4 ms·

In the meantime it's okay to take 2 minutes to celebrate that nuclear wasn't such a bad idea. We should just have doubled down on it 50 years ago. So much geo

by jopsen 5y ago

In the meantime it's okay to take 2 minutes to celebrate that nuclear wasn't such a bad idea. We should just have doubled down on it 50 years ago. So much geopolitical trouble would have been avoided if bad actors in the middle east and Russia wasn't flushed with cash.

cycomanic 5y ago
So who do you think is one of the largest providers of uranium in Europe? The arguments of Germany not being so dependent on Russia if they would have left their nuclear power plants running longer has been debunked several times. I believe this is largely nuclear power lobbyist taken advantage of the current situation. The EU is even more dependent on Uranium from Russia than gas. 20% of the natural Uranium and 26% of the enriched Uranium used in the EU comes from Russia and Kazastan [1] [1] https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/ukraine-krieg-eu-ist-auch-von-russischem-uran-abhaengig-a-d9575895-93da-4274-a5e5-167f4d9d2f0f https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/ukraine-krieg-eu-...
- Maakuth 5y ago
  That is only because that's the cheapest source, compared to gas which is bought from where the pipelines are coming from. The amount of uranium needed for power plants is fairly small, it can be transported from wherever and there's plenty available from Canada, Australia and South Africa for example. There are potential mines in continental Europe too, it is a matter of cost and politics to choose where to source it from.
- kwere 5y ago
  its easier to stock decades of energy supplies in uranium than in oil/gas
- erentz 5y ago
  As below commenters have pointed out this is a choice. Uranium can be sourced from many locations. It can also be processed in Germany if they had wanted (Germany is a part owner of Urenco which also has a small enrichment plant in Germany amongst other locations). To steel man your argument though in the context of funding Russia’s genocide in Ukraine when comparing Germany’s use of gas vs if it kept its nuclear plants operating we should look at the Euro per joule cost of the gas bought from Russia vs the Euro per joule cost of enriched U bought from Russia. I suspect we are talking orders of magnitude difference. But that information is conveniently not being provided in this article. Neither is discussed the ability to easily stockpile a couple of years of fuel supply as many plants have done, which right now would enable you to continue operating while spinning up supplies from elsewhere. Another note regarding the claim in the article: “For the operators of so-called WWER reactors, Russia is therefore even the only supplier of custom-made hexagonal fuel rods.” Westinghouse can make these fuel assemblies, they started on this for Ukraine. Framatome I believe has also offered to do this. There’s nothing secret about Rosatom fuel assemblies.
this_user 5y ago
If nuclear power is such a great idea, then why has it never become the dominant technology globally despite many decades of lobbying from the nuclear industry? Technologies that are strictly superior tend to dominate in the long run. Yet, nuclear power has always remained a niche player even in countries where there was not a lot of strong, organised opposition. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that nuclear power suffers from a lot of issues that have never properly been solved. And despite claims to the contrary, it is certainly not completely safe. The fact that dozens of Russian soldiers in Ukraine recently suffered radiation poisoning after digging trenches in the Chernobyl exclusion zone just highlights how long-lasting the environmental impact of nuclear accidents is. Admittedly, they should have known better, but how many exclusion zones like that can we afford to have globally from future nuclear accidents that are virtually guaranteed to happen eventually?
- theshrike79 5y ago
  > why has it never become the dominant technology globally despite many decades of lobbying from the nuclear industry? Because the anti-nuclear lobby is more powerful? Also the oil/gas lobby has had people in pretty damn high positions affecting these things. Belgium had an ex-Gazprom consultant as their minister of energy. Who - to no-one's surprise - wanted to shut down nuclear plants and move to Russian gas while they build up renewables. Also the incident in Chernobyl was 99% a political problem, not a technical one. No-one dared to tell their superiors "no" or "I fucked up" or "I have a problem". This compared with the lack of notification caused most of the eventual deaths. Just telling everyone to take iodine for a few weeks and not eat any of the currently growing plants would've cut down the amount of cancers in the area by at least half.
  - 7952 5y ago
    But humans are irrational and politics does exist. Poor communication and politics is a bigger challenge than engineering or technology. And if you actually want to build something then you have to work within the constraints of society. Sometimes you have to pick C# or Java even though you know that Lisp is the best. Getting something built is more important than technical idealism.
pvaldes 5y ago
> it's okay to take 2 minutes to celebrate that nuclear wasn't such a bad idea. And just 20.000 years to celebrate that the area will be as safe as it was before 1970. 180 years at least if we feel optimistic.

