this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2023
946 points (97.8% liked)
Technology
60052 readers
2930 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's worth pointing out that the renewables break down as such (% of all electricity):
Nuclear energy is providing more than any other individual source, making up 45% of all renewable electricity.
Next time you hear someone "concerned about global warming" also fearmonger about nuclear energy, it's worth considering where their allegiances lie. Most people are misguided, but when it comes to politicians, it says a lot about how much they actually care about sustainability.
There have been studies (this one, for example) that suggest the total radioactivity-related health impacts from coal power exceed that of nuclear power by an order of magnitude. That's not all pollution-related deaths for coal -- just those associated with radon exposure inside of mines, and radioactive materials embedded in coal going out into the environment. For all the fear-mongering about nuclear, it's hard to find a less dangerous source of base load generation using present-day technologies. Maybe once grid-scale batteries are available at scale, they could replace nuke plants, but that's a solution ten years too late for an environmental problem we have to fix right now.
They should put it beyond the environment.
Tow it outside the environment
i wonder where the world we be today if we didnt stop funding nuclear, if gen 4 designs actually had proper money pushing them forward.
We'd be better suited to reduce emissions, that's for sure.
What is renewable about nuclear? It's not a fossil fuel, but uranium has to be mined and is a finite resource just like oil.
Uranium isn't the only fuel source, for one. Fusion reactors, if we can figure out the underlying science, world likely use hydrogen. New generation reactors can use Thorium, and breeder tractors are able to generate usable fuel from nuclear waste.
Not to mention, uranium is finite but we have enough supply of it to develop other technologies while we still reduce emissions via nuclear.
And this is discounting new technologies which could allow us to create a large artificial uranium supply.
It's not renewable but we have something like 200 years worth. It's a cleaner stopgap than fossil fuels until we figure out fusion and build up renewable capacity.
200 years with current technology.
With breeders reactors such as superphenix built in the 90s you can multiply this amount by almost a 100.
After a millennia if we still rely on the same technology and we start to worry about the supply we can start seawater extraction of uranium. Seawater extraction is not considered economically viable right now but it as the potential of bringing the supply nuclear reactors for another few billions years.
So from a practical point of view it could be considered as renewable or close to it.
Nuclear has been at that supply level since the 1970s. Other parts of the world have much higher renewable mixes in their energy inputs. For example, Germany:
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-likely-pass-50-mark-renewable-power-this-year-minister-2023-09-18/
Nuclear is not necessary to meet climate change targets. In fact, it's so damned expensive to deploy and maintain, it will harm meeting those targets.
https://www.destatis.de/EN/Press/2023/03/PE23_090_43312.html
And because they shut down their nuclear plants, they had to start burning coal again, which is about as bad an energy source you can get when it comes to emissions and pollution. Their coal use % went up from 2021 to 2022. They may have a higher renewable mix, but they've also increased their emissions. Not to mention, they also significantly reduced their energy imports from France -- the majority of which is generated by nuclear energy. They are replacing clean energy with coal.
France is actually a significant counterpoint as well. They've got 65%+ nuclear energy, and renewables just add to the percent of clean energy sources. Considering they're doing much better than Germany in terms of not using fossil fuels, I believe they are an example to follow over Germany -- which means nuclear is critical to meet our climate goals.
since we're talking about france, it's important to mention that frances nuclear infrastructure is a mess right now, pretty much all of it is EOL and a handful have found serious structural issues. Maintenance is important kids, remember to perform it, otherwise your PWR main loop might explode. and everyone will laugh at you.
Also the EPR reactor being built thats like n times over budget and x years behind commission, 90% of it is fabrication skill issues though. The EPR is also just immensely complex compared to better designs.
infrastructure is a universal issue though, you just HAVE to maintain things unless you want them to disintegrate. And you need to have a plan in place to keep things going into the future, when things inevitably reach EOL.
Yeah I don't see this so much as a nuclear problem but a universal problem. Everything requires maintenance, from oil refineries to solar farms.
Unrelated and a whataboutism.
It's completely relevant to a discussion about renewable energy and meeting emission targets. What's the benefit of having a higher renewable mix if your total GHG emissions are consistently going up?
Germany has generated more CO2 than it would have if it had kept nuclear technology, and that's an indisputable fact.
That's like arguing why take chemo if it only makes you sicker in the short run. 🤔
To use your analogy, we don't know if this chemo will actually cure them. It could make them just a little better, but it needs to be worth the suffering.
Our goal at the end of the day is to reach 0 emissions as soon as possible. If the increased coal and gas that Germany is using now because of eliminating nuclear energy results in zero emissions much quicker, I'll happily agree with you. As it stands however, Germany has not proven out a reduction in carbon higher than their recent increases.
There is no climate justification for cutting out nuclear energy. If there was, we'd see a net detriment in France and a net positive in Germany with regards to the justification. If that exists today, I'd be more than happy to read about it. If you're going to argue that it'll exist tomorrow, you'll need projections that are made on reasonable assumptions and that show the difference. Again, I'd be happy to look at those.
It was completely relevant to the discussion. That's not a whataboutism.
He changed the topic from nuclear to coal.
Don't forget geothermal. California has a little of that
Geothermal - 0.4%
Geothermal is not quite to the point where we can represent it with a whole number percentage value, but it's getting there! If we're going to include sub-1% generators, burning wood has geothermal beat out at 0.8%. Geothermal is cool, though!
Burning wood is extremely important for reaching 100% renewable.
It's one of the only pilotable renewables energy. Even with a lot of battery there is still long period with very little sun and wind that will require to fire up a thermal power station.
Wood is a very good candidate for that.