power and only the USA is outstanding in their phobia? I honestly don't know, my understanding of world politics is a bit thin.
- sebow 5y agoWhat are you talking about? I've never seen republicans talk against nuclear, except maybe from those that are angry about the effects of previous environmental damage where exotic particles were found in food, soil, ended up in humans,etc. Not necessarily from nuclear sources though. In europe the vast majority of anti-nuclear rhetoric is coming from the left, especially in Germany.I would also bet this is the case in US, but never seen a good dataset made available on this topic.It's not really an anti-science position, because that would assume people are informed even in a non-scientific way,whereas the reality is that the vast majority of anti-nuclear folks are people who fear the "armageddon" from past tragic events, coinciding with the "end is near" climate doomsayers.You don't need a scientific understanding to assume those positions, sadly. Whatever the position one has,I think people should agree this is a shitshow and sadly it has turned into a political mess.Nuclear is the most green energy there is: it is efficient and the (unavoidable) waste is very localized,unlike solar/wind energy, where the downside effects are very hard to quantify, and only recently the scientific community was made aware that those are not without drawbacks.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Maakuth 5y agoThe next good nuclear news from Finland will hopefully be about the new reactor entering production, currently expected in the next June. The EPR construction has been impossibly overtime and over budget, but one would hope constructing more of the same type of unit should be faster. Right?
- hannob 5y agoWrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
- Maakuth 5y agoI know OL3 is not the only EPR under construction. Flamanville construction was started too early though, to augment much of the lessons learned from the other plant's construction. In fact I think both plants have had quite similar problems. It is these things that I would expect to be better understood in the possible future EPR projects.
- liotier 5y agoFlamanville and Olkiluoto are the lead ships in that class. They pay for the loss of institutional knowledge since building the previous generation in France. Now with that experience the new EPR design (EPR 2) improves for the coming series.
- Factorium 5y agoThe operating costs of Nuclear are minimal, the problem is planning, building, regulating, decommissioning them. On that basis, modular nuclear reactors seem to make the most sense. Rolls Royce in the UK looks to be onto a winner with their 470mw SMR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_small_modular_reactor_designs#Rolls-Royce_SMR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_small_modular_reactor_... 2 years site prep, 2 years building the unit. £1.8 billion per unit. They could be mass produced with the right investment. Operate them for 60 years each, take out the remaining fuel, and just leave the rest of the power plant in the ground forever. We should be mass producing these units right now and installing them across the EU, UK, USA, Australia. We could be building 100 a year with the right investment.
- errantspark 5y agoThe whole nuclear power situation is a total clownshow. Here in California we've regulated nuclear out of existence and we're replacing it with natural gas in an effort to save the environment/children. Truly as fucking stupid as it sounds.
- sm0ss117 5y agoLook, in order to prevent scary radiation from entering the environment through nuclear we have to use clean and even more radioactive natural gas.
- Siecje 5y agoCan you explain how natural gas is radioactive?
- ben_w 5y agoWikipedia says radon gets into it: """Radon is found in some petroleum. Because radon has a similar pressure and temperature curve to propane, and oil refineries separate petrochemicals based on their boiling points, the piping carrying freshly separated propane in oil refineries can become radioactive because of decaying radon and its products.[84] Residues from the petroleum and natural gas industry often contain radium and its daughters. The sulfate scale from an oil well can be radium rich, while the water, oil, and gas from a well often contains radon. Radon decays to form solid radioisotopes that form coatings on the inside of pipework.[84]""" - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radon Unfortunately citation 84 is a dead link: "Potential for Elevated Radiation Levels In Propane" (PDF). National Energy Board. April 1994. Retrieved 2009-07-07" - http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rsftyndthnvrnmnt/sfty/sftydvsr/1994/nbs199401-eng.pdf http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rsftyndthnvrnmnt/sfty/sftyd...
- jhgb 5y agoExcept natural gas does not get distilled propane added into it (or at least I'm not aware of anyone doing that; the varying composition of natural gas is due to its varying geological origins).
- unchocked 5y agoFinland is a hero on nuclear energy development. After the US bailed on Yucca Mountain, Finland is the only country I know building a stable geological waste repository. Great to see the realist Greens coming along on nuclear as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo... * to be anti-nuclear is to be anti-climate, and pro-coal.
- zokier 5y ago> Finland is a hero on nuclear energy development Finland is also a country that just spent almost 20 years building one new nuclear reactor, and its still not in commercial operation
- TravelPiglet 5y agoAnd it’s not looking pretty: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_buildings https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_build...