by jopsen 5y ago

cycomanic 5y ago

So who do you think is one of the largest providers of uranium in Europe? The arguments of Germany not being so dependent on Russia if they would have left their nuclear power plants running longer has been debunked several times. I believe this is largely nuclear power lobbyist taken advantage of the current situation. The EU is even more dependent on Uranium from Russia than gas. 20% of the natural Uranium and 26% of the enriched Uranium used in the EU comes from Russia and Kazastan [1] [1] https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/ukraine-krieg-eu-ist-auch-von-russischem-uran-abhaengig-a-d9575895-93da-4274-a5e5-167f4d9d2f0f https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/ukraine-krieg-eu-...

Maakuth 5y ago
That is only because that's the cheapest source, compared to gas which is bought from where the pipelines are coming from. The amount of uranium needed for power plants is fairly small, it can be transported from wherever and there's plenty available from Canada, Australia and South Africa for example. There are potential mines in continental Europe too, it is a matter of cost and politics to choose where to source it from.
kwere 5y ago
its easier to stock decades of energy supplies in uranium than in oil/gas
erentz 5y ago
As below commenters have pointed out this is a choice. Uranium can be sourced from many locations. It can also be processed in Germany if they had wanted (Germany is a part owner of Urenco which also has a small enrichment plant in Germany amongst other locations). To steel man your argument though in the context of funding Russia’s genocide in Ukraine when comparing Germany’s use of gas vs if it kept its nuclear plants operating we should look at the Euro per joule cost of the gas bought from Russia vs the Euro per joule cost of enriched U bought from Russia. I suspect we are talking orders of magnitude difference. But that information is conveniently not being provided in this article. Neither is discussed the ability to easily stockpile a couple of years of fuel supply as many plants have done, which right now would enable you to continue operating while spinning up supplies from elsewhere. Another note regarding the claim in the article: “For the operators of so-called WWER reactors, Russia is therefore even the only supplier of custom-made hexagonal fuel rods.” Westinghouse can make these fuel assemblies, they started on this for Ukraine. Framatome I believe has also offered to do this. There’s nothing secret about Rosatom fuel assemblies.

this_user 5y ago

If nuclear power is such a great idea, then why has it never become the dominant technology globally despite many decades of lobbying from the nuclear industry? Technologies that are strictly superior tend to dominate in the long run. Yet, nuclear power has always remained a niche player even in countries where there was not a lot of strong, organised opposition. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that nuclear power suffers from a lot of issues that have never properly been solved. And despite claims to the contrary, it is certainly not completely safe. The fact that dozens of Russian soldiers in Ukraine recently suffered radiation poisoning after digging trenches in the Chernobyl exclusion zone just highlights how long-lasting the environmental impact of nuclear accidents is. Admittedly, they should have known better, but how many exclusion zones like that can we afford to have globally from future nuclear accidents that are virtually guaranteed to happen eventually?

theshrike79 5y ago
> why has it never become the dominant technology globally despite many decades of lobbying from the nuclear industry? Because the anti-nuclear lobby is more powerful? Also the oil/gas lobby has had people in pretty damn high positions affecting these things. Belgium had an ex-Gazprom consultant as their minister of energy. Who - to no-one's surprise - wanted to shut down nuclear plants and move to Russian gas while they build up renewables. Also the incident in Chernobyl was 99% a political problem, not a technical one. No-one dared to tell their superiors "no" or "I fucked up" or "I have a problem". This compared with the lack of notification caused most of the eventual deaths. Just telling everyone to take iodine for a few weeks and not eat any of the currently growing plants would've cut down the amount of cancers in the area by at least half.
- 7952 5y ago
  But humans are irrational and politics does exist. Poor communication and politics is a bigger challenge than engineering or technology. And if you actually want to build something then you have to work within the constraints of society. Sometimes you have to pick C# or Java even though you know that Lisp is the best. Getting something built is more important than technical idealism.

pvaldes 5y ago

> it's okay to take 2 minutes to celebrate that nuclear wasn't such a bad idea. And just 20.000 years to celebrate that the area will be as safe as it was before 1970. 180 years at least if we feel optimistic.