4 ms·

I think a better TLDR is: Europe relied on fossil fuels that it can no longer obtain. Blame clean energy nuclear power which the world refused to adopt over th

I think a better TLDR is: Europe relied on fossil fuels that it can no longer obtain. Blame clean energy nuclear power which the world refused to adopt over the past 30 years. This was a classic “Pay now or pay later”. Congratulations, it’s 4 decades later and we made the wrong choice and waited for solar, wind, and those batteries. https://youtu.be/Wp-WiNXH6hI https://youtu.be/Wp-WiNXH6hI

skrause 4y ago
Almost all of the EU's uranium also has to be imported from non-EU sources, just like fossil fuels. So it's not really better if you want actual energy independence.
- steeve 4y ago
  France's Uranium strategic reserves are 3 years. The main supplier is Canada. France has Uranium mines, but they were closed since it was cheaper to import. They still do exist, though.
- ohgodplsno 4y ago
  Mostly because it's not financially interesting, in the same way that the US did not pump oil on its own territory for the longest time because it wasn't worth it. There are 200 uranium mines in France.
  - melling 4y ago
    Yes, I agree. Coal was much cheaper. Back to my “pay now, pay later” point.
- melling 4y ago
  My main point was we could have avoided half a century of massive coal usage. 40% of global power is still from coal. It appears that we still need to resort to coal instead of renewables: https://globalnews.ca/news/8993093/german-europe-coal-energy-climate-change/ https://globalnews.ca/news/8993093/german-europe-coal-energy...
- Zealotux 4y ago
  But uranium is much easier to store due to its energy density, and we can rely on better sources for it such as Canada and Australia, and not questionable countries like for oil.
  - pomian 4y ago
    Yes. It is much better if Canada and Australia are left with contaminated tailings ponds, that are full of acidic and radioactive waste. Those countries are definitely nimby.
    - belorn 4y ago
      Tailings ponds exist for all mining. This is why groundwater leakage is a major issue in all mining operations. Regardless if you mine for steel, copper, coal, rare earth minerals, or uranium, operations like those will also bring to surface heavy metals, sulfides and radioactive contents. Northern Sweden is known for its iron ore mines, and people who live anywhere near those areas are recommended to install radon detectors. The iron from those mines is then used in multiple countries, leaving behind the contaminated water and air in Sweden.
    - melling 4y ago
      Coal, the current solution, is definitely a much better choice. No residual mess to clean up. Kicking the climate change can down the road even farther requires a few more additional miracles. Heck, we still don’t see climate change as a major problem: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/20/us/politics/climate-change-republicans-delay.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/20/us/politics/climate-chang...
- himinlomax 4y ago
  Uranium fuel is a non issue. It's imported because there are very cheap sources abroad and it's a tiny fraction of nuclear power cost. There are known uranium sources in France, they're just not exploited at the moment because that would be a waste of money. But they're there in case demand rises.
- tomjen3 4y ago
  How many cargo planes with Uranium do you have to fly to satisfy the entire requirement of France for a year? Compared to the same for LNG?
freemint 4y ago
> the world refused to adopt over the past 30 years. Are you pro building nuclear plats in every region on earth? Should developing countries build their own nuclear industry or be dependent on foreign powers for their basic electricity?
- shmel 4y ago
  What is wrong with nuclear plants in every region?
  - adrianN 4y ago
    In some regions it is harder to ensure that nobody steals radioactive material or blows the plant up than in others.
    - melling 4y ago
      Are any of these regions in the top 10 or 15 world economies? Someone is trying to waste everyone’s time by saying “you want nuclear energy everywhere?!” Small countries are a rounding error for global emissions. If the world’s 10 or 15 largest economies…
      - freemint 4y ago
        > Small countries are a rounding error for global emissions. Not if they are allowed to develop too. Are they not allowed to develop to western living and energy use standards per capita?
        melling 4y ago
        Nope. I’ll let you do the math. Here’s a hint. China and India combined have 2.5 billion people
        freemint 4y ago
        Taking before pandemic numbers of GDP and population numbers by 2100 from here https://www.populationpyramid.net/population-size-per-country/2100/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/population-size-per-countr... , the top 15 of economies will only account for 40% of world population. ~25% coming from India and China as you said. So 6 billion people living in these "small economy countries" will not appreciate your sentiment.

