3volverYou can't claim to be an environmentalist and be anti-nuclear energy at the same time
I mean, you can. It’s stupi, yes but when has this ever stopped people?
I’m not personally strongly opposed, but “stupid” is kind of a dumb simplistic judgment. There are arguments for nuclear power, but there are definitel also many valid arguments against it. Key among them having to source uranium from locations on which we’d rather not be dependant.
australia and canada are among the top 4 uranium producers in the world, and australia has huge reserves that we just don’t mine because we have relatively expensive labour: our uranium is a byproduct of iron and other mining operations… i’d bet you’re not talking about australia when you said “rather not be dependant”, so ramping up our production is a clear, albeit more expensive option
“stupid” here stands for uninformed, succeptible to propaganda, and unwilling to examine presupposed beliefs in light of empirical evidence.
also # of arguments in favor or against something is an absolutely useless metric unless you properly weight every one of them.
And the reason uranium is sourced there is because it is too expensive to dig up in the West, where there is plenty but laws against poisoning and abandoning your workforce make it too expensive.
New Zealand says you can.
Can’t kiss a human? Kiss nuclear waste instead!
The government let me kiss nuclear waste.
MaxMalRichtigOf course you can. Because nuclear energy is NOT a solution. Especially not in the long run.
RememberTheApollo_This is accurate, however we can’t sacrifice good enough for the perfect we don’t have yet. I get there is no solution that lasts longer than a temporary one, but environmentally, nuclear absolutely should be implemented.
OK. Are we on the same page, that we need to abolish fossil energy ASAP?
And: How much (in % of global energy production) should be covered by nuclear power in your opinion?
Yep. Fossil fuels need to disappear yesterday.
Your second question is way, way out of my league. All I can toss out there as a guess is enough nuclear power to cover the gaps in demand vs ebb and flow of natural systems like sun and wind, maybe plus a little for contingency.
Your second question is way, way out of my league
Hats off to you for being so honest and admitting this.
enough nuclear power to cover the gaps in demand
OK, please correct me if I haven’t understood you correctly, but you mean: “We should basically utilize natural systems energy (sun, wind, water, …) completely and turn off and on nuclear plants “on demand” to cover the peaks/gaps in demand.” Did I get that right?
Again, out of my league. I don’t think nuclear can be just “turned off”, but in the context of this discussion whatever the minimum output is to keep them operating, and then power up to cover whatever output is needed to low wind, overcast, night, etc.
I’ll offer this also - and again I have no real scientific knowledge to back it up, but possibly this could be sorted out with some digging - that I think batteries should also be used to help buffer power output swings, but I also think that the environmental impact of batteries and their manufacturing need to be balanced against the same for nuclear power. It’s going to take a lot of batteries to buffer an entire power grid vs a relative few nuclear plants.
Pretty much
OK, cool.
What you are describing is called “load following”. Different power plants have different capabilities of doing this. E.g. coal plants (or other thermal plants) are pretty bad at this while e.g. gas turbines can be turned on/off very quickly to buffer out short peaks of fluctuations. Power plants get categorized into different groups: e.g. Base Load plants or Peak Load plants. Base load is basically the load that is “always need to be supplied” and everything else is modulated on top of that.
To do effective load following, you would NOT want base load plants.
To categorize power plants we need to look at 2 different things: the technical capability to do “load following” with a plant - and the economical viability of throttling the power output of a plant.
Nuclear power plants have extremely high investment costs and a greater proportion of fixed costs (e.g. for personnel) while having very low variable costs, as nuclear plants are not really “using up more/less fuel” during their operation. That means: The cost of nuclear power plants is pretty much constant over time - no matter if they are producing more or less power, but you only get an return on invest if you output power.
That is why nuclear power plants are normally used as base load power plants, as their economic viability goes pretty bad when you do (extensive) load following with them. However, they have at least some technical capabilities of being operated in a (slower) load following mode.