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- arthurcolle 5y agoHow in the name of Allah is the nominal cost of mosque around the Kaaba $100 billion? That is bonkers
- JustFinishedBSG 5y agoWorth 5 state of the art nuclear power plants apparently...
- jhgb 5y agoPetrodollars, that's how.
- dpedu 5y ago
- zokier 5y agoHere is official press release from Finnish Government, which also links to the statement from the ministers: https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/-/1410877/lintila-and-other-eu-ministers-joint-article-europe-needs-nuclear-power https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/-/1410877/lintila-and-other-eu-... Also the relevant EC page has a section on nuclear energy that has some more information: https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/banking-and-finance/sustainable-finance/eu-taxonomy-sustainable-activities_en https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/banking-and-...
- wvh 5y agoFinland with its cold winters doesn't exactly have a lot of sunlight and it knows better than to depend on Russia for energy, so at this point geographical reality is that nuclear power really seems the best option.
- Hamuko 5y agoIt's not that there isn't sunlight, it's that the sunlight is massively skewed towards the summer when it's between +20°C and +30°C with low energy demand, and not during the winter when it's -10°C to -30°C with high energy demand. You could get 24/7 solar power in Lapland for like a month when the sun comes up in June and finally sets in July.
- isoprophlex 5y ago"Finland lobbied EU to declare nuclear power sustainable" Well, isn't it? Am I missing something or is nuclear about as sustainable as it gets? The perfect baseload to cover us when solar or wind is out. Almost no CO2 produced, much lower deaths/GWh produced, plentiful fuel supplies?
- gfft 5y agoIn the EU, if Germany diktates that something is bad then so it stays. While Germany energy is coal based (so its not just that their low quality cars cheat on emissions to pollute the continent) everyone in europe must obey and not use nuclear. Hope the tide turn and we once again liberate this continent of their fascism.
- fsckboy 5y agoyou are focusing on pollution in terms of sustainability, but perhaps fission is unsustainable because it relies on "fuels" which can run out? there is only a finite supply of uranium.
- Tsarbomb 5y agoSometimes I feel crazy when people start arguing about nuclear. Up here in Ontario, 60% of our power comes from nuclear. If Canada can manage to have an indigenous nuclear industry with our culture of regulations and red-tape, what on earth is stopping an economic powerhouse like the EU.
- rsj_hn 5y agoPolitics, especially the green movement. They want the "war" on CO2 to be about personal sacrifice and de-industrialization. Sometimes I wish the European governments would open "climate sanctuaries", where Green Party members and other individuals can go and live for a while taking only cold showers, not using any plastic, living with dim lightbulbs and low flush toilets, and perhaps even whipping themselves occasionally. As they leave, they will get a certificate that says they helped to "save the planet". The dedicated ones can live there while less dedicated visit just for a few hours on Sundays. Meanwhile the actual governments can build out nuclear power and do something that is effective. This would give both sides what they want.
- Jenda_ 5y ago> They want the "war" on CO2 to be about personal sacrifice and de-industrialization. What's their motivation for this? (I see something similar and I don't understand. I have explained it for myself by Hanlon's razor.)
- m0zg 5y agoArguably the _only_ real, reliable, sustainable energy option we have right now. That is if you believe that we're actually are in a "crisis" rather than virtue signal on the issue as you jet around the world in a private plane, which "climate advocates" have the habit of doing.
- cunidev 5y agoIsn't traditional nuclear power, while sustainable, also immensely dangerous?
- trenchgun 5y agoWhere does the immense danger come from?
- baq 5y agoTail risks. Black swans if you wish. Unknown unknowns which leave the immediate area uninhabitable forever and a wide radius for generations.
- Jenda_ 5y agoIf your alternative is fossil, you need to compare this to land lost due to rising sea levels, desertification etc.
- baq 5y agoabsolutely... no good options. fusion maybe, if it finally works.
- pbaka 5y agoWell, tbf, not uninhabitable, if you look at the region of Prypiat. It's just surroundings which select for the most radiation resitant.
- mike_d 5y agoNuclear is the safest form of energy generation we have today when measured in deaths per unit of energy produced. Nuclear kills 90 people per terawatt generated, rooftop solar kills 440 per terawatt. Hydro kills 1,400 and wind kills 150.
