Most countries which are near 100% renewables are using hydro or geothermal. Wind and solar plants being added to the mix in large numbers is a very recent phenomenon.
Nuclear still has a much smaller footprint for power generation than renewables, at least solar and wind.
I think “engineered safe” micro reactors can still play a part but as others have said those have been “20 years out” like Fusion for decades.
Solar can co-exist in the same space as other activities. It can exist in the same space at sheep in fields. It can exist atop rivers. Wind can exist out in the ocean. Those spaces are not available to Nuclear and some of those effectively take up no new space at all.
Very good point. I saw a you tube that talked about Germany exploring putting Solar shading over berry crops that typically use other types of shading and the rigid aspect of the solar panels actually had a better yield one season due to hail.
I’m all for new nuclear but we have to become more mature about waste management - and until then, no, keep the remaining units running, but focus all other effort into renweables.
tiny, teeny fractions of it have been experimented with, both for re-enrichment and also as raw fuel for other reactor types. No one’s running a waste-powered reactor atm.
"Approximately 97% – the vast majority (~94%) being uranium – of it could be used as fuel in certain types of reactor. "
could be. after processing that itself results in waste. and note that other caveat - in certain types of reactor. as in reactors specifically configured to run on recycled fuel. this is not the panacea you assume.
I didn’t assume anything, and I didn’t say it was perfect. I’ve just read up on it and said it’s a possibility. If that 97% turns out to be accurate, that’s good. Hugely better than coal or gas, and makes it a possible alternative to other green energy production methods. Which also arent perfect.
I’ve spent a lot of time around the nuclear industry. I think it’s better baseband power than fossil fuels. if I could flip a switch tomorrow and all the plants that had been built through the 90s were still going, sure, I’d love that route. Too many of those are gone. But thankfully solar and wind have become so ridiculously cheap at scale and deployable ready that arguing for a new investment in nuclear plants is hard to justify, especially conventional steam powered setups we’ve become used to. Bring in SMRs, but know those smaller setups can serve less and still generate the same kind of waste. Bring on breeder reactors that can run off other reactor’s waste output! But again know there will be radioisotope waste in some part of the pipeline. Molten salt closed loop setups for sure. But at six billion plus per unit, no, build solar and wind on gigantic scales please. Refurb and keep the old plants running, but don’t pursue a large nuclear component moving forward.
YMMV. We’ll need everyone to work together if we’re going to get our asses out of this shit. World wide, and coordinated.
lol looks like the right wingers finally got the one-world government they always feared… if they had only listened to Al Gore lol…
One question though, something else I keep reading is that the blades for wind power can’t be recycled. Is this just bollocks being pushed by people that want nuclear power?
Your statement is specious at best and you need a full breakdown spelling out how you expect me to believe it with citations and evidence.
The Union of Concerned Scientists disagree, stating:
Despite these environmental impacts, renewable energy technologies compare extremely favorably to fossil fuels, and remain a core part of the solution to climate change.
Think it over: renewables produce industrial construction waste - carbon fiber, aluminum, composites etc., ONCE. during construction and erection (hehe). Then they run for decades. At the end of their lifecycle, especially for solar, there’s already tremendous effort going into recycling.
Your nuclear reactor is producing it 24/7/365 every day it’s in operation, for decades hopefully. But it also requires thousands of tons of concrete (huge emissions creator), a water supply that won’t ever be interrupted, and hardening against terrorist attack etc. Represents a shitton of material costs alone, before you get to processed fuel rods.
Retaining the investment already made makes sense; crashing a program of nuclear plant production to meet the need - no. The enormous amount of time and energy used to create these plants, and the humongous regulatory hurdles in the way, with STILL NO CLEAR PATH FOR THE HORRIFIC NUCLEAR WASTE THEY PRODUCE, don’t justify it.
Finally, consider lifetime operational safety in a wildly changing climate: are we going to have more wildfires and hurricanes in the future? YES. Which is better to burn or tsunami - a coastal nuclear power station, or a wind farm? Drought is going to become a constant thing. How many wind farms melt down without water? Try that with a steam powered nuclear station.
I don’t think we should shutter existing nuclear plants, but renewables are a better idea than new nuclear plants
That’s a great plan to never actually decarbonize
No. Not at all. We can roll out renewables faster than nuclear.
Let me know when renewables reach the stage where they don’t have to be backed up by coal and gas plants.
That’s now
Amazing, somebody should tell Germany about it.
Germany is not the whole world. JFC
Give me an example of an industrialized country which runs on wind and solar without gas or coal backup plants.
