4 ms·

As long as we replace nuclear with coal plants, which is what we are largely doing in Europe, I'm strongly pro-nuclear. Coal has an estimated death rate (only f

As long as we replace nuclear with coal plants, which is what we are largely doing in Europe, I'm strongly pro-nuclear. Coal has an estimated death rate (only for power generation) of +100k people/year. I am really positive/hopeful for battery tech and solar panels getting better AND deployed more within the decade, and if we were replacing nuclear for that (or wind, or hydro) I'd be happy, but right now we are not doing that and there's just no comparison of the dangers IMHO. Nuclear is the "big and scary" airplane accident where lots of people die at once so it's in the news around the world, coal is the thousands of people quietly dying every year on car accidents. Edit: it seems I was wrong and coal itself has not meaningfully increased in EU, it's other non-renewable (gas mainly) that are less dangerous. I believe my point stands though for 2 reasons: they are still a lot more dangerous than nuclear, AND closing/not building more nuclear probably has delayed the closure of many coal plants.

pfdietz 4y ago
> As long as we replace nuclear with coal plants, which is what we are largely doing in Europe In Germany, coal use declined as nuclear declined. Is there some other country that counterbalanced this trend? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany#/media/File:Energiemix_Deutschland.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany#... Admittedly, coal use could have declined even faster if nuclear had not been phased out, but that's not what you were arguing.
- franciscop 4y ago
  Looking at numbers it seems I was wrong! I must've mixed Japan where I live now and has had a steep coal increase in the last 2 decades[1] with EU and the non-renewable (not coal) increase. In EU it's coal+gas+oil+etc as a "non-renewable" group that has been increasing (specially gas), while coal itself seems to have decreased slightly as well. As a combination, the non-renewable is less dangerous than coal itself, but still a lot worse than nuclear. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Japan
- the_third_wave 4y ago
  What did Germany replace the base load generation with? Natural gas and imports. They had been warned about their reliance on Russian natural gas and they could have figured out for themselves that imports would get unreliable in case of crisis. Also, where does that imported power come from? France: nuclear power Sweden: nuclear power and some hydro, limited by the transfer capacity between the middle and north (where the hydro plants are) and south (where the interconnects are) Poland: coal Russia: coal, natural gas and nuclear The Netherlands: natural gas and coal In other words Germany did not "get rid" of nuclear and coal, they just moved it outside of their borders. The "green" politicos slept well in their dreams of a virtuous future, dreams which they were rudely awaken from when the gas stopped following.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    > What did Germany replace the base load generation with? Natural gas and imports. If you had looked at the link I provided, you would have seen that the largest replacement of energy to the grid was by wind, not by natural gas.
    - franciscop 4y ago
      I didn't mentioned because I was still wrong, but the numbers you provided are relative which might not mean much; a decrease of 5% "relative" might mean the actual MW didn't change at all if overall the energy consumption grew.
    - the_third_wave 4y ago
      And what does Germany use when there is no wind? Wind can not provide the base load in absence of large-scale storage which Germany does not have. The answer to my question is in the one you replied to: nuclear, natural gas and coal plus some hydro limited by transfer capacity.
      - pfdietz 4y ago
        Right now, they back it up with gas. They could at this point profitably add even more renewables, to cut down on gas consumption, as they are burning more gas than needed for that backup. Ultimately, they add batteries (or other short term storage) as well as hydrogen for ultimate backup. With recent natural gas prices there, green hydrogen would be cheaper to burn.
bryanlarsen 4y ago
> and if we were replacing nuclear for that (or wind, or hydro) I'd be happy, but right now we are not doing that and there's just no comparison of the dangers IMHO. It looks like the increase in renewable energy production in Europe in 2022 will exceed the increase in coal energy production. 2022 isn't over yet and it will be a close race with both clocking in at an increase of about 60TWh, but it does appear that renewables will increase the most. Of course for every other year between 2011 and 2030 renewables will definitely have the biggest increase in energy production.
- franciscop 4y ago
  Imagine what we could accomplish closing coal and other non-renewable if we didn't shut down nuclear plants, napkin maths says we'd likely saving thousands of lives.

pfdietz 4y ago

> As long as we replace nuclear with coal plants, which is what we are largely doing in Europe In Germany, coal use declined as nuclear declined. Is there some other country that counterbalanced this trend? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany#/media/File:Energiemix_Deutschland.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany#... Admittedly, coal use could have declined even faster if nuclear had not been phased out, but that's not what you were arguing.

franciscop 4y ago
Looking at numbers it seems I was wrong! I must've mixed Japan where I live now and has had a steep coal increase in the last 2 decades[1] with EU and the non-renewable (not coal) increase. In EU it's coal+gas+oil+etc as a "non-renewable" group that has been increasing (specially gas), while coal itself seems to have decreased slightly as well. As a combination, the non-renewable is less dangerous than coal itself, but still a lot worse than nuclear. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Japan
the_third_wave 4y ago
What did Germany replace the base load generation with? Natural gas and imports. They had been warned about their reliance on Russian natural gas and they could have figured out for themselves that imports would get unreliable in case of crisis. Also, where does that imported power come from? France: nuclear power Sweden: nuclear power and some hydro, limited by the transfer capacity between the middle and north (where the hydro plants are) and south (where the interconnects are) Poland: coal Russia: coal, natural gas and nuclear The Netherlands: natural gas and coal In other words Germany did not "get rid" of nuclear and coal, they just moved it outside of their borders. The "green" politicos slept well in their dreams of a virtuous future, dreams which they were rudely awaken from when the gas stopped following.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  > What did Germany replace the base load generation with? Natural gas and imports. If you had looked at the link I provided, you would have seen that the largest replacement of energy to the grid was by wind, not by natural gas.
  - franciscop 4y ago
    I didn't mentioned because I was still wrong, but the numbers you provided are relative which might not mean much; a decrease of 5% "relative" might mean the actual MW didn't change at all if overall the energy consumption grew.
  - the_third_wave 4y ago
    And what does Germany use when there is no wind? Wind can not provide the base load in absence of large-scale storage which Germany does not have. The answer to my question is in the one you replied to: nuclear, natural gas and coal plus some hydro limited by transfer capacity.
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      Right now, they back it up with gas. They could at this point profitably add even more renewables, to cut down on gas consumption, as they are burning more gas than needed for that backup. Ultimately, they add batteries (or other short term storage) as well as hydrogen for ultimate backup. With recent natural gas prices there, green hydrogen would be cheaper to burn.

bryanlarsen 4y ago

> and if we were replacing nuclear for that (or wind, or hydro) I'd be happy, but right now we are not doing that and there's just no comparison of the dangers IMHO. It looks like the increase in renewable energy production in Europe in 2022 will exceed the increase in coal energy production. 2022 isn't over yet and it will be a close race with both clocking in at an increase of about 60TWh, but it does appear that renewables will increase the most. Of course for every other year between 2011 and 2030 renewables will definitely have the biggest increase in energy production.

franciscop 4y ago
Imagine what we could accomplish closing coal and other non-renewable if we didn't shut down nuclear plants, napkin maths says we'd likely saving thousands of lives.