When we add in the fact, that there was probably not a single nuclear power plant, yet, that was economically viable without huge subsidies and the mere costs of keeping the radioactive waste products safe FOREVER are enormous, investors/plant owners don’t really like the idea of “throttling” their plants as they will be loosing money.
That is why - if you have a great amount of base load power plants in your grid - you tend to turn off the generators that are easy to regulate but hard to calculate: Wind & Solar. That’s why a high percentage of nuclear power in your energy mix will PREVENT the utilization of true renewable energy sources, making them a less viable investment.
This is one of the reasons why I asked about the percentage of “needed nuclear power” in the beginning. Different percentages of these plants will have different effects on the entire energy production system and it’s trajectory.
So I am coming back to my original question. And there is not right or wrong answer, just a gut feeling: How much nuclear do we need to make this work? Our current energy mix (primary energy consumption) consists globally roughly of 75% fossil energy and 4% nuclear. So do you think we will need to replace the 75% fossils with nuclear by 1:1? Or maybe 1:2 and fill the rest with Wind/Solar? Or do we keep the current 4%? Really, it’s about your gut feeling about what you think will be necessary. From that point on, we can then further explore the general viability and consequences of nuclear power in the grid.
It’s going to take a lot of batteries to buffer an entire power grid
The beauty of it is: You wouldn’t really need to do this - but I’m getting ahead of myself. This a different rabbit hole that I don’t think is needed to be explored right now.
But just a short pointers:
- By controlling and deferring energy consumption in a “smart” way, you can match up the demand with the volatile supply (e.g. of Wind/Solar) pretty well.
- In energy systems, we have other types of energy storing systems that are bigger, cheaper and more reliable than the ones we know from “consumer electronics” - e.g. Pumped-storage hydroelectricity
Well I think I just got jumped. You had a well prepared answer, however I’ll offer my unprepared thoughts in return.
You kinda skipped past battery and other storage tech and the negatives associated with them, particularly the environmental issues inherent in battery production and recycling, and sorta handwaved in the general direction of alternative sources like pumped-up hydro. I’m a big believer in working with what we have now, there are far, far too many issues exacerbated by the premise that Science Will Save Us via some future solution or construction. The proverbial can keeps getting kicked down the road to do something about the issues immediately with the excuse that technology will jump in and save the day before it’s too late. People love the ideas behind some solutions, but can never seem to get them sufficiently well built to meet the professed goal. Ideas are great, but if we don’t have it now it’s technically already too late.
And that segues into nuclear. It is not a perfect solution. However it is a known tech, and an effective one. Nuclear waste is at the top of the issues I though of when I mentioned it, however that issue can be somewhat ameliorated if the US gets around to reprocessing the waste which is currently hindered by a non-proliferation treaty. We can argue costs and all that about nuclear operations, but at what point do we say that the enemy of good enough is constantly looking for perfection while sitting on our hands?
Summed up: Yes, there are alternatives. Many are conceptual and have never been implemented, or at least not on a large scale. They need to be implemented yesterday and not just viewed through hopeful rose-tinted glasses. Nuclear may not be the best solution, but it is known, available, and can do the job.
I think I just got jumped.
Sorry, I don’t quite understand that phrase. Does that mean you feel kind of attacked?! I hope not - this was not my goal. I think we can just learn by engaging in discussions with one another. And so far, I am very much enjoying our encounter. :)
You had a well prepared answer, however I’ll offer my unprepared thoughts in return.
Well, I mean it took me over an hour to compile that answer, because I didn’t want to spread false information. I am (re)learning a lot the stuff as well, and I kind of like to study the matter again. So I will gladly take your thoughts.
You kinda skipped past battery and other storage tech and the negatives associated with them
Well, yes, I did. As I said, it took me already over an hour to compile the existing answer and the needs of storage capacity in the energy system is reeeaaaally complex and counter intuitive at some points - especially if you need to understand the dependencies of the individual units in an energy-system as well at the same time. So it would have taken me at least another hour to give that topic my due diligence.
