this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2023
89 points (97.8% liked)
Europe
8324 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe ๐ช๐บ
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, ๐ฉ๐ช ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out [email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm challenging the claim about energy use, not cost. Uranium mining is a rounding error in this regard.
What you're missing from seeing a power station being built is how much energy it produces. Being conservative, a single reactor generates as much energy as around 1000 wind turbines. And that's without taking into account the full life cycle, which can probably 3-4x that number.
The energy density numbers of nuclear power are such completely different orders of magnitude to other energy sources that people usually have trouble understanding them in real world terms.
@Claidheamh
Well zeros can make a big difference and the cost is not to be sniffed at. Our local reactor is looking to cost 40 billion. You could run every school and hospital in Wales for 2 years with that amount of money and have spare change to build a couple of tidal lagoons.
You can easily build 1000 wind turbines for the cost of one reactor and do it in less time.
Of course, when they get fusion going...
Again, I'm not talking of costs, that's a whole different discussion. Only pointing out the environmental impact. Although I very much believe in a few decades we're going to find out the hard way how much more expensive it is not to have spent the money now, and we're going to be wishing we did.
@Claidheamh
We certainly need to spend the money now on #renewables to get #ZeroCarbon and mitigate #climate breakdown.
I assume you are talking about #embodied energy and found this.
But I would say embodied energy of renewables or #nuclear is almost irrelevant as it is a one off. It's an investment so will reap a massive reward in CO2 reduction year on year.
However, cost is a real problem for nuclear. And in terms of scaling up fast, #wind & #solar seem best.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints/
That's exactly what I'm talking about, yes.
Investing only in what's fast is the kind of short sighted thinking that has put us in this situation in the first place. We need diversity on the grid if we're serious about decarbonising. But also, Japan and South Korea can build nuclear plants in 4-5 years, why can't we?
@Claidheamh
Because there are a number of problems with #nuclear
It's so expensive it requires state support to even get the financing off the ground. And a wealthy state at that.
Safety issues mean the risk has to be underwritten by a government as no insurer will touch it
Disposal costs destroy the economic viability so this has to be underwritten by the state
They consume huge amounts of water
So, even China is backing off from nuclear
#ukpolitics #uspol
https://www.colorado.edu/cas/2022/04/12/even-china-cannot-rescue-nuclear-power-its-woes#:~:text=There%20are%20accident%20risks%20and,China%20can%20expand%20nuclear%20energy.
That is an incredibly biased article. And most of those claims are demonstrably false. The fact remains that the past 60 years of worrying about economics has put us in this situation. And that short sightedness is proving catastrophic for the planet. What is the economic viability of worldwide catastrophe?