skrause 4y ago

Almost all of the EU's uranium also has to be imported from non-EU sources, just like fossil fuels. So it's not really better if you want actual energy independence.

steeve 4y ago
France's Uranium strategic reserves are 3 years. The main supplier is Canada. France has Uranium mines, but they were closed since it was cheaper to import. They still do exist, though.
ohgodplsno 4y ago
Mostly because it's not financially interesting, in the same way that the US did not pump oil on its own territory for the longest time because it wasn't worth it. There are 200 uranium mines in France.
- melling 4y ago
  Yes, I agree. Coal was much cheaper. Back to my “pay now, pay later” point.
melling 4y ago
My main point was we could have avoided half a century of massive coal usage. 40% of global power is still from coal. It appears that we still need to resort to coal instead of renewables: https://globalnews.ca/news/8993093/german-europe-coal-energy-climate-change/ https://globalnews.ca/news/8993093/german-europe-coal-energy...
Zealotux 4y ago
But uranium is much easier to store due to its energy density, and we can rely on better sources for it such as Canada and Australia, and not questionable countries like for oil.
- pomian 4y ago
  Yes. It is much better if Canada and Australia are left with contaminated tailings ponds, that are full of acidic and radioactive waste. Those countries are definitely nimby.
  - belorn 4y ago
    Tailings ponds exist for all mining. This is why groundwater leakage is a major issue in all mining operations. Regardless if you mine for steel, copper, coal, rare earth minerals, or uranium, operations like those will also bring to surface heavy metals, sulfides and radioactive contents. Northern Sweden is known for its iron ore mines, and people who live anywhere near those areas are recommended to install radon detectors. The iron from those mines is then used in multiple countries, leaving behind the contaminated water and air in Sweden.
  - melling 4y ago
    Coal, the current solution, is definitely a much better choice. No residual mess to clean up. Kicking the climate change can down the road even farther requires a few more additional miracles. Heck, we still don’t see climate change as a major problem: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/20/us/politics/climate-change-republicans-delay.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/20/us/politics/climate-chang...
himinlomax 4y ago
Uranium fuel is a non issue. It's imported because there are very cheap sources abroad and it's a tiny fraction of nuclear power cost. There are known uranium sources in France, they're just not exploited at the moment because that would be a waste of money. But they're there in case demand rises.
tomjen3 4y ago
How many cargo planes with Uranium do you have to fly to satisfy the entire requirement of France for a year? Compared to the same for LNG?

freemint 4y ago

> the world refused to adopt over the past 30 years. Are you pro building nuclear plats in every region on earth? Should developing countries build their own nuclear industry or be dependent on foreign powers for their basic electricity?

shmel 4y ago
What is wrong with nuclear plants in every region?
- adrianN 4y ago
  In some regions it is harder to ensure that nobody steals radioactive material or blows the plant up than in others.
  - melling 4y ago
    Are any of these regions in the top 10 or 15 world economies? Someone is trying to waste everyone’s time by saying “you want nuclear energy everywhere?!” Small countries are a rounding error for global emissions. If the world’s 10 or 15 largest economies…
    - freemint 4y ago
      > Small countries are a rounding error for global emissions. Not if they are allowed to develop too. Are they not allowed to develop to western living and energy use standards per capita?
      - melling 4y ago
        Nope. I’ll let you do the math. Here’s a hint. China and India combined have 2.5 billion people
        freemint 4y ago
        Taking before pandemic numbers of GDP and population numbers by 2100 from here https://www.populationpyramid.net/population-size-per-country/2100/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/population-size-per-countr... , the top 15 of economies will only account for 40% of world population. ~25% coming from India and China as you said. So 6 billion people living in these "small economy countries" will not appreciate your sentiment.