4 ms·
As you can see in France, you don't make money with nuclear power. Nuclear power is basically taking a loan (national security and trash which has to be stored
by tcfhgj 2y ago
As you can see in France, you don't make money with nuclear power.
Nuclear power is basically taking a loan (national security and trash which has to be stored at least thousands of years) with a huge risk (nuclear disaster like Chernobyl or worse).
- Faelian2 2y agoFrance is literally making billions by exporting in electricity. https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-product/electricity/reporter/fra https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-product/electricity/r... It's France 9th biggest export.
- tcfhgj 2y agoYet, EDF is deep in debt (and I am not even sure they pay all of the cost of nuclear power themselves) and probably would not exist anymore if it was on its own. Now imagine infinite uranium and everyone using nuclear power. Where would they export now?
- Xelbair 2y agoRisk is minuscule, and modern reactors actually shut down gracefully. Nuclear waste is an issue, but frankly - vastly smaller one than other kinds of pollution(CO2 comes to mind - and sulfides) used in generating or storing - which is the biggest current problem of renewables - power, and that can be stored in relatively smaller space. This kind of misguided thinking has stopped us from utilizing nuclear power properly. It is a greatest stopgap we have before we find a way to store energy properly and can pivot to renewables.
- tcfhgj 2y agoMiniscule probability of high damage. Everyone, every power,has to decide on their own if one is willing to take this risk. CO2 isn't a problem of renewables. In Germany, the problem with renewables is massively scaling green gas production. Storage exists plenty fairly cheap, even for hydrogen (Underground).
- Xelbair 2y agonever mentioned CO2 for renewables - i mentioned storing energy from them. that's the problem.
- tcfhgj 2y agowhy?
- Xelbair 2y agobecause storing it in any way is extremely inefficient - the best solution we have is pumped-storage hydroelectricity with at most 70-80% efficiency. Renewables aren't available 24/7, as they work in cycles in most cases(sunlight, tides, waves, wind - geothermal and hydroelectric is an exception, but latter also has problems with damages to ecosystem, and handling sediment travel along the rivers) - this is the most basic problem with them. Grid demands electricity in a way that does not align with the renevable's production, so you need buffers. So you need to build both energy storage, and energy generation - both are source of pollutants, and eRoI over the whole lifecycle isn't actually that impressive. It is a way to go though, but we are far off from fully transitioning to it. if you genuinely have to ask that question, you need to read more about energy before you start discussing it. and especially about modern nuclear reactor designs, and how catastrophe in Chernobyl happened(forced orders from above, basically a human failure)
- tcfhgj 2y agonot why storing, but why does storing produce much co2? even low efficiency (e.g. hydrogen) is tolerable when renewables otherwise would go to waste
- Xelbair 2y agobecause you have to build it - construction machines, concrete, transportation of material to construction site and all that - does that not produce pollution? Think of whole lifecycle. also the amount of storage you have to build also damages the ecosystem.