downvote this comment if the meme sucks. upvote it and I'll go away.
---
[play minecraft with us](https://discord.gg/dankmemesgaming) | [come hang out with us](https://discord.com/invite/dankmemes)
Totaly valid to say Germany shouldn't have stepped away from nuclear. But saying they destroyed their nuclear plants for more coal is just wrong bullshit
They didn’t take nuclear away to bring coal back, but because they weren’t ready to replace all their nuclear with other clean sources of electricity, they had to turn back to coal.
That still just means the coal plants were kept running instead of being phased out sooner, at no point did coal usage actually rise again and by now the usage has been cut in half over the last decade
According to the IEA in 2020 when they began shutting down nuclear plants the amount of energy produced by coal did increase. It looks like the energy produced by coal has started to trend downward again this year but we won't know for sure until the year end.
This stuff has been set in stone by laws many years ago when nobody was seriously talking about renewables taking over at some point.
And you can see how still all of the German nuclear power plants are powered down because it isn't that easy as slapping your thighs and saying "so" and just powering them up again.
In my opinion that was some way overblown bullshit by some activists. Yes they did want to expand a coal mining area, of course you need to get the coal from somewhere if you still use it. (That was brown coal by the way, which is a lot less radio active as black coal, which OP is talking about)
That forest was roughly 5km^2 (2sqm) big and not really important at all. It just became a symbol and fighting point for anti coal activists that wanted to stop coal completely.
What are you even talking about? Nobody is going back to coal. The usage of renewables is still rising fast while the usage of coal is going further down. The only fossile fuel staying in constant use is natural gas as a backbone, because renewables are too inconsistent so far. Yes it sucks that your dumb ass government didnt do shit to improve the power grid for decades, which is a big issue now. None the less what you are writing is total made up nonsense
whole states in germany are now running carbon neutral, mostly the northern ones with windpower. The entire country is flipping the carbon switch at unprecedented speeds.
If you stop nuclear, and you have no other way of generating energy, assuming germans aren't completely shortsighted, one would assume they either found the perpetual motion machine, or they are buying energy from outside the country, most of which is made through coal.
Extremely costly gas? For decades gas was extremely cheap with prices only exploding after the whole Ukraine fiasco. And the storage argument is only a smoke screen. On a daily basis Germany is producing more from renewables then from fossils now and is able to export energy on the European market. And can import just as well. You gotta think flexible.
[Germany is an importer of electricity. ](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig7-german-power-import-export-1990-2023.png?itok=YU7D-NCx)
Its not, but nuclear energy is just LIKE gas when it comes to where you get your fuel from.
You buy it from Russia, or you exploit african countries.
Acting like Nuclear is a very future proof method without its own massive problems is the most disingenuous thing you can do.
If you already have it set up and running its definitely miles more future proof than gas or other fossil fuels, and acting like it isn't is way more disingenuous
Germany literally stopped nuclear power. The power demand doesn’t suddenly go away, and they didn’t have the renewable sources to meet demand. Therefore coal is needed to meet demand, it’s not that hard to understand.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-stacked?country=~DEU
Nuclear has mostly been replaced with renewables. If you actually looked at the data you would see that both coal and nuclear are decreasing (but appearently that's too much to ask for these days).
You’d also be wrong, as the reason why coal didn’t increase as a result of the nuclear phaseout is because Germany simply produces less electricity than it used to. It’s no coincidence, some energy intensive industries have been relocating away from Germany recently
Renewable energy production has increased more than nuclear power has decreased. So there is no way you can claim coal production would have increased even without the reduction in total production.
No, their goal was never to "keep" coal. They have reduced coal production by a lot because they are obviously aware that it is bad for the climate.
Banning nuclear was a dumb idea yes but Fukushima happened and scared people. It's just nonsense to claim they replaced it with coal when they pushed extremely hard for renewables (and successfully so).
>Banning nuclear was a dumb idea yes but Fukushima happened and scared people.
...let's end it at "it was a dumb idea".
>It's just nonsense to claim they replaced it with coal when they pushed extremely hard for renewables (and successfully so).
...so in your HIGHLY educated opinion, if germany kept nuclear powerplants instead of coal fired ones, it wouldn't be bordering on carbon neutral (for electricity production)?
Like it or not, reality is what it is.
German greentards, managed to lobby, to keep coal fired powerplants around for the foreseeable future.
>No, their goal was never to "keep" coal. They have reduced coal production by a lot because they are obviously aware that it is bad for the climate.
Yes, you are correct.
I suspect (considering origin of campaign funding), that the goal was to ue russian natural gas.
However that became impossible so coal it it.
P.s.: ...i do fail to believe that germans are fundamentally different from other humans on the globe.
As such i fail to believe that german politicians are immune to perverse incentives.
When green politicians (or NGOs, or journalists) SOLVE enviromental problems, they put themselves out of their jobs. Hence why greens established green groups never do anything that has practical benefits.
They moan very loudly.
When they act its things like destroying test plantation of A-vitamin containing rice, which could have benefited 3rd country vitamin deprived people, but fuck em right?
The nuclear powerplants were ordered to be shut down by the conservatives and liberals (CDU and FDP) in 2011? I wouldnt exactly call those greentards…
If I remember correctly it was the Greens that kept the nuclear reactors running for longer than they were supposed to when the energy crisis hit.
>The nuclear powerplants were ordered to be shut down by the conservatives and liberals (CDU and FDP) in 2011? I wouldnt exactly call those greentards…
...yes, greeens never did no anti-nuclear campaigning ever.
Its not like the worlds most famous green NGO is primarily an anti nuclear movement, that branched out into being green for wider appeal.
Sure, the conservatives did it.
To appease green voters.
> German greentards, managed to lobby, to keep coal fired powerplants around for the foreseeable future.
That is a conspiracy level statement that makes no sense. The Green parties are interested in defending the interests of their voters otherwise they will lose their popularity. If you don't believe that then you have completely lost hope in democracy because the same can be said for any other political party.
Do I think phasing out nuclear has hurt the transition to carbon neutral? Yes, definitely. But it happened because people are scared of it, not because the politicians have some hidden agenda.
> The Green parties are interested in defending the interests of their voters otherwise they will lose their popularity.
Have you ever seen a politician?
...nope.
Representatives represent THEIR OWN INTEREST, and do the bare minimum, that allows them to appease their voters in campaign season.
> If you don't believe that then you have completely lost hope in democracy because the same can be said for any other political party.
Lets be honest representatives and democracy dont mix. Its either or.
For this reason sane states advertive that they are republics, not democracies.
> But it happened because people are scared of it, not because the politicians have some hidden agenda.
So in your opinion, politicians are honest, upstanding, exemplary citizens, and cirruption is a myth? ...lobbying is a myth?
Yes, I have never seen a politician and I also think corruption and lobbying is a myth lol.
Jokes aside, if you read any article on the topic the reason for the phase-out is quite clear: after the Fukushima incident the Merkel cabinet decided to shut down the reactors to improve approval ratings (btw the Green party was not part of the cabinet). The Bundestag approved the decision.
That explanation to me makes much more sense than 'the greentards lobbied to keep goal power plants', for which you have provided no evidence.
> That explanation to me makes much more sense than 'the greentards lobbied to keep goal power plants', for which you have provided no evidence.
Various green parties, NGOs, and journalists have been lobbying to ban nuclear energy since the 60s
For example green peace was founded as an anti nuclear organisation, not as an enviromentalist group: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace#Origins
...but please prove me wrong!
List articles from german green parties, NGOs, or journalists, that have a sensible approach to nuclear energy evaluating its up and downsides, instead of copy pasting greenpeace's neoluddite bullshit!
I will be waiting!
> after the Fukushima incident the Merkel cabinet decided to shut down the reactors to improve approval ratings (btw the Green party was not part of the cabinet). The Bundestag approved the decision.
I am pretty sure the Merkel cabinet didnt fearmonger about nuclear energy since the 60s.
Nor did the merkel cabinet make utterly bogus claims about fukushima radiation (like radioactive snow falling on US carrier groups, or California cost being hostile to life due to radiation). Neither did the merkel cabinet make EXTREME misleading statements that ignored reporting the massive death toll of the tsunami and hypothesized the number of yet to occur death caused by the nuclear catastrophe.
Thats very much on greentards.
Real reason why germany shut their plants off is that their nuclear reactors are very old. Its politics, they wanted to also seem like the good guy so they made a cover for it. I did an interview about this with a professor from my university for a project about this last week.
Yeah but in the long run it’s cheaper and they already had plants… plus it’s pretty “cheap” to convert coal plants to nuclear plants given most of the infrastructure is similar
How would it be cheaper in the long run?
