When you hit rock bottom, that’s at least the point, where yo-…hm, wait a second…
Am I the only moron who thought they meant music?
Nuclear is not a solution, evidence 836382.
It’s also now more expensive than renewables. And it has always been less safe. There is literally no reason to build nuclear anymore. Renewables is the way to go. Cheaper, safer, makes Europe energy-independent, and also much better for the environment.
Removed by mod
Renewables have killed closer to 180,000.
Clearly one braking dam is an argument against wind turbines and solar panels. Oh the horror and deaths of free rooftop electricity to power ACs.
How many times am I going to hear about Chernobyl or Three Mile Island?
How many times am I going to hear about Chernobyl or Three Mile Island?
Until you realize that a water dam is very different from a solar panel.
Your comment is not correct.
From Chernobyl alone, and only in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, and only from cancer, there have been 27’000 deaths. http://allthingsnuclear.org/post/4704112149/how-many-cancers-did-chernobyl-really-cause-updated
Then there’s all of the other bullshit. 270’000 people irradiated in this accident alone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster
Then there’s all of the nice little things like the literal mafia dumping nuclear waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_waste_dumping_by_the_'Ndrangheta
Or dumping it into the oceans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste
Or Germany putting nuclear waste into plain metal barrels and putting them into a salt mine. Since metal and salt mix so well. https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-leaking-nuclear-waste-dump/video-69502364
Well, most of the time you would be right indeed. Uranium fuel rods are solid. But in a molten-salt reactor the fissile material is actually dissolved in molten salt, so it is a solution!
The more you know!
deleted by creator
Nope, they’re less expensive too because they don’t need to operate at high pressures like PWRs, so they don’t need a whole containment structure around it to keep the pressure in and they are more efficient because they can run at higher temperatures.
Research is expensive, but once that’s done (which we are nearing), the life cycle costs are lower with increased efficiency.
L take…
Wow, all that super stable, super reliable base load energy is just mindblowing!! Let’s build more nuclear power plants!
Let’s build more nuclear power plants!
If we had done that early on we wouldn’t have global warming and there wouldn’t be a cool water shortage.
but that’s not true. Electricity only accounts for about 18% of emissons, its non renewable, you’d have a waste pile the size of a mountain, would have run out of fuel by now and you’d need to start decommissioning most of them and rebuilding them
There’s a persist myth that some technology can just magic a fix here, nothing short of vastly reduced energy consumption, and lifestyle changes can work, 10000 aging nuclear reactors that need replacing ain’t going to cut it.
an example ?
we’d get a 30% reduction in emissions if the richest 10% loved like the average European, not enough but an excellent start
Electricity only accounts for about 18% of emissons
You have to switch all processes to electricity or hydrogen like steel making or fertilizer.
Best results come from not abusing the third world and letting them have a future that allows them to only have two children.
You have to switch all processes to electricity or hydrogen like steel making or fertilizer.
Doesn’t turn Uranium into a regrowing resource.
Others have mentioned breeder reactors. There is also Thorium. But it is only necessary to use the energy until renewables take over. The last 70 years and the next 30 would have been enough to prevent global warming.
The last 70 years and the next 30 would have been enough to prevent global warming.
Suggesting that this would only be possible by going nuclear has absolutely zero basis in reality. Spinning magnets to generate electricity is a known way generate electricity since way before the first nuclear reactor was ever built. Hydropower and wind turbines were invented during the industrial revolution.
Hi big oil, propaganda still paying off?
Fissile resources would have been depleted a long time ago if everyone would have went with nuclear. Don’t be so daft.
No they wouldn’t, plus the drive to nuclear would have pushed us to thorium and breeder reactors far sooner, using those we could power the Earth for billions of years, they can even use nuclear waste as fuel, don’t be daft and actually educate yourself instead of carrying water for Big Oil.
Accounting for breeder reactors your answer is only off by about 4 billion years.
It was a good guess though.
another 30% if work from home was standard
It’s more relevant what we should/can do now than what we should’ve done years ago, no?
I mean, obviously learn from history and not make the same mistakes, but it’s also not necessarily the case that whatever would’ve been the solution back then, still is today.
