Except that it wasn’t according to people actually invested in researching energy matters.
The strategic mistake was and still is, when her party throttles solar and wind in favor for fossils (on a national level) or when they hinder transitioning to EVs.
They’re sabotaging decentralization and renewables wherever possible and make up stories about sunsetted (nuclear) or future (fusion) technologies.
And sleeping on battery technology.
Nuclear has been tripping over it’s own dick for 40 years. Solar is now the more viable option.
I disagree. Next to hydropower (which is limited by geography) it has been the champion of non-fossil electricity generation so far. Still, the fossil fuel lobby is a powerful foe.
Simply put, we should invest in all non-fossil options, and where solar is geographically viable, it is great. In other places however, where peak electricity demand coincides with the coldest, darkest parts of the year dispatchable production is strictly necessary, which is where nuclear shines.
Well but what to do with the waste?
I think in general it is a good source for energy, but unless we find a solution other than storing it somewhere in the earth, we should not use it.
You build breeder reactors or use any of the non-uranium designs that were ignored by countries because they didn’t have weapons grade byproducts.
There are ways to deal with the waste, the problem is always politics/greed as it cuts into the profits. Same is true for other energy sources btw, with coal we happily shoot the waste into the atmosphere and pretend nothing’s wrong with that.
Yeah 100% agree with you.
Unfortunately it is always the issue with greed and maximise the profits.
But that’s why I don’t really believe in the usefulness of Nuclear as a energy source. The idea behind it is brilliant, but the way we use it is not. I am no expert in this field, just my personal opinion.
Isn’t it basically a non-issue?
Afaik so little of it is generated that we can comfortably store it for thousands of years.
It can also be used in manufacturing later, like in making depleted uranium APFSDS penetrators (for your mom - sorry)
Also, I believe it’s literally harmless, isn’t it? If properly sealed of course. Afaik it just produces heat for a very, very long time…
Might be, but I personally don’t feel comfortable it being stored. What if it leaks. Not my problem, as I will be dead by then, but still we will leave it for future generations.
I have seen the chaos building the Hinkley reactor and the costs, so my personal opinion there are cheaper ways of producing energy.
Hydropower has terrible environmental consequences. Emissions aren’t all that matters in terms of the environment.
deleted by creator
I agree with your first sentence but not the rest. It’s not all about energy and emissions. I also want ecosystems and their species to survive and thrive.
which is where nuclear shines.
I see what you did there.
Just google where nuclear fuel comes from and then think again, spoilers it’s russia.
South Africa has uranium.
Look at where moth Cobolt or Lithium comes from.
There seemingly is very little to no ethical mining or rare earth metals.
Luckily sodium ion batteries are now a thing and they’re perfect for grid storage.
Uranium needs to be processed first, and the major uranium processing facilities Europe has been using are in Russia and this kind of equipment isn’t something you can quickly build yourself.
European capacities are not that small.
https://fissilematerials.org/facilities/enrichment_plants.html
And can be expanded fairly easily. America, Germany and Russia all managed this in the 40s. Could also go the liquid salt route and avoid Uranium entirely. Light water reactors kinda suck.
Canada 🇨🇦
Stop googling shit badly.
Nuclear… what? Families? DNA? Chemistry? “Nuclear” isn’t a noun, nor “digital” or “cyber”.
We have decent universal education and literacy, let’s not imitate the functionally illiterate.
Thank you for not letting it slide.
Can we also work on mass nouns pluralized with an S (eg e-mail), missing delimiters after sub-clauses and lists (the “American Ghost comma”), and also “please bellow find following”?
The link mentions nuclear energy.
If Germany hadn’t shut down their nuclear power plants their energy mix would now be mostly coal, some nuclear and very little renewables. There was some political will to replace nuclear power with renewables, there still is not that much political will to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources. Gas-Kathi wants more gas after all and is trying to sabotage renewables again.
I would bet that the same interest groups have made Merkel switch off nuclear power as the ones who let Gas-Kathi stick to gas. If Germany hadn’t shut down those plants those interest groups wouldn’t exist and there would be cheap energy from nuclear, solar and wind.
Our main objective should be to lower barriers for people to generate their own power. When local communities manage their own grids they have faster response times to blackouts or climate events.
deleted by creator
Actually, we’re not going to need that. There are plenty of papers on how this is a myth.
deleted by creator
It’s wasn’t a mistake. You got played. Corrupt politicians and activists canceled investment in nuclear to push Russian gas.
deleted by creator
Nuclear power is all well and good, but imagine the possible results of a couple of 30k shahed drones hitting the plant, or even an iskander at mach 5. Absolutely not worth the risk.