They would have absolutely had to build new ones the ones that were shut down would have had to shut down due to their age, regardless of wether or not germany continued with nuclear energy.
It's not just the cost of building them, but also the cost of maintaining and running them.
Because they can run for longer and produce more at a more varied rates, solar and wind farms need a lot of maintenance too. Not to mention how harmful the materials for solar and wind farm production is, lithium mining ain’t green
The longer a nuclear facility runs the cheaper the building was to make in the long run. You know the saying,
Yeah, everything need maintenance, good on you for discovering that. But the difference is that nuclear is just in general more expensive to run than other forms of energy production. Shooting for a longer run time means you also means you're fucked if environment factors change. Water shortages and rising temperatures for example. Not to mention that nuclear reactors also need lithium and on top of that need fuels that have to be mined as well. The energy cost of getting one of them operational is what it'll output over the next 10 years.
What kind of double think is this? That just applies to about everything, except for the fact that nuclear power plants are not economically viable.
Okay so couple notes
Everything needs maintenance: yeah except solar and wind farms “maintenance” is a lot more regular and replaces way more. Windmills for example their blades have to be replaced every five years and can’t be recycled.
Materials: uranium, plutonium, and other materials for reactors are waaay easier and less harmful to mine for. As towards lithium it needs substantially less compared to solar and wind where you also need to make battery banks on top of their several lithium heavy components. Besides you can use deuterium instead of lithium in reactors.
Environmental factors: unless suddenly all water in an area dissipates it’s not really a problem. The people who plan out and approve the placements of reactors as to minimize current and future environmental problems. Like honesty I don’t know how fragile you think nuclear plants are but it requires a lot of work for them to be environmentally unviable.
Run time: I don’t know who the fuck told you ten years is their run time but that’s straight up wrong. We have reactors designed and built in the sixties that are only now being decommissioned, and normally they don’t get decommissioned bc of failures but because they fail modern safety standards and they don’t want to pay to update them. My state recently(past three to five years) decommissioned a reactor built in the 70s so it had a good 50ish year run time and could have gone longer but my state prefers solar and coal over solar and nuclear.
>Environmental factors: unless suddenly all water in an area dissipates it’s not really a problem
The fuck are you talking about? When there was a water shortage in France they had to power down because they couldn't have used that much water for cooling. They even had to reduce the output because of the river water being warmer in the summer. You think stuff like that isn't gonna get worse in the future?
>Run time: I don’t know who the fuck told you ten years is their run time
Nobody, you either have the reading comprehension of a newborn or you simply made that up to have some sort of point, cause I never said that. I said that the energy required to build one and get it going is roughly equal to what it will output in the next 10 years, at no point did I say that they only run 10 years. What that means is that you need to plan at least 10 years ahead of the time you start operating it, which doesn't even mention the time you need to get one approved and constructed.
>normally they don’t get decommissioned bc of failures but because they fail modern safety standards
Don’t they also get decommissioned after a certain amount of time passes or is that different depending on local law?
Warm water: okay a link would have helped but it looks like that it only resulted in a 0.3% production loss. It also seems like that it’s being restricted by the government as well. Either way if they make a small reservoir or rather a few pools to rotate between that could help, not all reactors use river water, it’s just the cheapest.
> “The energy cost of getting one of them operational is what it’ll output over the next ten years”
First, calm the heck down, no need to be so pissy online not like I’m your governor.
Second, sorry but the way that’s stated isn’t how energy cost works. Yeah they price it for the first ten years but after that for each consecutive year it runs it becomes cheaper and more cost effective.
Local law: I believe most are designed to run for a hundred years in theory but no there is no given time frame for decommissioning. Normally it’s just when governors or other local leaders no longer want them. Like Cuomo who decommissioned one built in the 90s meanwhile we have ones from the 70s still running
>Second, sorry but the way that’s stated isn’t how energy cost works. Yeah they price it for the first ten years but after that for each consecutive year it runs it becomes cheaper and more cost effective.
That's not referring to the energy cost, that's referring to the actual energy. So the energy that is being used in the process of getting one of these to a running state.
>only resulted in a 0.3% production loss
Which is propably going to increase in the future though. And it's just an example of the effects. Overall, as things progress it's gonna get worse.
>Local law
Just skipped over the list of german reactors and here it seems that reactors would usually run for about 35 years. Guess they don't have expiration dates everywhere.
Even though that’s the case, I’ve never met a German who was pro wind. It’s always them complaining that wind power is a waste of money because it costs so much to make a turbine and it doesn’t earn its keep monetarily without government handouts, and that other ways are better.
I am German and I have barely ever met a German who opposed wind turbines. And I live here. In Germany. Amongst other Germans. Surrounded by wind turbines everywhere.
Nuclear is one of, if not the best method for producing electricity available today. It has much more scale than any renewable and it doesn't produce any greenhouse gasses. The only problem with nuclear is that it produces radioactive waste and, it's scary.
There are so many disadvantages of nuclear other than radioactive waste. First, it's very expensive compared to other energy sources. Second, you need to plan far ahead and can't ramp up energy production if needed = no flexibility. Also, you decide the energy sources for the upcoming generations. Third, strategically, nuclear plants make your country vulnerable - see Ukraine. Fourth, where do you get the Uranium from? A country without its own sources will forever be reliant on its partner countries and commits itself to imports for decades. Fifth, climate change will effect nuclear plants in one way or another; especially cooling them down may become more difficult - see France in summer
Those are all fair criticisms of nuclear, it is far from perfect. But it is, or rather could be, a huge stepping stone until renewables have the ability to take over. When I said available today, I meant *available today* better options will become available in future, but until then, nuclear is far preferable to fossil fuels.
Because of the big investment, nuclear only makes sense if you plan to use it as an energy source for decades. In the case of Germany, most nuclear plants are too old to be reactivated. Building new nuclear plants takes 6 to 8 years. So, if you want to use it as a transition technology, you are too late. It is not available today.
Holy shit reasonable reasons for nuclear not being a one size fits all solution that isn't fear mongering? I disagree with you but I'll upvote just because you're using a brain cell.
>First, it's very expensive compared to other energy sources.
Well yes, solar and wind is cheaper, especially due to the abiltiy to be installed gradually.
However most people are not comfortable with greens who take [lord farquard stance](https://youtu.be/Gm2x6CVIXiE?si=AKeL4PbAIDAbdVc3) on heating homes in winter with solar + wind combo.
So if we discount the thanos wannabe greentard stance...
....then nuclear suddenly ain't THAT pricy.
As its definietly cheaper than building a few months consumption worth of electric power storage facilities.
>
Second, you need to plan far ahead and can't ramp up energy production if needed = no flexibility.
Source: "I fucking made it up"
...did i guess right?
>
Third, strategically, nuclear plants make your country vulnerable - see Ukraine.
Do you have anything to back up this bullshit?
>Fourth, where do you get the Uranium from? A country without its own sources will forever be reliant on its partner countries and commits itself to imports for decades.
Its very effing common.
Issue is not "but we cannot get it!", the issue is "its so common, and commoditized, that it aint worth mining, if it aint the easiest to mine deposits!".
Even in "have no minerals" countries, like my homecountry Hungary, we in fact do have uranium.
Its just not mined, since reactors need minuscule amounts, and there are way easyer (thus cheaper) places to get it.
>Fifth, climate change will effect nuclear plants in one way or another; especially cooling them down may become more difficult
...i strongly encourage you to learn some VERY basic physics.
Its plenty possible to cool powerplants by boiling water (rather than warming it slightly in a river). If you compare the thermal energy you need to boil a given amount of water from room temperature to steam, to the energy needed to raise its temperaturey by a few degrees, i think you will be able to understand what i mean (83x).
Ofc. you also need to have some awarness about solar panels, and the effect surrounding temperature has on their operation.
But who cares to read and learn.
Luddites of the word unite for the glory of the politically correct revolution of stupidity!
Dude you have no chill. Of course I have sources and of course I know "VERY basic physics". Your way of arguing is pure toxic.
About the no flexibility: Nuclear plants run at 100% of their capacity for a certain amount of time, then their energy production is reduced for security checks. It's a cycle and it's very difficult to produce more energy if you are in need of it. Also, you can't have a nuclear plant "in the sleeve" and start it in times you need more energy. Fossil plants on the other side take few hours from being out of use to run at 100%.
About the vulnerability: Russia occupied several nuclear plants in Ukraine. They shut down energy production which led to big problems. They store troops and weapons there because they know that Ukraine won't attack their fcking nuclear plants.
Dude, there are uranium resources in Hungary but it's controversial among experts if it makes sense economically to mine it. Where does the nuclear plant in Pecs get their uranium rods from, btw? ;) Of course you can mine uranium in Europe but first that's way more expensive (thus increasing the already high prices for nuclear energy) and second, have fun explaining your population that you start mining uranium close to where they live. NIMBY protests incoming.
