3 ms·

Perhaps it's because Germans are more responsible? Nuclear waste disposal is very much an unsolved problem that we are putting on the shoulders of the following

by Tepix 5y ago

Perhaps it's because Germans are more responsible? Nuclear waste disposal is very much an unsolved problem that we are putting on the shoulders of the following generations. Just like - climate catastrophe - insane debt - rampant pollution - the ongoing mass extinction - pensions during changing demographics Other than that nuclear is slower and much more expensive to newly deploy than wind and solar. It also remains more dangerous because there is always the human factor (hubris and corruption!) as we have seen in Japan. Before Fukushima, people said it couldn't happen there, only in countries like Russia.

Tepix 5y ago
Also 40% of the Uranium delivered to Europe come from Kasachstan. That's not a reliable source.
Adrig 5y ago
Sure, it's far more responsible to release byproducts in the atmosphere killing millions than contain it underground. Here's another unsolved problem for you : intermittence of renewals. Why having a base of reliable energy source from nuclear when you can burn coal? Or give up geopolitical independence by being reliant on Russia's gas?
- max002 5y ago
  Is it better to product radioactive waste thats gonna leak and cost hundreds of generation insane amounts of money and we will happily live on one bug radioactive dump? Its better to use invest in renewables
- cycomanic 5y ago
  Really the baseload myth needs to go, it's been debunked many times. In electricity demand is intermittent, therefore you need to have your supply to be able to follow those demand fluctuations, in other words you need a quickly adjustable supply. Traditionally electricity grids used gas turbines to give this quickly adjustable supply. However, generally power from gas turbines is relatively expensive, so what many grids did is use coal or nuclear (which was cheaper, but could also not be adjusted) to supply a fraction of supply and only use gas to even out the demand fluctuations. Renewables are now significantly cheaper than both coal and nuclear, however as you correctly point out they are intermittent, so you can't combine them with "base load" because you still need quick adjustable supply. Renewables therefore mainly replace the slow "baseload" plants. Moreover the economics are such that it makes it much cheaper to just overprovision with renewables (to essentially make it easier to even out fluctuations) instead of using some plants which have to run at a 100% full time to be economical (like nuclear). TLDR "baseload" only makes sense if the way of producing it is cheaper than all other methods. That is not the case with nuclear by a significant margin.
SahAssar 5y ago
What are your thoughts on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo... and similar nuclear waste disposal strategies?
- cycomanic 5y ago
  The issue with these facilities is that they need to be safe for thousand(s) of years and nobody really knows if they are. Moreover the experience in Germany is that the operators, politicians, construction companies... take shortcuts for various (primarily economic reasons), which makes safety even more questionable. This is one of the primary things that fueled nuclear scepticism in Germany, people become more aware of the news around nuclear power operators and the dogeiness that is happening. For example it happened multiple times that there were incidents that should have been reported by law and operators didn't report because it possibly would have meant to a shutdown period. Usually, nothing came out of these violations, even though there are provisions that require operators to be "trustworthy". Looking at other countries, e.g. France, information was very biased to keep bad news about nuclear away. For example my partner told me that when Tschernobyl happened when she was young they were essentially told that all radiation had stopped at the border and now restrictions regarding vegetables, mushrooms etc were necessary.
  - morelisp 5y ago
    Thank god we're burning lignite and building pipelines to buy gas from Putin rather than dealing with potentially dodgy nuclear plant operators!
    - cycomanic 5y ago
      Well the consequences of a dodgy nuclear plant operator are potentially pretty disastrous (see Japan). That said, I completely agree that burning lignite is shameful, I would argue that it has nothing to do with nuclear or renewables, it's politics. Regarding gas, both nuclear and most renewables are not really in the same category as gas in terms of the supply they provide. Gas would be just as necessary if all current goal plants are nuclear (or wind for that matter). It might very well be that gas would allow to reduce CO2 emissions and transition to renewables more quickly than without. I agree with the geopolitical implications, but Germany is producing lots of things in China and are delivering weapons to Saudi Arabia and now we suddenly take a stance when it comes to gas from Russia? In terms of environmental impact it's still better than developing reserves from fracking.

by Tepix 5y ago

Tepix 5y ago

Also 40% of the Uranium delivered to Europe come from Kasachstan. That's not a reliable source.

Adrig 5y ago

Sure, it's far more responsible to release byproducts in the atmosphere killing millions than contain it underground. Here's another unsolved problem for you : intermittence of renewals. Why having a base of reliable energy source from nuclear when you can burn coal? Or give up geopolitical independence by being reliant on Russia's gas?

max002 5y ago
Is it better to product radioactive waste thats gonna leak and cost hundreds of generation insane amounts of money and we will happily live on one bug radioactive dump? Its better to use invest in renewables
cycomanic 5y ago
Really the baseload myth needs to go, it's been debunked many times. In electricity demand is intermittent, therefore you need to have your supply to be able to follow those demand fluctuations, in other words you need a quickly adjustable supply. Traditionally electricity grids used gas turbines to give this quickly adjustable supply. However, generally power from gas turbines is relatively expensive, so what many grids did is use coal or nuclear (which was cheaper, but could also not be adjusted) to supply a fraction of supply and only use gas to even out the demand fluctuations. Renewables are now significantly cheaper than both coal and nuclear, however as you correctly point out they are intermittent, so you can't combine them with "base load" because you still need quick adjustable supply. Renewables therefore mainly replace the slow "baseload" plants. Moreover the economics are such that it makes it much cheaper to just overprovision with renewables (to essentially make it easier to even out fluctuations) instead of using some plants which have to run at a 100% full time to be economical (like nuclear). TLDR "baseload" only makes sense if the way of producing it is cheaper than all other methods. That is not the case with nuclear by a significant margin.

SahAssar 5y ago

What are your thoughts on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo... and similar nuclear waste disposal strategies?

cycomanic 5y ago
The issue with these facilities is that they need to be safe for thousand(s) of years and nobody really knows if they are. Moreover the experience in Germany is that the operators, politicians, construction companies... take shortcuts for various (primarily economic reasons), which makes safety even more questionable. This is one of the primary things that fueled nuclear scepticism in Germany, people become more aware of the news around nuclear power operators and the dogeiness that is happening. For example it happened multiple times that there were incidents that should have been reported by law and operators didn't report because it possibly would have meant to a shutdown period. Usually, nothing came out of these violations, even though there are provisions that require operators to be "trustworthy". Looking at other countries, e.g. France, information was very biased to keep bad news about nuclear away. For example my partner told me that when Tschernobyl happened when she was young they were essentially told that all radiation had stopped at the border and now restrictions regarding vegetables, mushrooms etc were necessary.
- morelisp 5y ago
  Thank god we're burning lignite and building pipelines to buy gas from Putin rather than dealing with potentially dodgy nuclear plant operators!
  - cycomanic 5y ago
    Well the consequences of a dodgy nuclear plant operator are potentially pretty disastrous (see Japan). That said, I completely agree that burning lignite is shameful, I would argue that it has nothing to do with nuclear or renewables, it's politics. Regarding gas, both nuclear and most renewables are not really in the same category as gas in terms of the supply they provide. Gas would be just as necessary if all current goal plants are nuclear (or wind for that matter). It might very well be that gas would allow to reduce CO2 emissions and transition to renewables more quickly than without. I agree with the geopolitical implications, but Germany is producing lots of things in China and are delivering weapons to Saudi Arabia and now we suddenly take a stance when it comes to gas from Russia? In terms of environmental impact it's still better than developing reserves from fracking.