With climate change looming, it seems so completely backwards to go back to using it again.
Is it coal miners pushing to keep their jobs? Fear of nuclear power? Is purely politically motivated, or are there genuinely people who believe coal is clean?
Edit, I will admit I was ignorant to the usage of coal nowadays.
Now I’m more depressed than when I posted this
- DasRubberDuck ( @DasRubberDuck@feddit.de ) 65•1 year ago
Why “going back to it” have we ever stopped?
- 0110010001100010 ( @0110010001100010@kbin.social ) 19•1 year ago
I was going to say, coal remains around 1/3 of our electric generation worldwide (as of 2022): https://www.statista.com/statistics/269811/world-electricity-production-by-energy-source/
Coal can’t be reused, created, or otherwise obtained outside of mining. Until we remove our dependency on coal, mining will continue.
- Ertebolle ( @Ertebolle@kbin.social ) 6•1 year ago
No. Among other things it remains the linchpin of energy security for industrial countries like China and Germany that lack adequate domestic oil or natural gas reserves to power their economies with those.
- nicktron ( @nicktron@kbin.social ) 14•1 year ago
Germany had plenty of nuclear energy but decided they wanted to shut them all down. Now they have to use coal and LNG.
- Ertebolle ( @Ertebolle@kbin.social ) 8•1 year ago
Yes. And even before the Russia mess they were going to replace nuclear with LNG, which is still pretty bad.
- luk3th3dud3 ( @luk3th3dud3@feddit.de ) 10•1 year ago
While in hindsight not all the decisions of the German energy policies seem right and it would have been better to keep the nuclear power plants operating for a few years, there was never the plan to replace nuclear with coal. All of the nuclear power generation has been replaced by wind and solar power generation. In fact, the plan was to phase out nuclear and replace the remaining coal generation with natural gas power plants. This definitely got more difficult in the time of LNG. The plan in any case is to phase out coal as well and with 56% renewable generation in 2023 Germany is on track to do so.
- xigoi ( @xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org ) 5•1 year ago
If only 56% is renewable, what exactly was nuclear replaced with, if not fossil fuels?
- luk3th3dud3 ( @luk3th3dud3@feddit.de ) 7•1 year ago
I hope this is a serious question, obviously this depends on your baseline. In 2013 Germany had a 56% share of fossil fuels, 27% share of renewables and 17% share of nuclear power generation. In the current year, the shares are: 59% renewables, 39% fossil fuels and 2% nuclear power generation. So in the last ten years there has been a switch in generation from both nuclear and fossil fuels to renewable generation. Could it have been better in the wake of the looming crisis of both climate and energy? Yes, I think it would have been better to keep some newer nuclear power plants running. But Cpt. Hindsight always has it easier.
In the long run every successful economy will generate its major share of electricity from renewables. Some countries will choose to generate a part with nuclear, others will choose to use a mix of hydrogen, batteries etc. to complement renewables. We will see what works best.
- PowerCrazy ( @PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml ) 1•1 year ago
Hydrogen isn’t a fuel source. It’s at best an energy storage technology, and you know you generate hydrogen? Electricity so if 56% of your electricity is renewables, then 44% is fossil fuels, and that is still WAY too much.
- CybranM ( @CybranM@feddit.nu ) 1•1 year ago
Why replace nuclear and not coal though, seems like a pretty stupid choice
- luk3th3dud3 ( @luk3th3dud3@feddit.de ) 2•1 year ago
While I agree that it would have been better to phase out coal before nuclear power plants, I also think that those decisions have to be viewed in context and are more nuanced than ‘pretty stupid’.
For example, as other in this thread pointed out, nuclear power plants can be pretty safe to operate IF there is a good culture of safety and protocols in place. Which of course need to be followed and supervised by a strong regulatory body. Two of nuclear power plants in Brunsbüttel and Krümmel were missing this kind of safety culture in the opinion of the regulatory body. They were both operated by Vattenfall. If you lose trust in the operator of such critical infrastructure, then a decision to shut down nuclear power plants has to factor in all the arguments at hand.
- CybranM ( @CybranM@feddit.nu ) 2•1 year ago
That’s a fair point
- intensely_human ( @intensely_human@lemm.ee ) 33•1 year ago
There are concerns outside of the list you wrote. For example:
- people need energy and coal is a source of energy
- intensely_human ( @intensely_human@lemm.ee ) 32•1 year ago
And they’re going for coal in some places because the political situation has made other reliable energy sources unavailable:
- the Russia-Ukraine war has destroyed natural gas supply lines to Europe
- anti-nuclear activism has resulted in lack of nuclear investment
Outside of coal, nuclear, and natural gas, there aren’t many options for reliable sources of electricity.