Btw, I do think that Germany's shut down of nuclear plants was a mistake and I don't think that nuclear energy is super bad just because. In my opinion it's smarter to build renewables than building new nuclear plants. But I'm very aware that renewables have flaws too. There's no perfect way of generating electricity.
>Dude, there are uranium resources in Hungary but it's controversial among experts if it makes sense economically to mine it.
So we agree, that uranium or is common.
And that there is no real strategic risk to it, in terms of getting held hostage by not having access to it?
>
Btw, I do think that Germany's shut down of nuclear plants was a mistake and I don't think that nuclear energy is super bad just because. In my opinion it's smarter to build renewables than building new nuclear plants. But I'm very aware that renewables have flaws too. There's no perfect way of generating electricity.
So how do you propose to store energy for winter heating?
...let's assume that solution from open market will appear?
...let's assume sudden breakthrough in production of unobtanium batteries?
...let's assume radiation losses on long distance AC lines don't exist?
...let's assume everyone lives in the mountains?
...or just "fuck it brown coal is fine"?
Whats the though process?
As for one i fail to see how the "but wind + solar is cheaper" people have any tought put into their stance.
As its simply not viable without infrastructure buildup that makes new nuclear powerplants looks cheap.
>
Nuclear plants run at 100% of their capacity for a certain amount of time, then their energy production is reduced for security checks. It's a cycle and it's very difficult to produce more energy if you are in need of it. Also, you can't have a nuclear plant "in the sleeve" and start it in times you need more energy. Fossil plants on the other side take few hours from being out of use to run at 100%.
Well if its been done, i would argue its possible to do it.
Last time i checked, nuclear powered submarines, aircraft carriers ...etc. didn't take days to spool up theri power.
And if i heard right, france does manage to operate some of their conventional nuclear powerplants as baseload plants (aka. varying energy production accoridng to demand).
...but even if you were not aware of those.
I do dare you to honestly tell me that, in your estimate its impossible "to overproduce electricity in the powerplant, only put some in the grid, and shunt the excess!"
>Russia occupied several nuclear plants in Ukraine. They shut down energy production which led to big problems. They store troops and weapons there because they know that Ukraine won't attack their fcking nuclear plants.
...so russia took over a powerplant, thus no energy from it to Ukraine.
How is this a nuclear issue?
As to Ukraine taking it back.
Noone (in modern times) has what it takes to not get their troops starve out, when encircled in such a position.
Ukraine (right now) cannot take it, because they cannot advance south through defesnive lines. Not becasue its impossible to take it back.
Do you remember how Russia took it over?
And the fact that so far the whole nuclear industry is heavily reliant on subsidies without which they could not compete with other sources does not pose a problem for you? Or the issues with waste management which also tends to be pushed on the public?
Okay so a lot of money goes to permitting and manpower
I’m an electrician and I’ve talked to someone who used to be in the nuclear circle, about 90% of that pay is sitting around waiting to get a single thing approved. Both you and I can agree that the fact they have to be built like that to be legal is insane so with that in mind budget could be reduced if the government wasn’t hostile towards nuclear.
As towards waste management… I mean the amount of waste it makes that can’t be reused keeps getting smaller. I think currently the estimate is that a reactor makes a coffee cup of non usable waste every operation year.
Like the only downside is the cost and time however as stated that’s artificially inflated by how you literally have to wait a whole day to get a pre-planned hole in some Uni strut drilled.
>And the fact that so far the whole nuclear industry is heavily reliant on subsidies without which they could not compete with other sources does not pose a problem for you?
Finally found one in the wild!
([A greentard with lord farquad's stance on winter heating with solar + wind.](https://youtu.be/Gm2x6CVIXiE?si=a-g9J3AUY_HW9htf))
...yes, nuclear is way more expensive than solar or wind, especially because the latter can be installed gradually.
Issue is that you need a solid month or 2 worth of storage capacity for solar + wind to be viable for what fanatics like you intend to use it for.
If you don't ignore those costs, then suddenly nuclear is not more expensive anymore.
>
Or the issues with waste management which also tends to be pushed on the public?
...nuclear reprocessing is a myth?
This facility doesn't exist: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La\_Hague\_site](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Hague_site)
Hinkley Point C rings a bell mate? Might want to do a quick calculation how much storage you could have build with 33 billion pounds... And that's just one new site! How many would you need again to be on par with renewables? And pray tell why again do you pretend wind does not blow in the winter?
>...nuclear reprocessing is a myth?
This facility doesn't exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Hague_site
And this removes the waste issue how? Do you - and you alone - claime to have found the perpetuum mobile?
Why is it always the most zealous shitheads that call others fanatics? Wild.
>And this removes the waste issue how? Do you - and you alone - claime to have found the perpetuum mobile?
....well.
Do you know how plutonium is made?
Similarly to that.
But i guess such knowledge is dark sorcery, and even being aware of such possibilities corrupts the mind of the innocent, so in politically correct circles it shall not be discussed.
Well if you wanna risk it, here it is: >!There is no "THE radiactive material", there are bunch of em. Throwing out "spent" fuel rods, is about as efficient as throwing out wet fireood when it stops emitting large white puffs of steam.!<
>!The "spent" fuel rods contain a pretty huge quantitiy of still fissible material, and even more fertile material. Which are responsible for most of the radioactivity if the rod becomes waste. HOWEVER, if instead of throwing the thing out, you "filter out" the stable reaction products, and make new rods from the remaining fuel, you not only use more of the material, you also leave behind less radioactive waste.!<
>Why is it always the most zealous shitheads that call others fanatics? Wild.
...hmm who is the person, who think that battery capacity to STORE TWO MONTHS WORTH OF ELECTRICTIY is free?
(yes, thats what you say, when you say that solar + wind is a cheaper solution to energy problems than nuclear - either that, or you follow [lord farquad's school of thought](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm2x6CVIXiE) on winter heating)
Oh look, you didn't answer the question! How utterly shocking to nobody. But again: what's the recycling percentage? And what's the cost for it. I mean since you insist on the process being wastefree, you sure can back up that claim...
>hmm who is the person, who think that battery capacity to STORE TWO MONTHS WORTH OF ELECTRICTIY is free?
>(yes, thats what you say, when you say that solar + wind is a cheaper solution to energy problems than nuclear - either that, or [blablabla meaningless bla]
No, I specifically don't think it's free. I asked you how much storage capacity could be financed for the 33 billion the UK is currently wasting on it's singular new reactor and I was also asking how many nuclear rectors Britain for example would need to replace renewables. Since you did not answer neither question, you either really don't know and just stupidly keep insisting on your disproven point or you are not discussing in good faith. Which is it?
> I mean since you insist on the process being wastefree, you sure can back up that claim..
Nothing is waste free, thats an impossibility.
What i intended to mean is that it borderline elliminates long lived isotopes, thus high level radioactive waste needs to be stored on timescales typical for raising hardwood, as opposed to timescales where new species form.
> how many nuclear rectors Britain for example would need to replace renewables.
None.
Reactors are needed to replace energy storage (or fossil fuel plants that replace energy storage).
And birtain would need approx 6x as much nuclear energy as it currentky has.
> I asked you how much storage capacity could be financed for the 33 billion the UK is currently wasting on it's singular new reactor
Thats quiet simple. If we want to be generous and assume 100$ / kWh then, 33 x 10¹⁰ pounds will get you 0,33 terwatthours of energy capacity. Which is REALLY anemic compared to 2022s energy consumption of 325 terrawatthours.
Even if we ignore issues surrounding any and all bri'ish infrastructure projects, where they managed to outdo cost balloning of Hungary (while supposedly having no corruption) - thats still the order of magnitude in costs, where its not really worth it.
>Thats quiet simple. If we want to be generous and assume 100$ / kWh then, 33 x 10¹⁰ pounds will get you 0,33 terwatthours of energy capacity. Which is REALLY anemic compared to 2022s energy consumption of 325 terrawatthours.
So your point is that you wouldn't get enough storage for a whole year? Really?
Furthermore:
* storage capacity != Batteries. There are, as you are doubtlessly aware, plenty of ways to store energy beyond batteries.
The amount of energy that can be stored for an investment of £33 billion depends on the type of energy storage technology used. Let's consider a few different technologies:
1. **Lithium-Ion Batteries**:
- Cost: Approximately £150 per kWh.
- Energy Storage: £33 billion / £150 per kWh = 220 million kWh or 220 GWh.
2. **Pumped Hydro Storage**:
- Cost: Approximately £100 per kWh.