- pflanze 5y ago
- mdf 5y agoThe Green League party in Finland is kind of interesting when compared to other Greens worldwide. They used to be vehemently anti-nuclear, having for example previously left a government due to decisions related to investments in new nuclear power plants (as referred in TFA). However, since then they've: - Removed the opposition to nuclear power from their official party program - Just recently elected a known pro-nuclear vice-chairman - Now this, lobbying for inclusion of nuclear energy in the EU as sustainable Also, a sub-organization Finnish Greens for Science and Technology (Viite) (also pro-nuclear, pro-GMO, etc.) has taken a nice foothold in the party. Commendable to see people coming around and updating their beliefs.
- theshrike79 5y agoThe Old Guard of the Finnish Greens were hard core anti-atom power the ones with positions of actual power. Younger generations have been either pro or neutral for a long time, it just took them a while to get to places in power inside the party to actually change the policy.
- lutorm 5y agoFor the purpose of the climate crisis, we should talk about "carbon neutral" instead of "sustainable". It's both more clearly defined and more relevant to the current challenge.
- more_corn 5y agoWhat if we agreed that Nuclear energy could be considered green only if it isn't a design that provides dual use enriching fuel for nuclear weapons? Creating nuclear weapons seems incompatible with preserving the environment. It seems that the nuclear reactor choices have historically been geared towards the dual purposes of 1) Producing power AND 2) Enriching fuel for the most environmentally destructive weapons ever invented. If we were to decouple those two things we'd probably unlock some interesting designs that have fewer problems with long-lived waste and provide a part of our green energy future.
- rtkwe 5y agoI think we should also include long term disposal and reprocessing requirements in there too.
- sigg3 5y agoThis sounds clever. Can anyone knowledgeable chime in, please? I'd love to see more nuclear power.
- p_l 5y agoThe problem is that reactors that can do enriching are also the ones you want to ensure fuel safety - as they can run on natural (not enriched) uranium. If you need enriched uranium to start, then you need enrichment plants, which have 0 difference between making fuel or bomb core (about only real difference being that U-235 as bomb core is somewhat low efficiency option compared to plutonium or thorium fuel cycles). Meanwhile plutonium produced from reactors can be milled together with uranium to produce MOX fuels to be burnt again, often in reactor not capable of breeding fuel. P.S. Thorium doesn't fix any of that, it just was IIRC a bit more complex to use for power generation and for bomb making plutonium won by slight difference.
- baq 5y agoBy the time all needed nuclear reactors are built, there won’t be anything left to sustain. Time to first watt for nuclear is so atrocious it isn’t even funny. You could install and end of life an equivalent amount of wind, solar and batteries for the same money and time (…hyperbole, but maybe not).
- germandiago 5y agoMy limited understanding is that (this is France and Spain FWIW) nuclear centrals way back were built to provide energy as a first source, non-stop. Wind and solar energies are not stable and can grant all the supply. So, at least in France, there has been at least one nuclear central that was adapted as "backup energy". It could start/stop in one minute and increase every minute the amount of energy by a lot, but I do not remember the numbers right now, sorry. All in all, and, as I said, with my limited understanding, nuclear energy could be ok as a backup of energy if the centrals are adapted or built on purpose for it, favoring clean energy when possible. In Spain, a windy day a few years ago could give you around 40% of the supply for that day. There is also solar energy. But do not forget, these energies are not a panacea: some days are windy or sunny but others are not and the supply is much lower. It looks to me like there is a lot of politization around this and people keep repeating "wind, solar" as if that granted the supply. That is factually wrong, I am pretty sure since I consider my sources of information reliable (people close to me having worked around 16 years in the energy market exclusively).
- baq 5y agoI completely agree, that’s why I said “wind, solar and batteries” :)
- germandiago 5y agoI am not sure about batteries. Energy leakage and all of that? Also, noone built really giant batteries is what I heard last. They could be feasible, or maybe not. So I have no idea if what you propose is possible or science fiction right now.
- decasteve 5y agoI’ve been pro-nuclear for the past 20+ years and have echoed the same arguments and sentiments expressed here. However, I’ve started to waver. Is it naive idealism to expect a future where nuclear technology won’t be weaponized? We have to maintain global peace for thousands of years without a large-scale war. It’s incredibly unlikely given that scale of time that global peace will be continuously maintained.
- blitzar 5y ago> We have to maintain global peace for thousands of years without a large-scale war. Except for the reasonably regular large scale wars. > It’s incredibly unlikely given that scale of time that global peace will be continuously maintained. If anything has become clearer over the last 20 years to me it is that the gun and bomb are becoming less powerful. Until there is a life sustaining resource, for which there is no technical solution, any conflict will be fought by proxy and by internet.