We can talk about that if you want / are interested. But I think we need to skip the nuclear power topic then, because otherwise it will get too complex and time consuming.
I’m a big believer in working with what we have now, there are far, far too many issues exacerbated by the premise that “Science Will Save Us”
Oh god. I hate people that are blindly trusting in “Science inventing a magic pill - we don’t have to change anything!!1!”.
People love the ideas behind some solutions, but can never seem to get them sufficiently well built
I know. And I was not talking about some “magical future solution” - I am thinking more about solutions that are already existing and have existed and proven viable for over a couple of decades. And they don’t need to include nuclear!
However it is a known tech, and an effective one
I mean, it kind of is NOT effective - at least not cost effective (as I hopefully have pointed out clear enough). We can build “known tech that is effective” which will not be a graveyard for billions of dollars and without the potentially catastrophic consequences nuclear power has. I am not advocating for “sitting on our hands”. We need to act quick and change our energy systems for the better - but nuclear energy is just not a viable solution for that. Luckily, there is existing technology that can do the job.
Nuclear may not be the best solution, but it is known, available, and can do the job.
I am afraid, that it is not as simple as you think it might be. The “availability” is kind of a deal breaker when it comes to nuclear.
You still haven’t provided a number for “how much nuclear” we need to “do the job”, so I am ending with a couple questions instead:
- Are you aware how long it takes to build a new nuclear power plant?
- Do you know how much (usable) radioactive material there is on the planet?
(I can tell you if you don’t want to do the research - just tell me.)
you make a weird assumption that a solution that can’t work forever won’t work as a transition strategy
OK. How much (in % of global energy production) do you think we will need from nuclear power to make it work as a “transition strategy”?
i’m sorry i just don’t think this is a valuable question to ask. a % global nuclear energy production value is purely symbolic and not a goal.
the real percentage i want is 100% clean and safe energy, because the world is already basically ending. we must run headlong at eliminating fossil fuels as soon as possible, and we already have the knowledge and infrastructure to do so way faster by using nuclear as a leg up.
the reality is, market conditions and the state of energy research will determine the actual global distribution of energy. there are probably experts out there who can estimate where those numbers are headed, but i’m content to stick by my layman position that anything that gets us away from pouring greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is better in the short term.
i just don’t think this is a valuable question to ask
But well, it kind of is! When looking at energy systems, each type of plant you put into the system has (often counterintuitive) consequences on the rest of the system. And this is especially true for nuclear power. That is why it IS important to get an idea of how much nuclear energy you want to have in your energy mix, because only then you can determine if your energy system is even sustainable.
Therefore, my question stands unchanged. Or maybe we can make it a little broader: How do you think that the energy system would need to look like?
I’m content to stick by my layman position that anything that gets us away from pouring greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is better in the short term.
And I fully agree with you on that. I just want to discuss with you if nuclear is really the solution you think it is. (Because it probably isn’t.)
We already have the knowledge and infrastructure to do so way faster by using nuclear as a leg up
Are you aware of how little nuclear power there is currently in the energy-mix, what time it takes to build new ones and how much (usable) uranium exists on the planet? (I can tell you if you don’t want to look it up - just ask.) Because you might have wrong expectations of the technical potential of this energy source.
you are asking me to be an expert on topics i have already admitted to being not studied in. that’s not fair because i came into this conversation to defend my position that being anti-nuclear is not well suited to the environmentalist agenda. and nothing else.
i know that france has successfully achieved like 70% nuclear power production, while renewables are slowly ticking up. and i am not against that. that is good. because they aren’t using fossil fuel to get that electricity. if they had waited around for renewables research to catch up they’d still be reliant on coal and oil like the rest of us. if they were forced to shut down all nuclear plants, fossil fuels would spike to take up the slack.
that’s my position. that’s all i’m expressing. you are trying to drag the discussion somewhere else, and that’s not a winning move.
If you care about not having the environment be poisoned by nuclear waste for tens of thousands of years, then you kinda have to.