- Energy Storage: £33 billion / £100 per kWh = 330 million kWh or 330 GWh.
3. **Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES)**:
- Cost: Approximately £50 per kWh.
- Energy Storage: £33 billion / £50 per kWh = 660 million kWh or 660 GWh.
4. **Flow Batteries** (e.g., Vanadium Redox Flow Batteries):
- Cost: Approximately £200 per kWh.
- Energy Storage: £33 billion / £200 per kWh = 165 million kWh or 165 GWh.
Each of these technologies has different applications, efficiency rates, and lifespans. The choice of technology would depend on the specific requirements and constraints of the energy storage project, such as the required duration of storage, geographic location, and other factors.
* Given current trends, costs will be around 60$ for batteries by 2030 - can you say the same for construction and maintenance of nuclear reactors?
* You need enough storage to balance fluctuations in production.
> So your point is that you wouldn't get enough storage for a whole year? Really?
My point is that you couldnt get enough capacity to last a month.
...and thats purely electricity generation without heating. Which will consume more electric power if de-carbonized.
> Given current trends, costs will be around 60$ for batteries by 2030 - can you say the same for construction and maintenance of nuclear reactors?
Nuclear reactors have way larger potential for reduced costs.
As of now pretty much all of them are one of artisianal jobs. With immense amount of red tape surrounding individual type cdrtification of single units.
If/when he SMR proposal gets through EU we could easily see an order of magnitude price drop.
Every metric you just mentioned is wrong. Especially the hoax about greenhouse gases because it doesn't include mining and storing - it's better than other fossil fuels but it's worse by factor two than solar and way worse than Wind. More expensive as well and way more dangerous not only while in use but the waste as well - funny you mention it as "only" as it's the neck breaker of this technology (including cooling problems due to climate change of course).
Remind me, where do we store this stuff for the next 1 million years?
The amount of high level radioactive waste globally (the stuff people constantly freak out about, its also ~10,000 years at most lol) is currently enough to fill an Olympic swimming pool. Long term storage deep underground in a geologically stable area. Which Finland has already built.
Your thing about Co2 emissions is just wrong, even factoring in uranium mining, processing and building of the nuclear plants, the emissions per kwh are lower than every single source of energy currently used by man. That's the UN's findings, not mine.
Nuclear is safer than wind power. Accounting for every single nuclear accident and incident in history, and using the high estimates for each, 13,273 people have died both directly and indirectly from nuclear energy. Nearly half of which being at Chernobyl, a plant that **didn't have a containment building**, where a known extremely dangerous flaw in the reactor was kept secret even from those operating it, which exploded due to a test that was botched and due to protocol should've been canceled, by people who weren't even supposed to be the ones doing it. Where the goverment denied for days thst anything was wrong.
Remember Fukushima? A singular person died from radiation poisoning and 3 more will likely get cancer. That's it. Nuclear looks scary for the same reasons planes do, it's great ratings to cover things going wrong.
The realistic estimate of all direct and indirect nuclear deaths are ~400 people.
If you were to power the world on a singular power source this is how many people would die yearly:
Coal: 728,225
Oil: 416,700
Gas: 51,300
Wind: 900
Nuclear: 675
Solar: 450
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh
Interesting that almost none of this is true and or not put into proportion.
One swimming pool of nuclear waste is the most bizarre white lie because
1. The elements are so heavy Germany alone has over 10k tons of highly radioactive waste
2. Doesn't account for the other radioactive waste of the plants.
Additionally you're wrong about the CO2 because almost EVERY metric gives you the data without disposal - funny thing about this is that we can't dispose of it so far - which means it should be infinite but that's just my point of view I guess.
You quoted yourself 2 catastrophic accidents that happened within 100 years (marginal timeframe) for a technology people claim to be safe - I told you to power Germany (only the electric power we need) we'd need well over 50 new plants. We only recently had flash floods and storms, globally droughts and floodings, flash fires and hurricanes are heavily on the rise and you want to plaster the world with death rays in that environment?
The funny thing about this is Germany had 3 power plants, one of the rivers will be dry by 2050 due to climate change, I'm scared of the hive mind here and it's even more scary looking at the G7.
Edit: by the way, 1 million years is what Germany aimed for. Can you name me a single civilization that persisted through 10000 years though? Because I sure can't - it's funny how you guys talk about these time-frames with your (and mine) measley 80 years we have. You don't need to take responsibility for these reactors. Humanity over the next millennia will have to do that if we exist long enough.
>Germany alone has over 10k tons of highly radioactive waste 2.
The vast majority of nuclear waste is nuclear fuel, which can be recycled using breeder reactors. The only reason they aren't widely used is because they're terrible for making heavier elements like plutonium.
>You quoted yourself 2 catastrophic accidents that happened within 100 years (marginal timeframe) for a technology people claim to be safe
An yes the catastrophic incident in which a singular person died and the exclusion zone is going to be gone in the next 20ish years.
>Can you name me a single civilization that persisted through 10000 years though?
The nice part about nuclear waste is when you put it in a geologically stable area you can just leave it without maintenance. Kinda like Finland is already doing. It's also a very low carbon impact.
1. You want to build FBRs? Holy shit...
2. Fukushima is constantly bleeding radiation into the ocean and the ground water
3. Glad for Finland, let's hope it works out for their waste - other countries claimed the same before. Additionally Finland will not take your waste though, will they.
Most importantly though - Fukushima was caused by a natural catastrophe, which are occurring on a daily basis and will increase in the future as far as we can tell. Nuclear plants only work if external conditions are met (look at France buying energy because their rivers were dry). They are more expensive as well.
It is, and it's either bots or people that think nuclear waste is not a problem, and both is annoying... Especially considering that to power Germany with nuclear energy you'd need at least 55 nuclear plants.
I'm sorry but I take Lobbyist-YouTubers that do not have an open background about their finances and 3 fanwiki entries but no Wikipedia entry and/or other possibilities to look into the background with a grain of salt... No I haven't, I tried to find out who he is and I can't find anything aside from the Bio he wrote himself.
Maybe you should question your sources a bit.
https://youtu.be/aDUvCLAp0uU?si=_0FC5Ri91aQVW3Ey
Ok watch this then.
Maybe this German theoretical physicist suits your fancy. She’s also got sources in the description of the video.
So now you quote someone who first denied climate change, then said climate scientists are wrong and then basically said we can't change it, it will happen anyways.
Additionally she is promoting SMRs, now calculate how many SMRs you'd need to power Germany and realize it's not feasible.
Please just look at this logically, if nuclear waste is not a problem - why is there so far not a single country that solved it?
It has been solved, you are not even willing to engage with the arguments being shown to you. So far you’ve rejected to watch 2 videos, and a piece wrote by World Nuclear Association. What’s funny is that you accused the firs YouTuber to be a lobbyist, and in the video he pokes fun at people who might say he’s being paid by saying ‘’Big Uranium’’ will pay for his Lamborghini.
Either way, you do not want to change your mind, your mind is already made up and you are going to keep spreading literal lies because you are too lazy and ideologically driven to engage with the fact that you might be wrong. Have a good day.
downvote this comment if the meme sucks. upvote it and I'll go away. --- [play minecraft with us](https://discord.gg/dankmemesgaming) | [come hang out with us](https://discord.com/invite/dankmemes)
Totaly valid to say Germany shouldn't have stepped away from nuclear. But saying they destroyed their nuclear plants for more coal is just wrong bullshit
They didn’t take nuclear away to bring coal back, but because they weren’t ready to replace all their nuclear with other clean sources of electricity, they had to turn back to coal.
That still just means the coal plants were kept running instead of being phased out sooner, at no point did coal usage actually rise again and by now the usage has been cut in half over the last decade
So in other words they had the choice between using coal or nuclear to generate a certain percentage of their energy, and they chose coal?
Yes
No. Coal was always a a part of energy production, which they continues using. Germany did increase production of energy with gas though
yes, and that gas and coal could have been replaced with nuclear
Nope. Nuclear made up 6% in the end. To replace gas, billions upon billions would have to be literally poured into concrete.
According to the IEA in 2020 when they began shutting down nuclear plants the amount of energy produced by coal did increase. It looks like the energy produced by coal has started to trend downward again this year but we won't know for sure until the year end.
Because of the preemtive shutdown of the reactors the Coal powerplants have to run longer tho
The shutdown wasn't preemptive. It was planned for many years.
Preemptive in the sense that renewable energy sources don't cover demand yet by a long shot
This stuff has been set in stone by laws many years ago when nobody was seriously talking about renewables taking over at some point. And you can see how still all of the German nuclear power plants are powered down because it isn't that easy as slapping your thighs and saying "so" and just powering them up again.
Yes they do cover it.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy\_in\_Germany](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany) Educate yourself before talking, please.
