22 ms·
Spain confirms nuclear power phase-out, extends renewable projects deadlines
- Log_out_ 3y agoToday rockets on zaporischja? Just a bad time to advocate for nuclear power in general..
- moltar 3y agoThat nuclear plant was designed to withstand pretty serious attacks and natural disasters. In fact it was designed to withstand and airplane crashing into it.
- cplusplusfellow 3y agoRockets on Zaporischja do advocate for something but it isn’t less nuclear power.
- dividedbyzero 3y agoThey could be construed to advocate for more decentralized power production in order to be less vulnerable to targeted strikes in times of conflict. That doesn't rule out decentralized nuclear power production, though that has its fair share of trade-offs and unknowns. Depending on how one weighs those it might end up implying less nuclear.
- BeefDinnerPurge 3y agoDecentralized power generation is something we all need. Too bad so many politicians, especially Gavin Newsom FFS, are deep in the bockets of the utility companies who refuse to invest in it.
- cbmuser 3y agoFollowing this logic, we should stop building any industrial complex because Russia could be firing rockets at it.
- honzabe 3y agoWhy? Nuclear plants are extremely valuable targets for at least two reasons: 1. Destroying them can cause great environmental damage. People are going to be afraid of something like intentionally caused Chornobyl, which gives the attacker a lot of leverage. 2. Nuclear plant is a very centralized energy source, which means a huge disruption when one of them is hit. I can't think of any other industrial complex that makes a country that vulnerable in case of a war.
- libertine 3y agoWell, it goes to show that if you're a neighbor of Russia you have to be either a member of NATO, or have nuclear deterrence - it looks like that's the only thing that keeps Russians in their borders. Putin decided to go to the Nazi Germany playbook and turn the Russian language into a casus beli to invade countries, as he could claim Russian speakers are in danger and he would proceed to annex land (Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine).
- dividedbyzero 3y agoFor now. A NATO left behind by a hypothetical second Trump administration might be a much less effective deterrent. With two nuclear powers on the continent and one latent nuclear power (Germany) and none in the east save Russia, things might get very interesting for a while if that came to pass.
- malcolmgreaves 3y agoGood thing congress slipped in a provision in the latest defense spending bill to prevent the president from withdrawing from NATO unilaterally: https://thehill.com/homenews/4360407-congress-approves-bill-barring-president-withdrawing-nato/ https://thehill.com/homenews/4360407-congress-approves-bill-...
- baybal2 3y ago[dead]
- dividedbyzero 3y agoThat's signaling intention to uphold NATO by that particular congress, not something that would prevent a US government from bringing it down. If a US president were only to make it known that he or she would actively resist giving the required orders to fulfill NATO commitments in a crisis, I think the alliance in its current form would be walking dead from that point forward. There is considerable public doubt already as to whether the US would honor their commitment to wage a nuclear war over NATO matters and that's the keystone of the whole alliance. If Russia were to attack a NATO member and win the gamble, I'd expect a massive shift of power on the continent and a great loss of US soft power in Europe (at the least).
- elzbardico 3y agoThis tired idiocy of Russia shelling a reactor that is under their control again?
- ajsnigrutin 3y agoWith enough propaganda, people actually believe stuff like this.
- TheLoafOfBread 3y agoWith this logic, we should tear down all dams after bombing Kakhovka dam.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- manuelabeledo 3y agoSpain does not have many reactors, five I think, making up ~20% of the total power generation of the country. They also source their fuel from other countries like France, UK, or Russia. In contrast, the domestic renewable energy industry is growing steadily and is arguably one of the leaders among EU countries. I think they will be fine.
- jevoten 3y agoThey should phase-out fossil fuels first, then. I'm so tired of "wind and solar instead of nuclear", while fossil fuels are still burnt.
- Panino 3y agoSorry to be blunt, but the wind people are building wind, the solar people are building solar, the fossil fuels people are supporting that... and what are the nuclear people doing apart from posting on the Internet? AFAICT that's all they're doing.
- google234123 3y agoActually, the wind and solar (green people) also spend time attacking and blocking nuclear. See the anti nuclear movements
- Panino 3y agoI think the people building wind earn the name pro-wind, same for solar as pro-solar, etc. And they are largely focused on their own efforts, as it's a lot of work to build power plants. I don't think online posters deserve to be called pro- anything since they don't really do anything other than talk, and it's mostly negative FUD so if anything they're anti-. The point I'm trying to make is that it seems that the people who claim to be pro-nuclear aren't actually in favor of nuclear, otherwise they'd be building it. Everyone else is building what they want, everyone except the supposed nuclear group.
- elzbardico 3y agothere are some decisions that should be kept away from the hands of scientifically illiterate politicians.
- lostlogin 3y agoAnd away from vested interests.
- orange-mentor 3y agoSad news. Nuclear needs to be in the mix for an energy grid independent of fossil fuels.
- midasuni 3y agoWhy?
- asylteltine 3y agoThis is a fucking stupid decision. Nuclear fuel is incredible and basically free when you factor in energy density. We have effectively unlimited uranium in the world. Nuclear waste disposal is a solved problem. This is just nonsense.
- Kon5ole 3y agoGenerating gas (=baseload power) from solar is also a solved problem, and is cheaper and safer than operating nuclear plants.
- codethief 3y agoMaybe you live in another universe than I do but over here nuclear fuel is neither "basically free", nor is disposal of its waste products a solved problem. As another commentator mentioned[0], handling nuclear waste already cost and will continue to cost billions and these costs rarely, if ever, get factored into electricity prices. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38819259 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38819259
- asylteltine 3y agoIt is though. Uranium is literally the majority of the earths mass under the crust. It produces so little waste relative to the space needed to store it, it’s basically negligible.
- stavros 3y agoThat comment is refuted in the reply.
- Kon5ole 3y agoThis is great news, Spain should be able to match the best solar installations in the US at 1.5 cents per kwh, which means that they can generate hydrogen and use hydrogen for electricity at a lower total cost than French nuclear power! An additional benefit is that burning hydrogen returns water, which Spain regularly has a shortage of.
- theshrike79 3y agoAnd they'll be replacing the capacity with fossil fuels, of course. Didn't we learn anything from Germany?
- Kon5ole 3y agoSpain will surely replace the capacity with mostly solar and storage, which is cheaper, faster and more reliable than nuclear.
- theshrike79 3y agoIf they can really replace the base load of nuclear with storage, I'll eat my shoe Charlie Chaplin -style.
- g8oz 3y agoWhat they are going to do is replace the concept of base load.
- egloeda 3y agoThe political (not technical) decision to close nuclear power plants in Spain will accelerate the impoverishment that Spaniards are already suffering. A few facts: 1) The cost of closing the plants will be 22600M€. 2) The demolition and recycling will emit 28MTn CO2 . 3) Siemens Gamesa (which manufactures wind turbines) is bankrupt, but the Government of Spain is subsidizing 600000€ for each worker that is not fired. 4) In Galicia and Asturias (areas in the north and northwest of Spain) forests are being cut to put wind turbines. It is a subsidized business and economically they are not profitable. A disaster without equal.
- huijzer 3y ago"The desire to get rich quick is pretty dangerous." - Charlie Munger