News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media. Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the primary mod account @EuroMod@feddit.org
Berlin’s concerns in part stemmed from concerns that French industry would gain a competitive edge thanks to its 56-strong fleet of reactors, while German industry still struggles with the impact of high gas prices following the cut-off from cheap Russian fuel.
How about we force the French to finally build proper links to Spain so that their nuclear plants have to compete with Iberian renewables.
And I assume the energy companies will be footing the bill from construction till deconstruction and long term storage, the later two as a trustee deposit, on their own without any state subsidies. Given that all the pro-nuclear folk always tout so many benefits to nuclear, this should be a non-issue and be very profitable.
Here's the issue: do other power sources need to do this? Coal doesn't. It puts CO2 into the air and we all pay for it later. Solar mines and refines material that polluted the environment, and we have no method of recycling, but they don't pay for it. Wind has no method of recycling the blades, but they don't pay for what happens when they're done.
I think they should all be on equal footing. They should all have to pay for their waste, and they should all be subsidized equally based on energy produced. However, only nuclear contains and stores all of its waste, which is good an important but unfair that other sources don't have to.
It's a fair point to argue from that perspective. But at least in Europe I don't hear a lot of people planning to build new coal power plants. Germany certainly wants to continue mining coal for some asine reason but definitely no new plants. Solar requires materials but recoupes relatively quickly and wind has also quite a few noise and light pollution issues. But they are both better alternatives to any nuclear generator, even if we add the energy storage on top.
And I assume the energy companies will be footing the bill from construction till deconstruction and long term storage, the later two as a trustee deposit, on their own without any state subsidies. Given that all the pro-nuclear folk always tout so many benefits to nuclear, this should be a non-issue and be very profitable.
I don't really see profitability being a factor if there is already a universal understanding that reducing carbon emissions will always come at a cost anyway. Or am I misunderstanding your point?
The point is that no sane company touches nuclear with a ten-mile pole unless heavily subsidised, because it's economically very challenging (if not impossible) to get it to run at a profit. It's essentially a big money sink that also produces power.
Whereas alternatives, like renewables, cost a lot less and have a much more immediate return. It's why companies do like to invest in those.
Nuclear as an option is badly outclassed economically.
The point is that no sane company touches nuclear with a ten-mile pole unless heavily subsidised, because it’s economically very challenging (if not impossible) to get it to run at a profit. It’s essentially a big money sink that also produces power.
Whereas alternatives, like renewables, cost a lot less and have a much more immediate return. It’s why companies do like to invest in those.
Nuclear as an option is badly outclassed economically.
I understand that. What I don't understand is why economic considerations are on the table at all. My technical understanding is that the electric grid under current consumption habits simply cannot function without large-scale on-demand providers like coal, gas or nuclear plants. Wouldn't that imply that if one wanted to come off of coal and gas quickly, nuclear has no alternatives? Is there an option D?
No, this is not the case. The alternative for on-demand is batteries, not nuclear. Building sufficient battery capacity is often already cheaper than nuclear and by the time a nuclear reactor is finished building it's guaranteed to be much cheaper. Nuclear is also terrible at being on-demand: it's extremely expensive to shut off and restart, and pretty slow at it too. That means that it has to compete with cheap renewable energy at peak hours, which it easily loses. So you'd either have to subsidize it to keep it open, or force people to buy nuclear power which makes power more expensive (see France which has to subsidize the reactors, requires people to buy that power and as a result is constantly having to subsidize the people's electricity bills too, covering a part of it. It costs the French government billions every year).
Nuclear also doesn't help to get you off coal and gas quickly. It's extremely slow to adopt.
Economic considerations are important. If you get can 1MW of clean power for X money, or 2MW instead, which is best to use? Less money spent per green MW means more green MWs in total.
For the environment, it's likely best (eg lowest total emissions) to invest in renewables and storage, and to fill up the gaps during this adoption with gas. Gas is not great but it's much better than coal, it's great at on-demand scaling and it's pretty cheap. This frees up enough money to keep investing in renewables which accelerates adoption.