If the same people are still in power and don’t show acceptance of their mistakes or a willingness to correct them then it is relevant. There are solutions but it should be clear that they won’t implement them.
if you looked at what is going on, you would see that bulk of the missing energy in hungarian grid is supplied from czech and slovak grids, where half or so energy is supplied from nuclear powerplants that don’t have such problems https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/CZ/72h/hourly
not to mention the french, who put bunch of their reactors near shore and won’t ever have problems with cooling, and so export 10-15GW every day
not to mention the french, who put bunch of their reactors near shore and won’t ever have problems with cooling
This happens literally every hot summer.
This is to avoid overheating river, seashore powerplants or those that rely on evaporative cooling towers don’t have this problem. Also, it’s as good time for maintenance as any other, and they still exported loads of electricity the entire time
This is to avoid overheating river
You make this sound like they do it for laughs and giggles and it’s optional, not because increasing the temperature in already hot bodies of water even more literally kills wildlife.
Plenty of thermal powerplants use cooling towers and don’t have this problem, this is not a limitation of NPP
“Look at all that renewable green solar generation! Sure doesn’t work so well when it’s buried under a mudslide lol”
That’s what you sound like
Even if solar panels get buried under a mudslide, you can just build new solar panels very quickly. If that would happen to a nuclear plant, you would need to wait 10+years for a new one.
The thing is that this is a really desperate measure. The danube is one of Europes biggest rivers. That nuclear power plant was build with water inlets. That plant has been there for ages as every nuclear plant in Europe is old as fuck. That rock has been there also a long time. Having to blast it to help a little bit in order to save the reactor producing so much energy that the other plants in the country can’t take over, is desperate as fuck
Yeah, they’re responding to a (not-so-) natural disaster. Of course infrastructure built half a century ago under wildly different conditions is at risk.
Yeah, right. Those totally predictable mud slides that happen every summer and are expected to increase in frequency and duration with climate change… 🤣
Nuclear power: provides stable power year round, then has one unplanned interruption to power production in 44 years.
“Look! Nuclear so bad, it doesn’t work!”
Renewables: has interruptions to power production literally every day.
“This is great! I can’t turn my lights on half the time and got no heating at winter, but its great!”
How are you people thinking? I get nuclear power is more expensive, but it is the only reliable carbon dioxide-free power source during winter and nights and it always will be. We clearly need both.
Law of fossil propaganda on the Internet: When astroturfers don’t have any credible argument left, they will resort to trolling.
I live in an area that purely runs on renewables. We have wind, solar and hydroelectric. No outages.
We’re providing France with energy because their nuclear power stations can’t deal with the heat.
Mind showing me some data on that? France has been a net exporter of electricity June, July and so far in August. Their nuclear power has been fine with only minor reduction in capacity in individual power plants, but the vast majority are fine. See here: https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=FR&interval=year&legendItems=4x0ffvg
You have been misled.
Also there exists no countries next to France that are pure renewable. There doesn’t exist a nation with pure renewables anywhere in the world. Maybe Norway.
But I assume you are referring to Spain, which is heavily dependent on nuclear power and fossil gas for the hours where solar and wind fails. They have used them plentifully during the summer.
See Spain power production here: https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=ES&interval=year&legendItems=3wew5
Looking at cross border trade, Spain has imported energy more often during the summer compared to France.
But maybe you don’t live in Spain. Maybe you live on Atlantis or another fantasy land?
I suppose you could be from Switzerland, but they have nuclear power too, so it cannot be that. They also have consistently been importing electricity from France this summer. You must be from Atlantis or Narnia or some other fairy tale land with pure renewables.
I’m a firm believer in nuclear, but I think that’s a garbage argument against renewable since we have batteries, and other means of energy storage like reservoirs. And now China is lifting a building and dropping it for power. The US is introducing batteries that last 24 hours for data center use.
Honestly, the energy storage sector is interesting to watch right now. There are seemingly endlessly researched designs for energy storage that have never made it to market. But now all of a sudden when data centers are realizing there’s not enough power on the grid, now they’re hitting market. To an extent, I get supply and demand. But the energy storage infrastructure hitting the market now isn’t from recent ground breaking innovations. This shit could have been implemented years ago.