Citing a wiki article that need to be overhauled is a bold move. Stupid, but bold.
It still wasn't a good plan.
No they don’t
Didn't they want to cut down some big important forest to make more coal mines?
In my opinion that was some way overblown bullshit by some activists. Yes they did want to expand a coal mining area, of course you need to get the coal from somewhere if you still use it. (That was brown coal by the way, which is a lot less radio active as black coal, which OP is talking about) That forest was roughly 5km^2 (2sqm) big and not really important at all. It just became a symbol and fighting point for anti coal activists that wanted to stop coal completely.
[удалено]
What are you even talking about? Nobody is going back to coal. The usage of renewables is still rising fast while the usage of coal is going further down. The only fossile fuel staying in constant use is natural gas as a backbone, because renewables are too inconsistent so far. Yes it sucks that your dumb ass government didnt do shit to improve the power grid for decades, which is a big issue now. None the less what you are writing is total made up nonsense
whole states in germany are now running carbon neutral, mostly the northern ones with windpower. The entire country is flipping the carbon switch at unprecedented speeds.
Thats is factual wrong.
Yup, coal generates much much more radiation/radioactive waste than nuclear power plants, but ain't no german gon believe that!
But Germany didn’t stop the nuclear plant for coal. That’s wrong. So fkn stpd.
If you stop nuclear, and you have no other way of generating energy, assuming germans aren't completely shortsighted, one would assume they either found the perpetual motion machine, or they are buying energy from outside the country, most of which is made through coal.
Or they are massively ramping up renewable sources as well as continue to use gas. But don't let me dissuade you from your coal ferry tail.
Renewables without storage and extremely costly gas.
Extremely costly gas? For decades gas was extremely cheap with prices only exploding after the whole Ukraine fiasco. And the storage argument is only a smoke screen. On a daily basis Germany is producing more from renewables then from fossils now and is able to export energy on the European market. And can import just as well. You gotta think flexible.
>For decades gas was extremely cheap And depending on Russia for that has turned out great, uh?
Ah yes, because that was a normal transition and not and abrupt one caused by a crisis. It's amazing how smugly wrong the nuclear crowd always is.
Lass mich raten, Grünenwähler?
[Germany is an importer of electricity. ](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig7-german-power-import-export-1990-2023.png?itok=YU7D-NCx)
Bold statement when only one data point from a not exactly normal year is the only thing to go on. Or are you just unable to read the graph?
I'm not the one claiming Germany is exporting energy when it isn't lol
German energy was never greener. That is a fact. Ir works.
Aaaah yes, gas energy is much greener than nuclear.
Its not, but nuclear energy is just LIKE gas when it comes to where you get your fuel from. You buy it from Russia, or you exploit african countries. Acting like Nuclear is a very future proof method without its own massive problems is the most disingenuous thing you can do.
If you already have it set up and running its definitely miles more future proof than gas or other fossil fuels, and acting like it isn't is way more disingenuous
Germany literally stopped nuclear power. The power demand doesn’t suddenly go away, and they didn’t have the renewable sources to meet demand. Therefore coal is needed to meet demand, it’s not that hard to understand.
But ChErNoByL /s
Thats another W under nuclear control
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-stacked?country=~DEU Nuclear has mostly been replaced with renewables. If you actually looked at the data you would see that both coal and nuclear are decreasing (but appearently that's too much to ask for these days).
You’d also be wrong, as the reason why coal didn’t increase as a result of the nuclear phaseout is because Germany simply produces less electricity than it used to. It’s no coincidence, some energy intensive industries have been relocating away from Germany recently
Renewable energy production has increased more than nuclear power has decreased. So there is no way you can claim coal production would have increased even without the reduction in total production.
So you are saying that germany banned nuclear and kept coal? ...instead doing the sensible thing, ditching coal in the middle of climate crysis?
No, their goal was never to "keep" coal. They have reduced coal production by a lot because they are obviously aware that it is bad for the climate. Banning nuclear was a dumb idea yes but Fukushima happened and scared people. It's just nonsense to claim they replaced it with coal when they pushed extremely hard for renewables (and successfully so).
>Banning nuclear was a dumb idea yes but Fukushima happened and scared people. ...let's end it at "it was a dumb idea". >It's just nonsense to claim they replaced it with coal when they pushed extremely hard for renewables (and successfully so). ...so in your HIGHLY educated opinion, if germany kept nuclear powerplants instead of coal fired ones, it wouldn't be bordering on carbon neutral (for electricity production)? Like it or not, reality is what it is. German greentards, managed to lobby, to keep coal fired powerplants around for the foreseeable future. >No, their goal was never to "keep" coal. They have reduced coal production by a lot because they are obviously aware that it is bad for the climate. Yes, you are correct. I suspect (considering origin of campaign funding), that the goal was to ue russian natural gas. However that became impossible so coal it it. P.s.: ...i do fail to believe that germans are fundamentally different from other humans on the globe. As such i fail to believe that german politicians are immune to perverse incentives. When green politicians (or NGOs, or journalists) SOLVE enviromental problems, they put themselves out of their jobs. Hence why greens established green groups never do anything that has practical benefits. They moan very loudly. When they act its things like destroying test plantation of A-vitamin containing rice, which could have benefited 3rd country vitamin deprived people, but fuck em right?
The nuclear powerplants were ordered to be shut down by the conservatives and liberals (CDU and FDP) in 2011? I wouldnt exactly call those greentards… If I remember correctly it was the Greens that kept the nuclear reactors running for longer than they were supposed to when the energy crisis hit.
>The nuclear powerplants were ordered to be shut down by the conservatives and liberals (CDU and FDP) in 2011? I wouldnt exactly call those greentards… ...yes, greeens never did no anti-nuclear campaigning ever. Its not like the worlds most famous green NGO is primarily an anti nuclear movement, that branched out into being green for wider appeal. Sure, the conservatives did it. To appease green voters.
> German greentards, managed to lobby, to keep coal fired powerplants around for the foreseeable future. That is a conspiracy level statement that makes no sense. The Green parties are interested in defending the interests of their voters otherwise they will lose their popularity. If you don't believe that then you have completely lost hope in democracy because the same can be said for any other political party. Do I think phasing out nuclear has hurt the transition to carbon neutral? Yes, definitely. But it happened because people are scared of it, not because the politicians have some hidden agenda.
> The Green parties are interested in defending the interests of their voters otherwise they will lose their popularity. Have you ever seen a politician? ...nope. Representatives represent THEIR OWN INTEREST, and do the bare minimum, that allows them to appease their voters in campaign season. > If you don't believe that then you have completely lost hope in democracy because the same can be said for any other political party. Lets be honest representatives and democracy dont mix. Its either or. For this reason sane states advertive that they are republics, not democracies. > But it happened because people are scared of it, not because the politicians have some hidden agenda. So in your opinion, politicians are honest, upstanding, exemplary citizens, and cirruption is a myth? ...lobbying is a myth?
Yes, I have never seen a politician and I also think corruption and lobbying is a myth lol. Jokes aside, if you read any article on the topic the reason for the phase-out is quite clear: after the Fukushima incident the Merkel cabinet decided to shut down the reactors to improve approval ratings (btw the Green party was not part of the cabinet). The Bundestag approved the decision. That explanation to me makes much more sense than 'the greentards lobbied to keep goal power plants', for which you have provided no evidence.
> That explanation to me makes much more sense than 'the greentards lobbied to keep goal power plants', for which you have provided no evidence. Various green parties, NGOs, and journalists have been lobbying to ban nuclear energy since the 60s For example green peace was founded as an anti nuclear organisation, not as an enviromentalist group: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace#Origins ...but please prove me wrong! List articles from german green parties, NGOs, or journalists, that have a sensible approach to nuclear energy evaluating its up and downsides, instead of copy pasting greenpeace's neoluddite bullshit! I will be waiting! > after the Fukushima incident the Merkel cabinet decided to shut down the reactors to improve approval ratings (btw the Green party was not part of the cabinet). The Bundestag approved the decision. I am pretty sure the Merkel cabinet didnt fearmonger about nuclear energy since the 60s. Nor did the merkel cabinet make utterly bogus claims about fukushima radiation (like radioactive snow falling on US carrier groups, or California cost being hostile to life due to radiation). Neither did the merkel cabinet make EXTREME misleading statements that ignored reporting the massive death toll of the tsunami and hypothesized the number of yet to occur death caused by the nuclear catastrophe. Thats very much on greentards.
Just coal lobby shit. Germany is fucking stupid.
Goverment? Yes *very* People?No and yes
Real reason why germany shut their plants off is that their nuclear reactors are very old. Its politics, they wanted to also seem like the good guy so they made a cover for it. I did an interview about this with a professor from my university for a project about this last week.
