News and information from Europe πͺπΊ
(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 (incl. Substack). 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 admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)
Except that it wasnβt according to people actually invested in researching energy matters.
The strategic mistake was and still is, when her party throttles solar and wind in favor for fossils (on a national level) or when they hinder transitioning to EVs.
Theyβre sabotaging decentralization and renewables wherever possible and make up stories about sunsetted (nuclear) or future (fusion) technologies.
I'd say both are mistakes. Nuclear has a long-term implementation process due to how long it takes to build. Of course solar and wind (and other clean technologies that we're not even aware of yet) will be the future but there are times where those technologies fall short (cloudy day, no wind). That's where nuclear could be a base-line option to help us until we find a permanent solution. I know it comes with it's own challenges but it's still infinitely cleaner than coal or anything like that.
Of course fusion looks really promising but that technology still needs a lot of time in the oven before it will be usable on a large scale. Nuclear has been proven to work.
Except that nuclear cannot be throttled and is no base line option.
Wind, solar, batteries and gas play well together in central Europe. Other countries have other resources, like water.
In addition hydrogen is complementary for heavy industries and can be produced when all batteries are filled up.
Nuclear can be throttled, we do it all the time.
In electricity generation, it typically can't be throttled reasonably in a way that allows quick reaction to changing demand. Most reactors' power output is regulated by changing the chemistry of the coolant, which can only be done gradually, Using quicker control rods for everyday power adjustment rather than only for shutdown and startup, is avoided to avoid uneven, and therefore inefficient fuel burn. While it could be done, it would make nuclear power even more uneconomical than it already is by forcing more frequent shutdowns for fuel changes.
Nuclear load following is routinely done in France. You can see more details here: https://www.nice-future.org/docs/nicefuturelibraries/default-document-library/france.pdf
Like solar, batteries can compensate for the difference between supply and demand.
Batteries don't scale well at all.
Of course fusion looks really promising
Fusion reactors have been constantly 30 years away for deacades.
All nuclear power programmes are really just a reserve of know-how, equipment and manpower to maintain the capability of keeping or developing a nuclear weapons programme. The electricity generation does work, but it really is more of a fig leaf to make the massive expenses and the inherent risks of running nuclear reactors more palatable to the general public. Of course having a relatively weather independent baseline electricity generation capability is a good thing, too, but as all thermal power stations, nuclear power stations aren't completely weather independent either, as they do rely on large quantities of water for cooling.
Nuclear has been tripping over it's own dick for 40 years. Solar is now the more viable option.
I disagree. Next to hydropower (which is limited by geography) it has been the champion of non-fossil electricity generation so far. Still, the fossil fuel lobby is a powerful foe.
Simply put, we should invest in all non-fossil options, and where solar is geographically viable, it is great. In other places however, where peak electricity demand coincides with the coldest, darkest parts of the year dispatchable production is strictly necessary, which is where nuclear shines.
There is also wind, which works really well in a lot of those darker / colder countries
For sure, wind is an especially good complement for hydropower, since the latter can store the surplus when it's windy and release it when it's not. Still, wind generation can, like other variable renewables, slip to nigh 0 production from time to time, at which point there must be enough dispatchable capacity to cover the supply/demand gap. Otherwise you get rolling blackouts in the middle of a -20Β°C winter. Not great.
Here's a showcase of one such day in my country this winter. Average temps below -20Β°C (which means demand is very rigid due to heating needs) and the wind died down completely in the morning across all of Scandinavia & northern Germany, which meant there wasn't room to import either. Winter prices on electricity ranged between 10-60β¬/MWh back when our nuclear plants were in full operation. Half have been shut down in the past decade due to political pressure from the green party.
Expand Graph
Well but what to do with the waste?
I think in general it is a good source for energy, but unless we find a solution other than storing it somewhere in the earth, we should not use it.
You build breeder reactors or use any of the non-uranium designs that were ignored by countries because they didn't have weapons grade byproducts.
There are ways to deal with the waste, the problem is always politics/greed as it cuts into the profits. Same is true for other energy sources btw, with coal we happily shoot the waste into the atmosphere and pretend nothing's wrong with that.
Yeah 100% agree with you.
Unfortunately it is always the issue with greed and maximise the profits.
But that's why I don't really believe in the usefulness of Nuclear as a energy source. The idea behind it is brilliant, but the way we use it is not. I am no expert in this field, just my personal opinion.
Isn't it basically a non-issue?
Afaik so little of it is generated that we can comfortably store it for thousands of years.
It can also be used in manufacturing later, like in making depleted uranium APFSDS penetrators (for your mom - sorry)
Also, I believe it's literally harmless, isn't it? If properly sealed of course. Afaik it just produces heat for a very, very long time...
Might be, but I personally don't feel comfortable it being stored. What if it leaks. Not my problem, as I will be dead by then, but still we will leave it for future generations.
I have seen the chaos building the Hinkley reactor and the costs, so my personal opinion there are cheaper ways of producing energy.