I also have my eyes on energy storage, but it isn’t viable for many decades, if ever. There is no production in large scales enough to supply enough storage for even a fraction of what is needed. Many of these amazing designs are still in lab or demonstration stage and at best at low scale production. They will not be in large scale production for years or a decade.
It would take several years of current battery production rate to have enough storage for Europe and they aren’t made in Europe but largely in China who will use it for themselves.
There won’t be enough production capacity of any type of energy storage for many decades, even if we took a design now and started scaling up like crazy. It isn’t a matter of technology, but of scale and production capacity.
Then you have the added problem of the fact that northern and central Europe has next to no sun during half the year. You can store some from wind, but you’d need an unimaginable amount of energy storage to cover for the long periods of dunkelflaute.
Nuclear can do this just fine. Nuclear that can be scaled up during winter and then turned down during summer will be an essential part of a stable grid for many decades to come. Energy storage will mean less nuclear is required, but we don’t have energy storage tech to charge up entire countries worth of energy during summer to be used in winter. There isn’t enough by far.
I look forward to what is coming regarding energy storage, but it is still just ideas and testing and what is in production is too expensive and in far to low production. We have to be realistic and use what we have now, not in 20 years. We cannot keep burning fossil fuels to wait for new energy storage solutions that MIGHT become available at some point and whose production volumes will take a decade or two to scale up once and if they get out of the lab.
Energy storage =/= batteries
I’m American, I dont know shit about geography, but I think Germany is central to northern Europe.
Germany’s peak solar time is the summer, and their peak wind time is winter. Fascinating. Do you think the people in charge of the grid know this? Maybe this could be leveraged to reduce the energy storage needs for solar power during the winter???
As someone who closely follows the energy storage market, you should know that lithium-ion battery production capacity is expected to reach 7TWh/year by 2030, from 2022’s 2TWh/year. Why? Demand, from all the fucking electric vehicles because we’re going to run out of fossil fuels soon. Not technological advances.
Similarly, iron air batteries were tested by Westinghouse in the 70s, and are currently being brought to market. As far as I can tell, there has been little improvements to the technology to make it commercially viable, other than demand. You know, from all the fucking data centers going in.
Hell, let’s go back to Germany. They have double the wind capacity as they do solar? Why? Demand. Because Germany focused on wind as being the premier renewable energy, not solar. It wasn’t until recently that they created programs to increase demand of solar.
The grid is an infrastructure project. As such, we don’t need to rely on batteries. We can use infrastructure projects, such as reservoirs, for energy storage. And in the US, we’ve been using this method since 1930. I know what youre thinking, “In northern Europe we can’t do that!” But alas, Switzerland did it in 1909. And pumped storage hydropower achieves 70-80% efficiency, which is pretty fucking good. And let’s be real, if your grid isn’t diversified enough where that’s a problem, then that’s a problem with your grid and your incompetent policy makers, not the tech. Or there’s an issue with electric demand, which is a failure of your politicians not keeping the Pedophile Class in line.
The reason energy storage for the grid is a problem now is because we didn’t invest in production 30 years ago. Not because the research was behind. It’s because politicians and the pedophile class failed us.
You are failing the future with the bullshit that you are spouting. Just a parrot of the pedophile class.
Research, knowledge, and tech is not restricting energy storage.
Politicians and the pedophile elite are.
Nobody is really thinking. Some of the people who hate nuclear power think reactors are literally nuclear bombs, some of them believe the wildly exaggerated claims about waste storage and disposal, some of them are getting paid by Russia to undermine competition for their gas.
Acting as if nuclear power failures can’t and haven’t caused catastrophic problems doesn’t help the argument. I can understand why people don’t trust the government to properly regulate and police the industry when there are multiple incidents when that’s been proven.
ITT: Gas and oil simps
Where?
Astroturfing bots
Begun, the water wars have 😔
This is just the beginning.
This is the least heat and the most water we’ll have for the rest of our lives.
Missed opportunity to use a nuke for peak Fallout.
Call it the Blew(up) Danube?
Meanwhile I want to nuke one measly hurricane and everyone looses their minds