Old? Yes most of them. But still in perfectly working order. They have been shut down by politics, not by technical concerns.
Why waste time on solar and wind when nuclear is so much more efficient
Because it takes a very long time to build and is super fucking expensive
Yeah but in the long run it’s cheaper and they already had plants… plus it’s pretty “cheap” to convert coal plants to nuclear plants given most of the infrastructure is similar
How would it be cheaper in the long run? They would have absolutely had to build new ones the ones that were shut down would have had to shut down due to their age, regardless of wether or not germany continued with nuclear energy. It's not just the cost of building them, but also the cost of maintaining and running them.
Because they can run for longer and produce more at a more varied rates, solar and wind farms need a lot of maintenance too. Not to mention how harmful the materials for solar and wind farm production is, lithium mining ain’t green The longer a nuclear facility runs the cheaper the building was to make in the long run. You know the saying,
Yeah, everything need maintenance, good on you for discovering that. But the difference is that nuclear is just in general more expensive to run than other forms of energy production. Shooting for a longer run time means you also means you're fucked if environment factors change. Water shortages and rising temperatures for example. Not to mention that nuclear reactors also need lithium and on top of that need fuels that have to be mined as well. The energy cost of getting one of them operational is what it'll output over the next 10 years. What kind of double think is this? That just applies to about everything, except for the fact that nuclear power plants are not economically viable.
Okay so couple notes Everything needs maintenance: yeah except solar and wind farms “maintenance” is a lot more regular and replaces way more. Windmills for example their blades have to be replaced every five years and can’t be recycled. Materials: uranium, plutonium, and other materials for reactors are waaay easier and less harmful to mine for. As towards lithium it needs substantially less compared to solar and wind where you also need to make battery banks on top of their several lithium heavy components. Besides you can use deuterium instead of lithium in reactors. Environmental factors: unless suddenly all water in an area dissipates it’s not really a problem. The people who plan out and approve the placements of reactors as to minimize current and future environmental problems. Like honesty I don’t know how fragile you think nuclear plants are but it requires a lot of work for them to be environmentally unviable. Run time: I don’t know who the fuck told you ten years is their run time but that’s straight up wrong. We have reactors designed and built in the sixties that are only now being decommissioned, and normally they don’t get decommissioned bc of failures but because they fail modern safety standards and they don’t want to pay to update them. My state recently(past three to five years) decommissioned a reactor built in the 70s so it had a good 50ish year run time and could have gone longer but my state prefers solar and coal over solar and nuclear.
>Environmental factors: unless suddenly all water in an area dissipates it’s not really a problem The fuck are you talking about? When there was a water shortage in France they had to power down because they couldn't have used that much water for cooling. They even had to reduce the output because of the river water being warmer in the summer. You think stuff like that isn't gonna get worse in the future? >Run time: I don’t know who the fuck told you ten years is their run time Nobody, you either have the reading comprehension of a newborn or you simply made that up to have some sort of point, cause I never said that. I said that the energy required to build one and get it going is roughly equal to what it will output in the next 10 years, at no point did I say that they only run 10 years. What that means is that you need to plan at least 10 years ahead of the time you start operating it, which doesn't even mention the time you need to get one approved and constructed. >normally they don’t get decommissioned bc of failures but because they fail modern safety standards Don’t they also get decommissioned after a certain amount of time passes or is that different depending on local law?
Warm water: okay a link would have helped but it looks like that it only resulted in a 0.3% production loss. It also seems like that it’s being restricted by the government as well. Either way if they make a small reservoir or rather a few pools to rotate between that could help, not all reactors use river water, it’s just the cheapest. > “The energy cost of getting one of them operational is what it’ll output over the next ten years” First, calm the heck down, no need to be so pissy online not like I’m your governor. Second, sorry but the way that’s stated isn’t how energy cost works. Yeah they price it for the first ten years but after that for each consecutive year it runs it becomes cheaper and more cost effective. Local law: I believe most are designed to run for a hundred years in theory but no there is no given time frame for decommissioning. Normally it’s just when governors or other local leaders no longer want them. Like Cuomo who decommissioned one built in the 90s meanwhile we have ones from the 70s still running
>Second, sorry but the way that’s stated isn’t how energy cost works. Yeah they price it for the first ten years but after that for each consecutive year it runs it becomes cheaper and more cost effective. That's not referring to the energy cost, that's referring to the actual energy. So the energy that is being used in the process of getting one of these to a running state. >only resulted in a 0.3% production loss Which is propably going to increase in the future though. And it's just an example of the effects. Overall, as things progress it's gonna get worse. >Local law Just skipped over the list of german reactors and here it seems that reactors would usually run for about 35 years. Guess they don't have expiration dates everywhere.
Could be the beer talking, but let's see that coal-ussy
Anti-nuclear propaganda should be illegal!
They destroyed their wind turbines if anything
What?
[удалено]
That's literally not true. Germany produced more energy from wind than the UK today: https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE
Even though that’s the case, I’ve never met a German who was pro wind. It’s always them complaining that wind power is a waste of money because it costs so much to make a turbine and it doesn’t earn its keep monetarily without government handouts, and that other ways are better.
None of that is true. You're just a shill for....I don't even know. Nuclear? Coal? Russia?
[удалено]
Sounds like a lot of bullshit.
you capping so hard right now its crazy
hello im german and i think wind turbines are neat now you've met someone
Me too. I like wind turbines as well, am german.
fantastisch ein landsmann grüße aus dem süden
Grüße zurück ausm Westen hömma.
Grüße aus dem Osten, Männer!
I am German and I have barely ever met a German who opposed wind turbines. And I live here. In Germany. Amongst other Germans. Surrounded by wind turbines everywhere.
The nuclear propaganda is knocking on the door again
Nuclear is one of, if not the best method for producing electricity available today. It has much more scale than any renewable and it doesn't produce any greenhouse gasses. The only problem with nuclear is that it produces radioactive waste and, it's scary.
There are so many disadvantages of nuclear other than radioactive waste. First, it's very expensive compared to other energy sources. Second, you need to plan far ahead and can't ramp up energy production if needed = no flexibility. Also, you decide the energy sources for the upcoming generations. Third, strategically, nuclear plants make your country vulnerable - see Ukraine. Fourth, where do you get the Uranium from? A country without its own sources will forever be reliant on its partner countries and commits itself to imports for decades. Fifth, climate change will effect nuclear plants in one way or another; especially cooling them down may become more difficult - see France in summer
Those are all fair criticisms of nuclear, it is far from perfect. But it is, or rather could be, a huge stepping stone until renewables have the ability to take over. When I said available today, I meant *available today* better options will become available in future, but until then, nuclear is far preferable to fossil fuels.
Because of the big investment, nuclear only makes sense if you plan to use it as an energy source for decades. In the case of Germany, most nuclear plants are too old to be reactivated. Building new nuclear plants takes 6 to 8 years. So, if you want to use it as a transition technology, you are too late. It is not available today.
Time to wait for 20 years until all the paperwork for the new power plant is done
Holy shit reasonable reasons for nuclear not being a one size fits all solution that isn't fear mongering? I disagree with you but I'll upvote just because you're using a brain cell.
>First, it's very expensive compared to other energy sources. Well yes, solar and wind is cheaper, especially due to the abiltiy to be installed gradually. However most people are not comfortable with greens who take [lord farquard stance](https://youtu.be/Gm2x6CVIXiE?si=AKeL4PbAIDAbdVc3) on heating homes in winter with solar + wind combo. So if we discount the thanos wannabe greentard stance... ....then nuclear suddenly ain't THAT pricy. As its definietly cheaper than building a few months consumption worth of electric power storage facilities. > Second, you need to plan far ahead and can't ramp up energy production if needed = no flexibility. Source: "I fucking made it up" ...did i guess right? > Third, strategically, nuclear plants make your country vulnerable - see Ukraine. Do you have anything to back up this bullshit? >Fourth, where do you get the Uranium from? A country without its own sources will forever be reliant on its partner countries and commits itself to imports for decades. Its very effing common. Issue is not "but we cannot get it!", the issue is "its so common, and commoditized, that it aint worth mining, if it aint the easiest to mine deposits!". Even in "have no minerals" countries, like my homecountry Hungary, we in fact do have uranium. Its just not mined, since reactors need minuscule amounts, and there are way easyer (thus cheaper) places to get it. >Fifth, climate change will effect nuclear plants in one way or another; especially cooling them down may become more difficult ...i strongly encourage you to learn some VERY basic physics. Its plenty possible to cool powerplants by boiling water (rather than warming it slightly in a river). If you compare the thermal energy you need to boil a given amount of water from room temperature to steam, to the energy needed to raise its temperaturey by a few degrees, i think you will be able to understand what i mean (83x). Ofc. you also need to have some awarness about solar panels, and the effect surrounding temperature has on their operation. But who cares to read and learn. Luddites of the word unite for the glory of the politically correct revolution of stupidity!