Nuclear waste is a solved problem, and it has been solved for a long time.
forbes.com/…/stop-letting-your-ridiculous-fears-o…
It can also be reprocessed to further reduce the waste amounts:
NakedmoleBullshit, nuclear waste is incredibly toxic.
Yeah it’s a good thing we have clean burning gas and coal
Please quote the part where I supported fossil fuels.
The government let me kiss nuclear waste.
That is obvious nuclear lobby propaganda.
“Obvously…” /s
Or, when you run the numbers yourself, you realize that it’s about as dangerous as offshore wind turbines are to birds and fish. Which is to say, not very, but a lot of extremely dumb people still parrot it.
The guy is a well known nuclear fanboi.
Whatever you say, bud. It’s not worth the time or crayons to debate you further on this.
That also how I feel about you :)
revelrousIt’s not as toxic as coal. It is only that you are used to those effects. It’s also a safer industry to work in. Technically safer even than wind and solar last I looked. I wouldn’t treat it as a permanent solution. But it could keep the lights on while we pivot to renewables.
I wouldn’t treat it as a permanent solution. But it could keep the lights on while we pivot to renewables.
Agreed, that´s the compromise I would propose too.
I know some people in nuclear power and get in arguments with them all the time about this. (they’re not big fans of renewables. shocker.) But they’re right that renewables just aren’t ready to take over yet. Where I’d say we need to fund renewable research and development—they are deadset it’s a waste of money. But fossil fuels have got to go. I think it’d be for the best if no one was ever comfortable with nuclear but I just don’t see another alternative that works with how quickly we are killing the planet. 🤷♂️
You drank the Kool-aid and asked for seconds didn’t you?
It’s impressive to see the massive power of oil-industry-paid propaganda.
Please quote the part where I supported fossil fuels.
I never said you supported fossil fuels. Please point to the part where I said or implied such a thing.
I’m affirming that the notion that “nuclear waste is incredibly toxic” is false and it’s a propaganda piece that was inserted into popular culture by the oil industry who paid to make the idea mainstream. Nuclear waste is not inherently any more toxic than standing outside under the sun. But you repeated that because you were brainwashed by the propaganda, that the oil industry paid for to disseminate in culture.
I never said you supported fossil fuels. Please point to the part where I said or implied such a thing.
Then what exactly did you mean to say when you wrote:
It’s impressive to see the massive power of oil-industry-paid propaganda.
There’s a qualitative difference between the fact “Plutonium is toxic“ and the propaganda piece “nuclear waste is toxic”. The first is an statement of truth about a chemical element, the second is an attempt to halt rational thinking. Nuclear waste is depleted fuel encased in concrete. You can stand next to it without any ill consequence to your health and it is not toxic. Unless you actively try to break into it, you won’t be harmed anymore than standing under the sun.
But seeing the way you reacted to some other person showing evidence, with the construction of an ugly ad-hominem attack and the equivalent of of a child shutting sticking fingers in their ears and singing. I would not be wasting any more electricity on you. You say pro-nuclear propaganda, as if both positive and negative propaganda aren’t nuances to take into account. That truth can lie at the core of propaganda, and that the best propaganda is the one that doesn’t have to lie to make its point. While still regurgitating and supporting negative propaganda based on scientific falsehood that goes against your own self-proclaimed principles and goals.
Excellent and well written counter. 👍
Burning coal creates more radioactive waste but with nuclear power it’s contained instead of combusted into the air we breathe.
Still not a fan of nuclear, mainly because I think it takes quite long to build compared to the timeframe we have for fixing climate change, although I’ve seen some articles that it’s supposed to be faster now than the past 10 years.
Burning coal creates more radioactive waste but with nuclear power it’s contained instead of combusted into the air we breathe.
Fortunately, opposing nuclear power does not mean supporting fossil fuels.
Still not a fan of nuclear, mainly because I think it takes quite long to build compared to the timeframe we have for fixing climate change
Agreed, that is another good argument against nuklear.