- room_raccoon ( @room_raccoon@kbin.social ) 13•1 year ago
Why are people so against nuclear? It doesn’t make any sense.
- riley0 ( @riley0@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) 15•1 year ago
- Fukushima
- Chernobyl
- 3-Mile Island to name a few
- Asymptote ( @Asymptote@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) 5•1 year ago
Yes yes, we know people don’t understand statistics.
- riley0 ( @riley0@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) 4•1 year ago
If you’re referring to the nukes-are-statistically-safe argument, then to be fair, you also have to take into account the scale of their failures.
- intensely_human ( @intensely_human@lemm.ee ) 4•1 year ago
Right it would be something involving number of people harmed, for number of joules or watt-hours of energy produced. How much injury, death, etc is there on a per-unit basis. That would be how you’d get a probability of harm. Then you could compare it numerically with other forms of energy to see which is the safest, statistically speaking.
- CybranM ( @CybranM@feddit.nu ) 2•1 year ago
Time to start dismantling wind turbines then? https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/
- SquareBear ( @SquareBear@lemmy.ml ) 3•1 year ago
I’m looking forward to seeing your Instagram snaps once you move back to pripyat permanently. Statistics never tell the full story.
- Asymptote ( @Asymptote@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) 1•1 year ago
Ah yes, the clusterfuck of the 20th century is the lode stone
Also Pripyat isn’t that bad.
- Zangoose ( @Zangoose@lemmy.one ) 12•1 year ago
Nuclear is probably the safest form of power when proper protocols are put in place but it’s hard to do that when the largest country in Europe (Russia, both by size and population) is currently in a war
- TheActualDevil ( @TheActualDevil@sffa.community ) 7•1 year ago
Safer than wind and solar?
- TheHalc ( @TheHalc@sopuli.xyz ) 10•1 year ago
Oddly enough, it’s safer than wind.
Solar’s a little better in that regard, but all three are so much safer than any high-carbon sources of energy that any of them are great options.
- TheActualDevil ( @TheActualDevil@sffa.community ) 1•1 year ago
I can’t look at their sources, so I’m going to believe them, buuut that is death per energy units. And I can’t argue that nuclear isn’t more efficient and generally safe. Presumably though, those injuries from wind are from construction primarily? Nuclear power plants have been out of fashion since the 80s for some reason, so there aren’t really equal opportunities for construction incidents to compare that while wind construction has been on the rise. And I can only assume that after construction, the chance incidents only go down for wind while they can really only go up for nuclear.
None of that is to say that nuclear is bad and we shouldn’t use it. Statistics like this just always bug me. Globally we receive more energy from wind than nuclear. It stands to reason that there’s more opportunity for deaths. It’s a 1 dimensional stat that can easily be manipulated. it’s per thousand terawatt per hour, including deaths from pollution. So I got curious and did some Googling.
After sorting through a bunch of sites without quite the information I was looking for, I found some interesting facts. I was wrong in my assertion that wind deaths don’t go up after being built. Turns out, most of those deaths come from maintenance. It does seem to vary by country, and I can’t find it broken down by country like I wanted. It’s possible that safety protections for workers could shift it. But surprisingly, maintenance deaths from nuclear power are virtually non existent from what I can tell. It seems like the main thing putting nuclear on that list at all is including major incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima. Well, Fukushima has really only been attributed for 4 deaths total. And Chernobyl was obviously preventable. So it looks like you’re right! Statistically, when including context, is definitely the least deadly energy source (if we ignore solar).
- Zangoose ( @Zangoose@lemmy.one ) 2•1 year ago
I believe so because of construction injuries but idk how well that scales
- intensely_human ( @intensely_human@lemm.ee ) 5•1 year ago
This. Nuclear safety requires active habit keeping and protocols, hence is dependent on social stability.
- space ( @space@beehaw.org ) 4•1 year ago
Russian war has little to do with it. For example Germany had already decided to scrap nuclear for gas, which actually bit them in the ass when the war started.
- KzadBhat ( @KzadBhat@feddit.de ) 4•1 year ago
You’re right with Germany’s decision.
The reason why Russia is mentioned might be that Russia (and one of their close allies Kazakhstan) are the source of a good chunk of the Uranium that’s used in Europe’s nuclear power plants.
- CybranM ( @CybranM@feddit.nu ) 1•1 year ago
Sweden has large stores of uranium but the green party has opposed any new mines (uranium or not) on environmental grounds. Ignoring the fact that we then have to import resources from other countries that don’t have regulations which could minimize pollution
- Jakob :lemmy: ( @jakob@lemmy.schuerz.at ) 4•1 year ago
What is safe on Nuckear Power Plants?