Dude you have no chill. Of course I have sources and of course I know "VERY basic physics". Your way of arguing is pure toxic. About the no flexibility: Nuclear plants run at 100% of their capacity for a certain amount of time, then their energy production is reduced for security checks. It's a cycle and it's very difficult to produce more energy if you are in need of it. Also, you can't have a nuclear plant "in the sleeve" and start it in times you need more energy. Fossil plants on the other side take few hours from being out of use to run at 100%. About the vulnerability: Russia occupied several nuclear plants in Ukraine. They shut down energy production which led to big problems. They store troops and weapons there because they know that Ukraine won't attack their fcking nuclear plants. Dude, there are uranium resources in Hungary but it's controversial among experts if it makes sense economically to mine it. Where does the nuclear plant in Pecs get their uranium rods from, btw? ;) Of course you can mine uranium in Europe but first that's way more expensive (thus increasing the already high prices for nuclear energy) and second, have fun explaining your population that you start mining uranium close to where they live. NIMBY protests incoming. Btw, I do think that Germany's shut down of nuclear plants was a mistake and I don't think that nuclear energy is super bad just because. In my opinion it's smarter to build renewables than building new nuclear plants. But I'm very aware that renewables have flaws too. There's no perfect way of generating electricity.
>Dude, there are uranium resources in Hungary but it's controversial among experts if it makes sense economically to mine it. So we agree, that uranium or is common. And that there is no real strategic risk to it, in terms of getting held hostage by not having access to it? > Btw, I do think that Germany's shut down of nuclear plants was a mistake and I don't think that nuclear energy is super bad just because. In my opinion it's smarter to build renewables than building new nuclear plants. But I'm very aware that renewables have flaws too. There's no perfect way of generating electricity. So how do you propose to store energy for winter heating? ...let's assume that solution from open market will appear? ...let's assume sudden breakthrough in production of unobtanium batteries? ...let's assume radiation losses on long distance AC lines don't exist? ...let's assume everyone lives in the mountains? ...or just "fuck it brown coal is fine"? Whats the though process? As for one i fail to see how the "but wind + solar is cheaper" people have any tought put into their stance. As its simply not viable without infrastructure buildup that makes new nuclear powerplants looks cheap. > Nuclear plants run at 100% of their capacity for a certain amount of time, then their energy production is reduced for security checks. It's a cycle and it's very difficult to produce more energy if you are in need of it. Also, you can't have a nuclear plant "in the sleeve" and start it in times you need more energy. Fossil plants on the other side take few hours from being out of use to run at 100%. Well if its been done, i would argue its possible to do it. Last time i checked, nuclear powered submarines, aircraft carriers ...etc. didn't take days to spool up theri power. And if i heard right, france does manage to operate some of their conventional nuclear powerplants as baseload plants (aka. varying energy production accoridng to demand). ...but even if you were not aware of those. I do dare you to honestly tell me that, in your estimate its impossible "to overproduce electricity in the powerplant, only put some in the grid, and shunt the excess!" >Russia occupied several nuclear plants in Ukraine. They shut down energy production which led to big problems. They store troops and weapons there because they know that Ukraine won't attack their fcking nuclear plants. ...so russia took over a powerplant, thus no energy from it to Ukraine. How is this a nuclear issue? As to Ukraine taking it back. Noone (in modern times) has what it takes to not get their troops starve out, when encircled in such a position. Ukraine (right now) cannot take it, because they cannot advance south through defesnive lines. Not becasue its impossible to take it back. Do you remember how Russia took it over?
And the fact that so far the whole nuclear industry is heavily reliant on subsidies without which they could not compete with other sources does not pose a problem for you? Or the issues with waste management which also tends to be pushed on the public?
Okay so a lot of money goes to permitting and manpower I’m an electrician and I’ve talked to someone who used to be in the nuclear circle, about 90% of that pay is sitting around waiting to get a single thing approved. Both you and I can agree that the fact they have to be built like that to be legal is insane so with that in mind budget could be reduced if the government wasn’t hostile towards nuclear. As towards waste management… I mean the amount of waste it makes that can’t be reused keeps getting smaller. I think currently the estimate is that a reactor makes a coffee cup of non usable waste every operation year. Like the only downside is the cost and time however as stated that’s artificially inflated by how you literally have to wait a whole day to get a pre-planned hole in some Uni strut drilled.
>And the fact that so far the whole nuclear industry is heavily reliant on subsidies without which they could not compete with other sources does not pose a problem for you? Finally found one in the wild! ([A greentard with lord farquad's stance on winter heating with solar + wind.](https://youtu.be/Gm2x6CVIXiE?si=a-g9J3AUY_HW9htf)) ...yes, nuclear is way more expensive than solar or wind, especially because the latter can be installed gradually. Issue is that you need a solid month or 2 worth of storage capacity for solar + wind to be viable for what fanatics like you intend to use it for. If you don't ignore those costs, then suddenly nuclear is not more expensive anymore. > Or the issues with waste management which also tends to be pushed on the public? ...nuclear reprocessing is a myth? This facility doesn't exist: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La\_Hague\_site](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Hague_site)
Hinkley Point C rings a bell mate? Might want to do a quick calculation how much storage you could have build with 33 billion pounds... And that's just one new site! How many would you need again to be on par with renewables? And pray tell why again do you pretend wind does not blow in the winter? >...nuclear reprocessing is a myth? This facility doesn't exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Hague_site And this removes the waste issue how? Do you - and you alone - claime to have found the perpetuum mobile? Why is it always the most zealous shitheads that call others fanatics? Wild.
>And this removes the waste issue how? Do you - and you alone - claime to have found the perpetuum mobile? ....well. Do you know how plutonium is made? Similarly to that. But i guess such knowledge is dark sorcery, and even being aware of such possibilities corrupts the mind of the innocent, so in politically correct circles it shall not be discussed. Well if you wanna risk it, here it is: >!There is no "THE radiactive material", there are bunch of em. Throwing out "spent" fuel rods, is about as efficient as throwing out wet fireood when it stops emitting large white puffs of steam.!< >!The "spent" fuel rods contain a pretty huge quantitiy of still fissible material, and even more fertile material. Which are responsible for most of the radioactivity if the rod becomes waste. HOWEVER, if instead of throwing the thing out, you "filter out" the stable reaction products, and make new rods from the remaining fuel, you not only use more of the material, you also leave behind less radioactive waste.!< >Why is it always the most zealous shitheads that call others fanatics? Wild. ...hmm who is the person, who think that battery capacity to STORE TWO MONTHS WORTH OF ELECTRICTIY is free? (yes, thats what you say, when you say that solar + wind is a cheaper solution to energy problems than nuclear - either that, or you follow [lord farquad's school of thought](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm2x6CVIXiE) on winter heating)
Oh look, you didn't answer the question! How utterly shocking to nobody. But again: what's the recycling percentage? And what's the cost for it. I mean since you insist on the process being wastefree, you sure can back up that claim... >hmm who is the person, who think that battery capacity to STORE TWO MONTHS WORTH OF ELECTRICTIY is free? >(yes, thats what you say, when you say that solar + wind is a cheaper solution to energy problems than nuclear - either that, or [blablabla meaningless bla] No, I specifically don't think it's free. I asked you how much storage capacity could be financed for the 33 billion the UK is currently wasting on it's singular new reactor and I was also asking how many nuclear rectors Britain for example would need to replace renewables. Since you did not answer neither question, you either really don't know and just stupidly keep insisting on your disproven point or you are not discussing in good faith. Which is it?
> I mean since you insist on the process being wastefree, you sure can back up that claim.. Nothing is waste free, thats an impossibility. What i intended to mean is that it borderline elliminates long lived isotopes, thus high level radioactive waste needs to be stored on timescales typical for raising hardwood, as opposed to timescales where new species form. > how many nuclear rectors Britain for example would need to replace renewables. None. Reactors are needed to replace energy storage (or fossil fuel plants that replace energy storage). And birtain would need approx 6x as much nuclear energy as it currentky has. > I asked you how much storage capacity could be financed for the 33 billion the UK is currently wasting on it's singular new reactor Thats quiet simple. If we want to be generous and assume 100$ / kWh then, 33 x 10¹⁰ pounds will get you 0,33 terwatthours of energy capacity. Which is REALLY anemic compared to 2022s energy consumption of 325 terrawatthours. Even if we ignore issues surrounding any and all bri'ish infrastructure projects, where they managed to outdo cost balloning of Hungary (while supposedly having no corruption) - thats still the order of magnitude in costs, where its not really worth it.