Depleted Uranium is not waste from nuclear reactors, it's waste from nuclear fuel production through uranium enrichment. It's very pure U~238~, the uranium isotope you end up with after you extract all the easily fissionable U~235~ from natural uranium, which is a mixture of different isotopes, with U~238~ being the most abundant.
A good part of the waste from reactors can't be used for manufacturing anything useful, if it could, it would be. Nuclear fuel reprocessing does extract the materials useful for further use from spent fuel, but that's small amounts, and creates a fair bit of extra waste itself, because the processes involve a whole lot of complicated and interesting physics and chemistry. The majority of the spent fuel assemblies (materials turned radioactive from Neutron flux, Fission products) are good for nothing (unless you want to make spicy paper weights which remotely* taste like metal) and will be anything from mildly to highly radioactive, some of them will be for tens of thousands of years.
* remotely as in "from a distance"
Hydropower has terrible environmental consequences. Emissions aren't all that matters in terms of the environment.
I would love to say that local consecuences are better than global ones but the "local" part may actually hide a quasi continental impact.
I live in Buenos Aires, more than 1500 km away from the big hydro power plants that lay on the parana river. Sometimes Brazil has to open or close their water gates because of droughts and the consecuences are felt here pretty hard. Waves of dead fish, invasions of sub tropical species, -3 m of water almost for a complete season, camalotes (~~hyacinths~~? We apparently locally call camalotes to some sort of aglomeration of plants that floats down the river. They usually carry snakesunder it, or so i have been told).
Nevertheless, i personally prefer hydro than oil
Perfect is the worst enemy of progress. Right now the highest priority must be to get rid of the fossil fuel plants, and logistically speaking hydropower is simply the best. Mostly because of the built in function of energy storage and ability to load follow, something that the other variable renewable options entirely lack.
I agree with your first sentence but not the rest. It's not all about energy and emissions. I also want ecosystems and their species to survive and thrive.
Another benefit of hydropower is its longevity, simplicity, and relatively low maintenance needs. There are installations still in operation which (including the generating machinery) are older than a century.
which is where nuclear shines.
I see what you did there.
Just google where nuclear fuel comes from and then think again, spoilers it's russia.
South Africa has uranium.
Look at where moth Cobolt or Lithium comes from.
There seemingly is very little to no ethical mining or rare earth metals.
Uranium needs to be processed first, and the major uranium processing facilities Europe has been using are in Russia and this kind of equipment isn't something you can quickly build yourself.
European capacities are not that small.
https://fissilematerials.org/facilities/enrichment_plants.html
And can be expanded fairly easily. America, Germany and Russia all managed this in the 40s. Could also go the liquid salt route and avoid Uranium entirely. Light water reactors kinda suck.
Luckily sodium ion batteries are now a thing and they're perfect for grid storage.
Just google where nuclear fuel comes from and then think again, spoilers itβs russia.
Kazakhstan: US$4.5 billion (48.8% of natural uranium exports)
Canada: $3.3 billion (35.6%)
United States: $963.2 million (10.4%)
Niger: $239.5 million (2.6%)
Ukraine: $78.3 million (0.8%)
South Africa: $58.6 million (0.63%)
France: $58.3 million (0.63%)
Russian Federation: $44.8 million (0.5%)
Germany: $4.4 million (0.05%)
Netherlands: $2.4 million (0.03%)
United Kingdom: $188,000 (0.002%)
Indonesia: $164,000 (0.002%)
Switzerland: $56,000 (0.0006%)
Israel: $44,000 (0.0005%)
Belgium: $5,000 (0.0001%)
Canada is a solid partner. Australia also produces a lot, but doesn't export much (right now). The EU is Kazakhstan's largest trading partner, and we have great trade relations with them.
Sourcing uranium is not now, nor will it ever be, a problem.
Our main objective should be to lower barriers for people to generate their own power. When local communities manage their own grids they have faster response times to blackouts or climate events.
No shit you monster.
I despise this corrupt monster so much.
New plants are way to expensive. Itβs non longer economical to build those.
It was never economical. Nuclear power was heavily subsidised for other reasons than electricity generation. Any country that runs a sizable nuclear industry for power generation does have the capability to develop a nuclear weapons programme in relatively short order. (Usually a matter of months)
It's basically nuclear deterrent light.
What?
Was that so hard? Backing out of the exit = planning new fission plants now - that would be bad. As you seem to agree in 2.
I said that because she's a corrupt monster who is likely to come up with a "hey, let's build more nuclear power plants" next.
Nuclear... what? Families? DNA? Chemistry? "Nuclear" isn't a noun, nor "digital" or "cyber".
We have decent universal education and literacy, let's not imitate the functionally illiterate.
Thank you for not letting it slide.
Can we also work on mass nouns pluralized with an S (eg e-mail), missing delimiters after sub-clauses and lists (the "American Ghost comma"), and also "please bellow find following"?
If Germany hadn't shut down their nuclear power plants their energy mix would now be mostly coal, some nuclear and very little renewables. There was some political will to replace nuclear power with renewables, there still is not that much political will to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources. Gas-Kathi wants more gas after all and is trying to sabotage renewables again.
As with everything, politicians are at least 15 years too late in their thinking.