It’s enough for hundredthousand of years, if only one time happens a SuperGAU. Only once is enough.
And the nuclear waste is dangerous as fuck for also hundredthousand of years.
And you can produce 30, 40 or maybe 50 years electric energy, and it needs the same time to decontaminate and dismantle a nuclear powerplant. And before it takes 20, 30 or mor years, to build such a plant… This is not cheap, not safe and not sustainable.
- updawg ( @updawg@lemm.ee ) 4•1 year ago
I don’t trust the US Federal government to properly dispose of it. The waste from the Manhattan Project is buried in a landfill, a landfill that’s on fire.
- BigNote ( @BigNote@lemm.ee ) 2•1 year ago
The problem isn’t fire, it’s that the waste at Hanford has leached into the soil and a plume of it is headed towards the Hanford Reach on the Columbia River. There’s a mitigation plan in place and it looks like it’s ultimately going to work, but it’s very expensive and not something that anyone wants to see happen again.
- updawg ( @updawg@lemm.ee ) 2•1 year ago
I was referring to the Westlake Superfund site in St Louis right next to the Missouri river
- Zangoose ( @Zangoose@lemmy.one ) 3•1 year ago
Nuclear waste is not dangerous when handled correctly. I’d recommend checking out Kyle Hill on YouTube about this, but when mixed with cement/sand in large amounts it becomes safe much more quickly than that. A lot of the dangers of nuclear power are actually misconceptions
- intensely_human ( @intensely_human@lemm.ee ) 6•1 year ago
Because of Godzilla is my best guess. CGI is so good these days people think it’s real.
- ErwinLottemann ( @ErwinLottemann@feddit.de ) 6•1 year ago
it’s not about the power but about the waste. no one wants that in their backyard.
- TheHalc ( @TheHalc@sopuli.xyz ) 16•1 year ago
It’s been long established that coal produces more radioactive waste than nuclear power, and largely dumps it straight into the environment.
Somehow people think it’s worse if you keep it contained rather than massively diluted. If we thought of it like we do radiation in coal waste, we’d be happy to just dump it in the ocean.
Living in Finland, I’m proud of the fact that we’ve got one of the first long-term/final storage sites for nuclear waste in the world. YIMBY.
- intensely_human ( @intensely_human@lemm.ee ) 1•1 year ago
You guys have that super deep underground storage site right?
- Mike ( @MDKAOD@lemmy.ml ) 2•1 year ago
Real talk, why can’t we just launch that shit into the sun? Obviously, I understand the risk of a rocket filled with spent fuel rods exploding is low Earth orbit and the weight to cost ratio, but are there other reasons?
- noobdoomguy8658 ( @noobdoomguy8658@feddit.de ) 5•1 year ago
It’s insanely more expensive than any of the other options, even the long-term storage deep down underground with further burial and complete abandonment of the location in a way that would make the location as unremarkable as possible, preventing future generations developing interest to potential markings.
Tom Scott has a great, rather concise video about that. It’s not really just ground, but rock, making it even more secure and unaffected, especially given that the waste is first sealen into special containers.
- BigNote ( @BigNote@lemm.ee ) 1•1 year ago
The waste is vitrified, meaning that it’s encased in what’s basically solid glass.
- intensely_human ( @intensely_human@lemm.ee ) 3•1 year ago
Basically to put something in the sun you’ve got to bring it to a near-standstill relative to the sun. You have to slow it down from the speed Earth is orbiting at (2 * Pi AU/year) to almost zero. It takes a ton of rocket fuel to do that.
That plus the danger you mentioned makes burying it the cheaper and safer option.
- Kalash ( @theKalash@feddit.ch ) 2•1 year ago
It’s literally easier to launch something outside the solar system than launching it into the sun.
- riley0 ( @riley0@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) 1•1 year ago
🤣
- BarqsHasBite ( @someguy3@lemmy.ca ) English2•1 year ago
Back then, it was scared of what you don’t understand. Nuclear was bombs and radiation, bad stuff right. Then it was Chernobyl. And having talked with some of them online, they are scared that it’s not 10,000% safe.
- SquareBear ( @SquareBear@lemmy.ml ) 2•1 year ago
Fukushima and Chernobyl kinda stick out. Nuclear is safe until something goes catastrophically wrong. When that happens it’s 100s and 1000s of years before you can move back in and have a stable genome.
- teuniac_ ( @teuniac_@lemm.ee ) 1•1 year ago
I agree that it shouldn’t be a matter of being for or against nuclear.