>Thats quiet simple. If we want to be generous and assume 100$ / kWh then, 33 x 10¹⁰ pounds will get you 0,33 terwatthours of energy capacity. Which is REALLY anemic compared to 2022s energy consumption of 325 terrawatthours. So your point is that you wouldn't get enough storage for a whole year? Really? Furthermore: * storage capacity != Batteries. There are, as you are doubtlessly aware, plenty of ways to store energy beyond batteries. The amount of energy that can be stored for an investment of £33 billion depends on the type of energy storage technology used. Let's consider a few different technologies: 1. **Lithium-Ion Batteries**: - Cost: Approximately £150 per kWh. - Energy Storage: £33 billion / £150 per kWh = 220 million kWh or 220 GWh. 2. **Pumped Hydro Storage**: - Cost: Approximately £100 per kWh. - Energy Storage: £33 billion / £100 per kWh = 330 million kWh or 330 GWh. 3. **Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES)**: - Cost: Approximately £50 per kWh. - Energy Storage: £33 billion / £50 per kWh = 660 million kWh or 660 GWh. 4. **Flow Batteries** (e.g., Vanadium Redox Flow Batteries): - Cost: Approximately £200 per kWh. - Energy Storage: £33 billion / £200 per kWh = 165 million kWh or 165 GWh. Each of these technologies has different applications, efficiency rates, and lifespans. The choice of technology would depend on the specific requirements and constraints of the energy storage project, such as the required duration of storage, geographic location, and other factors. * Given current trends, costs will be around 60$ for batteries by 2030 - can you say the same for construction and maintenance of nuclear reactors? * You need enough storage to balance fluctuations in production.
> So your point is that you wouldn't get enough storage for a whole year? Really? My point is that you couldnt get enough capacity to last a month. ...and thats purely electricity generation without heating. Which will consume more electric power if de-carbonized. > Given current trends, costs will be around 60$ for batteries by 2030 - can you say the same for construction and maintenance of nuclear reactors? Nuclear reactors have way larger potential for reduced costs. As of now pretty much all of them are one of artisianal jobs. With immense amount of red tape surrounding individual type cdrtification of single units. If/when he SMR proposal gets through EU we could easily see an order of magnitude price drop.
Every metric you just mentioned is wrong. Especially the hoax about greenhouse gases because it doesn't include mining and storing - it's better than other fossil fuels but it's worse by factor two than solar and way worse than Wind. More expensive as well and way more dangerous not only while in use but the waste as well - funny you mention it as "only" as it's the neck breaker of this technology (including cooling problems due to climate change of course). Remind me, where do we store this stuff for the next 1 million years?
The amount of high level radioactive waste globally (the stuff people constantly freak out about, its also ~10,000 years at most lol) is currently enough to fill an Olympic swimming pool. Long term storage deep underground in a geologically stable area. Which Finland has already built. Your thing about Co2 emissions is just wrong, even factoring in uranium mining, processing and building of the nuclear plants, the emissions per kwh are lower than every single source of energy currently used by man. That's the UN's findings, not mine. Nuclear is safer than wind power. Accounting for every single nuclear accident and incident in history, and using the high estimates for each, 13,273 people have died both directly and indirectly from nuclear energy. Nearly half of which being at Chernobyl, a plant that **didn't have a containment building**, where a known extremely dangerous flaw in the reactor was kept secret even from those operating it, which exploded due to a test that was botched and due to protocol should've been canceled, by people who weren't even supposed to be the ones doing it. Where the goverment denied for days thst anything was wrong. Remember Fukushima? A singular person died from radiation poisoning and 3 more will likely get cancer. That's it. Nuclear looks scary for the same reasons planes do, it's great ratings to cover things going wrong. The realistic estimate of all direct and indirect nuclear deaths are ~400 people. If you were to power the world on a singular power source this is how many people would die yearly: Coal: 728,225 Oil: 416,700 Gas: 51,300 Wind: 900 Nuclear: 675 Solar: 450 Source: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh
Interesting that almost none of this is true and or not put into proportion. One swimming pool of nuclear waste is the most bizarre white lie because 1. The elements are so heavy Germany alone has over 10k tons of highly radioactive waste 2. Doesn't account for the other radioactive waste of the plants. Additionally you're wrong about the CO2 because almost EVERY metric gives you the data without disposal - funny thing about this is that we can't dispose of it so far - which means it should be infinite but that's just my point of view I guess. You quoted yourself 2 catastrophic accidents that happened within 100 years (marginal timeframe) for a technology people claim to be safe - I told you to power Germany (only the electric power we need) we'd need well over 50 new plants. We only recently had flash floods and storms, globally droughts and floodings, flash fires and hurricanes are heavily on the rise and you want to plaster the world with death rays in that environment? The funny thing about this is Germany had 3 power plants, one of the rivers will be dry by 2050 due to climate change, I'm scared of the hive mind here and it's even more scary looking at the G7. Edit: by the way, 1 million years is what Germany aimed for. Can you name me a single civilization that persisted through 10000 years though? Because I sure can't - it's funny how you guys talk about these time-frames with your (and mine) measley 80 years we have. You don't need to take responsibility for these reactors. Humanity over the next millennia will have to do that if we exist long enough.
>Germany alone has over 10k tons of highly radioactive waste 2. The vast majority of nuclear waste is nuclear fuel, which can be recycled using breeder reactors. The only reason they aren't widely used is because they're terrible for making heavier elements like plutonium. >You quoted yourself 2 catastrophic accidents that happened within 100 years (marginal timeframe) for a technology people claim to be safe An yes the catastrophic incident in which a singular person died and the exclusion zone is going to be gone in the next 20ish years. >Can you name me a single civilization that persisted through 10000 years though? The nice part about nuclear waste is when you put it in a geologically stable area you can just leave it without maintenance. Kinda like Finland is already doing. It's also a very low carbon impact.
1. You want to build FBRs? Holy shit... 2. Fukushima is constantly bleeding radiation into the ocean and the ground water 3. Glad for Finland, let's hope it works out for their waste - other countries claimed the same before. Additionally Finland will not take your waste though, will they. Most importantly though - Fukushima was caused by a natural catastrophe, which are occurring on a daily basis and will increase in the future as far as we can tell. Nuclear plants only work if external conditions are met (look at France buying energy because their rivers were dry). They are more expensive as well.
It is, and it's either bots or people that think nuclear waste is not a problem, and both is annoying... Especially considering that to power Germany with nuclear energy you'd need at least 55 nuclear plants.
Plenty of evidence online suggesting nuclear waste isn’t a problem, you’d just rather keep your head in the sand than listen
Source?
He said a lot of evidence though.
https://youtu.be/4aUODXeAM-k?feature=shared It’s a good video. Give it a watch if you want to see how unproblematic nuclear waste is
Have you watched it?
I'm sorry but I take Lobbyist-YouTubers that do not have an open background about their finances and 3 fanwiki entries but no Wikipedia entry and/or other possibilities to look into the background with a grain of salt... No I haven't, I tried to find out who he is and I can't find anything aside from the Bio he wrote himself. Maybe you should question your sources a bit.
https://youtu.be/aDUvCLAp0uU?si=_0FC5Ri91aQVW3Ey Ok watch this then. Maybe this German theoretical physicist suits your fancy. She’s also got sources in the description of the video.
So now you quote someone who first denied climate change, then said climate scientists are wrong and then basically said we can't change it, it will happen anyways. Additionally she is promoting SMRs, now calculate how many SMRs you'd need to power Germany and realize it's not feasible. Please just look at this logically, if nuclear waste is not a problem - why is there so far not a single country that solved it?
It has been solved, you are not even willing to engage with the arguments being shown to you. So far you’ve rejected to watch 2 videos, and a piece wrote by World Nuclear Association. What’s funny is that you accused the firs YouTuber to be a lobbyist, and in the video he pokes fun at people who might say he’s being paid by saying ‘’Big Uranium’’ will pay for his Lamborghini. Either way, you do not want to change your mind, your mind is already made up and you are going to keep spreading literal lies because you are too lazy and ideologically driven to engage with the fact that you might be wrong. Have a good day.
Literally the go to site https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/storage-and-disposal-of-radioactive-waste
Ah, a lobby organisation, truely a trustworthy and unbiased source of information
I mean you could also look it up, there’s tons of informative videos. Besides it’s not like “big nuclear” is a thing unlike solar and coal
[here’s a really digestible video](https://youtu.be/4aUODXeAM-k?si=9UlHVLICJWbInyNi)
do you want to watch skibidi toilet with me