EkybioThis opinion is true, unpopular and truly unpolular.
moonleaySo nuclear waste / radiation does not hurt the environment?
If that were the case, we wouldn’t store it in strongly protected containers, no?
The logic does not make sense here, OP.
FireTowerNuclear waste doesn’t harm the environment because we store it appropriately.
No, it doesn’t.
Nuclear waste won’t change any ecosystem the way that coal/oil waste induced greenhouse effect will drastically harm the planet from climate change.
A coal plant chimney gases are several hundred times more radioactive and harmful than a room full of nuclear waste barrels.
Unfortunately this is an unpopular opinion and the other comments in the thread prove the average person thinks a nuclear power plant produces deadly products. It is literally thousands of times better for the environment than coal and gas plants. Replacing all coal and gas plants with nuclear energy would have an immediate positive impact on the environment. We also don’t need to keep them forever. Eventually they’d be replaced with renewables.
Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change?
A nuclear power plant does produce deadly products. scientificamerican.com/…/nuclear-waste-is-piling-…
A nuclear fusion power plant (up and coming) would produce zero net, but the energy needed is not yet sustainable. smithsonianmag.com/…/scientists-repeat-nuclear-fu…
However, I am not a professional, just a mere student. I think I’d agree that nuclear power overall, would be better now than coal or gas, but would be worse in the long run due to the residual pollution.
A nuclear power plant does produce deadly products. Those potentially deadly products can be stored in a safe way. Your link doesn’t even claim that it’s actively killing people. They claim that it’s costly to build geologic repositories, and once they’re built you don’t need more for a long time. Meanwhile coal power plants are directly putting deadly waste into people’s lungs.
Take a look at this bar chart: ourworldindata.org/…/death-rates-from-energy-prod… Source: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17876910/
A nuclear power plant does produce deadly products.
Those potentially deadly products can be stored in a safe way. Your link doesn’t even claim that it’s actively killing people. They claim that it’s costly to build geologic repositories, and once they’re built you don’t need more for a long time. Meanwhile coal power plants are directly putting deadly waste into people’s lungs.
Take a look at this bar chart: ourworldindata.org/…/death-rates-from-energy-prod… Source: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17876910/
A nuclear power plant does produce deadly products.
Those potentially deadly products can be stored in a safe way. Your link doesn’t even claim that it’s actively killing people. They claim that it’s costly to build geologic repositories, and once they’re built you don’t need more for a long time. Meanwhile coal power plants are directly putting deadly waste into people’s lungs.
Take a look at this bar chart: ourworldindata.org/…/death-rates-from-energy-prod…
Nuclear waste is a solved problem, and it has been solved for a long time.
forbes.com/…/stop-letting-your-ridiculous-fears-o…
It can also be reprocessed to further reduce the waste amounts:
Eventually they’d be replaced with renewables.
And what if instead you used that decade+ and those $B’s to just build out renewables and storage? You’d make a difference faster, get better/faster return on your Investment, have a more stable grid, and the operating cost would make your investment continue paying off more for the life of the technology
There are plenty of environmentalists with binary thought patterns. If they can’t have the perfect system now, they’d rather let it all burn.
Not limited to environmentalists
glares at Lemmy doomers, vote splitters, and “revolutionaries”
Ice free Arctic by 2025
"Yeah we can probably still pull out of this nose dive by consuming MORE power"
- The utterly deranged.
I’m starting to believe that ecology parties are actually conservative and liberal, trrgeting the non fascists bourgeois who feel bad about the environment.
Nicely done OP. This is the best post I’ve seen on this community on lemmy.
Also amusing how many ignorant and uneducated people are calling your take/nuclear energy “stupid” simply because they don’t understand it.
“Nuclear = bad” is about as far as their level of thinking goes…
Nuclear waste = bad because we don’t currently have a proper way to dispose of it. We bury it in a container with hopes that we’ll find a way in the future.