I appreciate your time but I feel like I'm possibly thinking and talking about a completely different optimization problem than you (and please correct me if that's an incorrect reading). I'm trying to solve for: "What's the quickest path to reducing total carbon emissions to near 0?"
I see it as a given that it's reasonable to max out every bit of production capacity into increasing battery storage and into carpeting every last residential roof and former rapeseed-field with solar panels. So the only question left to me is: How can the time until the last combustion-based power plant is shut down be minimized?
No, this is not the case. The alternative for on-demand is batteries, not nuclear. Building sufficient battery capacity is often already cheaper than nuclear and by the time a nuclear reactor is finished building it’s guaranteed to be much cheaper. Nuclear is also terrible at being on-demand: it’s extremely expensive to shut off and restart, and pretty slow at it too. That means that it has to compete with cheap renewable energy at peak hours, which it easily loses. So you’d either have to subsidize it to keep it open, or force people to buy nuclear power which makes power more expensive (see France which has to subsidize the reactors, requires people to buy that power and as a result is constantly having to subsidize the people’s electricity bills too, covering a part of it. It costs the French government billions every year).
Nuclear also doesn’t help to get you off coal and gas quickly. It’s extremely slow to adopt.
For the environment, it’s likely best (eg lowest total emissions) to invest in renewables and storage, and to fill up the gaps during this adoption with gas. Gas is not great but it’s much better than coal, it’s great at on-demand scaling and it’s pretty cheap. This frees up enough money to keep investing in renewables which accelerates adoption.
What are the time scales for the calculation here? How long does it take to manufacture enough battery capacity? How long does it take to reactivate Germany's existing nuclear power infrastructure? I mean if the former takes 40 years and the latter 4, then I assume we'd still get to kick fossil fuels to the curb earlier at the low low cost of... some money.
Economic considerations are important. If you get can 1MW of clean power for X money, or 2MW instead, which is best to use? Less money spent per green MW means more green MWs in total.
I don't see how it is quite that simple. Isn't it rather something in the realms of either A) 1MW of clean power and 1MW of combustion-based power for X money. B) 2MW of clean power and 1MW of combustion-based power for 2X money. C) 2MW of clean power, 0.5MW of combustion-based power, 0.5MW of nuclear power for 4X money
I'd strongly prefer something like option C.
We're solving for the same problem. There is no path where nuclear is the most cost-effective solution.
If money is no concern, the fastest, most certain-to-succeed solution is mass-mining for battery materials, massive investment in things like sodium-based batteries and a huge investment in battery production capabilities. Scaling up solar provides the power, the batteries provide the storage. That results in net zero.
Nuclear takes decades to build. "Reactivating" Germany's old and derelict reactors beyond their shelf life is dangerous and doing it safely is probably about as fast as building a new, higher capacity reactor. Which is to say, it's very, very slow. And even then, you'd need dozens if not hundreds of reactors to meet the total power demand (France alone has 50+). There's geopolitical concerns too, as reactors run on fuel that is not available in most of the world, some of the highest producing countries are either Russia or firmly in their backyard. IIRC Canada and Australia also produce a bit but not enough.
And then there's the fact that we do not have nearly enough qualified people to build and run all these nuclear reactors. Meanwhile installing solar panels and battery packs is comparatively dead simple, and we have plenty of people who can do it.
Nuclear simply produces less MW per penny invested than renewables do. It's slower to build. The "option C" as you present doesn't work, because it implies an option D: 4MW of clean power, with no dirty MW after X years, for 4X money. The total carbon emitted is simply lower if nuclear is skipped and renewables are prioritised instead.
Remember as well, that nuclear only starts producing once it's fully done. Renewables we can add to the mix today. Every MW of dirty energy saved now has a cumulative effect on the total emitted carbon.
Despite their cost-intensive operation, steam engines prevailed over water and wind power (cottages, hammers, mills) during the industrial revolution because they made it possible to exploit workers more continuously and to "decouple" from nature. Against this background, this manoeuvre can also be interpreted as class warfare from above. We need a new system. #Solarpunk #Ecosocialism
Lindner: haha nein.
I doubt the point will be to build traditional old style reactors. I assume they'd be for Gen 4.