Most countries which are near 100% renewables are using hydro or geothermal. Wind and solar plants being added to the mix in large numbers is a very recent phenomenon.
I think we should do whatever decarbonizes us faster
Absolutely
Nuclear still has a much smaller footprint for power generation than renewables, at least solar and wind. I think “engineered safe” micro reactors can still play a part but as others have said those have been “20 years out” like Fusion for decades.
Solar can co-exist in the same space as other activities. It can exist in the same space at sheep in fields. It can exist atop rivers. Wind can exist out in the ocean. Those spaces are not available to Nuclear and some of those effectively take up no new space at all.
Very good point. I saw a you tube that talked about Germany exploring putting Solar shading over berry crops that typically use other types of shading and the rigid aspect of the solar panels actually had a better yield one season due to hail.
I’m all for new nuclear but we have to become more mature about waste management - and until then, no, keep the remaining units running, but focus all other effort into renweables.
I’m sure that there is some use for the waste, like it can be recycled.
ETA; https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-is-nuclear-waste-and-what-do-we-do-with-it.aspx#:~:text=Recycling has%2C to date%2C mostly,made into new fuel rods.
tiny, teeny fractions of it have been experimented with, both for re-enrichment and also as raw fuel for other reactor types. No one’s running a waste-powered reactor atm.
"Approximately 97% – the vast majority (~94%) being uranium – of it could be used as fuel in certain types of reactor. "
could be. after processing that itself results in waste. and note that other caveat - in certain types of reactor. as in reactors specifically configured to run on recycled fuel. this is not the panacea you assume.
I didn’t assume anything, and I didn’t say it was perfect. I’ve just read up on it and said it’s a possibility. If that 97% turns out to be accurate, that’s good. Hugely better than coal or gas, and makes it a possible alternative to other green energy production methods. Which also arent perfect.
I’ve spent a lot of time around the nuclear industry. I think it’s better baseband power than fossil fuels. if I could flip a switch tomorrow and all the plants that had been built through the 90s were still going, sure, I’d love that route. Too many of those are gone. But thankfully solar and wind have become so ridiculously cheap at scale and deployable ready that arguing for a new investment in nuclear plants is hard to justify, especially conventional steam powered setups we’ve become used to. Bring in SMRs, but know those smaller setups can serve less and still generate the same kind of waste. Bring on breeder reactors that can run off other reactor’s waste output! But again know there will be radioisotope waste in some part of the pipeline. Molten salt closed loop setups for sure. But at six billion plus per unit, no, build solar and wind on gigantic scales please. Refurb and keep the old plants running, but don’t pursue a large nuclear component moving forward.
YMMV. We’ll need everyone to work together if we’re going to get our asses out of this shit. World wide, and coordinated.
lol looks like the right wingers finally got the one-world government they always feared… if they had only listened to Al Gore lol…
Actually that was really well written. Cheers.
One question though, something else I keep reading is that the blades for wind power can’t be recycled. Is this just bollocks being pushed by people that want nuclear power?
Renewables generate more toxic waste per mWh than any nuclear reactor design.
Your statement is specious at best and you need a full breakdown spelling out how you expect me to believe it with citations and evidence.
The Union of Concerned Scientists disagree, stating:
Despite these environmental impacts, renewable energy technologies compare extremely favorably to fossil fuels, and remain a core part of the solution to climate change.
Think it over: renewables produce industrial construction waste - carbon fiber, aluminum, composites etc., ONCE. during construction and erection (hehe). Then they run for decades. At the end of their lifecycle, especially for solar, there’s already tremendous effort going into recycling.
Your nuclear reactor is producing it 24/7/365 every day it’s in operation, for decades hopefully. But it also requires thousands of tons of concrete (huge emissions creator), a water supply that won’t ever be interrupted, and hardening against terrorist attack etc. Represents a shitton of material costs alone, before you get to processed fuel rods.
https://www.oneearth.org/the-7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-is-not-the-answer-to-solve-climate-change/
Retaining the investment already made makes sense; crashing a program of nuclear plant production to meet the need - no. The enormous amount of time and energy used to create these plants, and the humongous regulatory hurdles in the way, with STILL NO CLEAR PATH FOR THE HORRIFIC NUCLEAR WASTE THEY PRODUCE, don’t justify it.
Finally, consider lifetime operational safety in a wildly changing climate: are we going to have more wildfires and hurricanes in the future? YES. Which is better to burn or tsunami - a coastal nuclear power station, or a wind farm? Drought is going to become a constant thing. How many wind farms melt down without water? Try that with a steam powered nuclear station.