The best mix of renewable energy supply of any country is going to be very context dependent. Geothermal, hydro, solar, wind all perform best when they’re used in the right location. Nuclear energy is much more expensive per Megawatthour than renewable energy sources, but it’s highly predictable.
In addition to the high cost, the construction time of a nuclear power plant tends to be somewhere between 10-20 years. Therefore, it makes sense to find solutions first in grid balancing solutions like mega batteries (for balancing, not long term storage), smart EV chargers, and matching demand better with supply through variable pricing. These are all relatively affordable solutions that would reduce the need for a predictable energy supply like nuclear.
But, if the measures above are not enough or if there are concerns about the feasibility of such measures in a particular context, then analyses might point towards nuclear as a solution as the most cost effective solution.
It’s pointless to make nuclear power a polical issue while we’re rapidly approaching an irreversible climate crisis. We don’t have the luxury to act based on preferences. Policymakers shouldn’t view nuclear power as a taboo, but also shouldn’t opt to construct one simply to attract voters.
- ExLisper ( @ExLisper@linux.community ) English30•1 year ago
Climate change ‘looming’? Dude, it’s already here.
- BigNote ( @BigNote@lemm.ee ) 7•1 year ago
Oh good, let’s quibble about semantics instead of actually discussing the meat of the problem.
- BarqsHasBite ( @someguy3@lemmy.ca ) English3•1 year ago
First time online? But yes it’s annoying.
- TheLemming ( @u202307011927@feddit.de ) 1•1 year ago
Meat? I … I’m vegan!
/s
- ExLisper ( @ExLisper@linux.community ) English1•1 year ago
It’s not about semantics. It’s abut the fact that it’s already too late and people are still not doing anything. Why do people still mind coal? Because our civilization is not ready to deal with climate change. Nothing serious will be done about it.
- Elven_Mithril ( @ElvenMithril@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) English3•1 year ago
Sad reality people doesnt want to realise/acknowledge…
- thru_dangers_untold ( @thru_dangers_untold@lemmy.ml ) English29•1 year ago
Yes, countries like Germany are turning to coal as a direct result of nuclear-phobia.
The US, with all its green initiatives and solar/wind incentives, is pumping more oil than Saudi Arabia. The US has been the top oil producer on whole the planet for the last 5-6 years. The problem is getting worse.
- klisklas ( @klisklas@feddit.de ) 51•1 year ago
Sorry, this is just false info. Germany is not turning to coal as a result of your called nuclear phobia.
I will repeat my comment from another thread:
If you are able to read German or use a translator I can recommend this interview where the expert explains everything and goes into the the details.
Don’t repeat the stories of the far right and nuclear lobby. Nuclear will always be more expensive than renewables and nobody has solved the waste problem until today. France as a leading nuclear nation had severe problems to cool their plants during the summer due to, guess what, climate change. Building new nuclear power plants takes enormous amounts of money and 10-20years at least. Time that we don’t have at the moment.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
- luk3th3dud3 ( @luk3th3dud3@feddit.de ) 8•1 year ago
Germany has not build any new coal plants. At least not in the last five years.
Edit: Why are people down voting a factual statement? Go ahead and provide better info if you got it.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
- luk3th3dud3 ( @luk3th3dud3@feddit.de ) 6•1 year ago
Hmm I think what you mean is that some coal plants have been put into active maintenance. IIRC this was rather a countermeasure in case of absence of gas supplies. They are not part of the regular energy market.
Anyway, I think there is not only one way forward. Countries like France choose to use a big portion of nuclear, Germany does not. And every way has its own challenges. What is important is that energy supply should be independent of oppressor states and moving into a direction of carbon neutrality.
- xigoi ( @xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org ) 3•1 year ago
Renewables are great until the sun stops shining and the wind stops blowing.
- Kissaki ( @Kissaki@feddit.de ) Deutsch6•1 year ago
And that’s more likely than enriched Uranium becoming unavailable or locally unobtainable?
- xigoi ( @xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org ) 2•1 year ago
If you haven’t noticed, the sun stops shining for several hours every day and how much the wind blows changes pseudo-randomly on a hourly basis. Are problems with uranium supply more common than that? Not to mention that uranium can be recycled.
- PowerCrazy ( @PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml ) 2•1 year ago
There is no “nuclear lobby” stop making shit up. Nuclear isn’t profitable, that is why we don’t have it. If it’s not profitable, there will be no industry lobby pushing for it. The fact that it isn’t profitable shouldn’t matter. I care about the environment and if Capitalism can’t extract profit without destroying the environment (it can’t) then we need to stop evaluating infrastructure through a Capitalist lens.
Fantastic. We’re doomed
- Kalash ( @theKalash@feddit.ch ) 29•1 year ago
In my country, because of a decades long fearmongering and disinfomation campaing that destoyed the nuclear energy industry. So now we’re stucked with coal to keep the power running at night and during winter.
- rufus ( @rufus@discuss.tchncs.de ) 14•1 year ago
Well, nuclear energy is expensive anyways and the amount of uranium on this world seems quite limited.
It’s just not the technology of the future. In the long term we should use regenerative energies that are way cheaper.
- Thorny_Thicket ( @Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz ) 7•1 year ago
Well you didn’t google any of that.
Nuclear power plants are expensive to build but the cost of running one especially when adjusted to the amount of electricity it produces is not significantly more than running any other power plant. Also uranium is not considered to be a gobally scarce resource.
- rufus ( @rufus@discuss.tchncs.de ) 14•1 year ago
That’s also what I believed. But turns out nuclear is the most expensive kind of energy.
Here’s a good summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kahih8RT1k
(Seriously, watch it)
- Thorny_Thicket ( @Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz ) 5•1 year ago
The high cost is largely explained by the fact that there’s no “standard model” for nuclear power plants but instead they’re all designed and built from scratch which can make them really expensive. Olkiluoto 3 nuclear power plant in Finland is the world’s 8th most expensive building at whopping 12 billion dollar cost to build. The original price estimate was 3 billion. Many of the buildings on that list ahead of Olkiluoto 3 are also nuclear power plants.
This however isn’t some inherent probem about nuclear power itself but rather the way we do it. It doesn’t need to be that expensive.
- rufus ( @rufus@discuss.tchncs.de ) 6•1 year ago
Yeah, I’m still not convinced. If current state of the art makes it 5 times more expensive than current state solar or wind. Your explanation needs to be more than ‘but we choose to build it more expensive than it needs to be’.
Sure theoretically this might not be an inherent problem. But the same applies to renewable. I’m not sure if solar or wind are close to something limiting their efficiency or cost of production. There might be new technology advancing both of them. We can talk about this and look for more information. But it’s a very hypothetical discussion. As of now in the real world, there are real-world power plants and if no-one can demonstrate to bridge that big gap in economic efficiency… Maybe there’s something to it…
And apart from that. I’d argue that there are some inherent problems. For example mega-projects having issues with their budget. That’s a very interesting topic but inherent to big and complex projects for several reasons. Also a nuclear plant and all the infrastructure around it is inherently more complex and more expensive than for example a wind turbine and what we need to assemble a bit of steel tubing, wings and a bit of copper. (Broadly speaking.) I think it’s a combination of factors. But I’d be surprised if the future holds something increasing the economic efficiency of nuclear (fission) power plants by that factor.
(Edit: Those numbers from the video are for the US. But 5 times more expensive is huge.)
- Thorny_Thicket ( @Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz ) 2•1 year ago
We don’t choose to build it more expensive than it needs to be. It’s by nature always going to be more expensive to build one of something instead of what the cost per unit is going to be when you make many.
Wind and solar isn’t going to solve the issue untill we come up with a way to store energy on large scale. When you plug in an appliance that electricity is not taken from a reserve but it’s produced for you in real time. Wind doesn’t blow and sun doesn’t shine according to how much electricity is needed at each moment. Finland produces all its electricity basically by hydro, wind and nuclear power. When it’s windy we have excess electricity and the prices drops to negative and we got to sell it abroad but when it’s calm the opposite is true. This wouldn’t be the case if we could somehow store that excess energy.
- rufus ( @rufus@discuss.tchncs.de ) 2•1 year ago
cost per unit
We’re talking about effective cost of the resulting power, altogether. All things included. (Except for nuclear waste, which is a topic for a different discussion and difficult to quantify.) Just comparing one aspect wouldn’t be fair.
store energy on scale
Yeah, and science and investors are way ahead of politics. There are several concepts already available or already in place somewhere. Several promising ideas and projects that need funding. Storage facilities that aren’t able to store energy because Bavaria is not willing to run cables across the country. It is a complex topic that also needs individual solutions. For example depending on geography you could have dams and pump water. Or one of the concepts that work everywhere. Infrastructure and cunsumer get more advanced/intelligent. You could charge your car automatically during periods where renewable is abundant. You can fine-tune factories, maybe have the large heat pump of an office building vary temperature a bit when there is a Dunkelflaute. Some countries just get geothermal power for free because of their location… You can put those storage facilities close to energy generation or close to the consumer. And as supply and demand changes prices, it’s also well aligned with the way our economy (and capitalism) works.
We should really hurry up and put in the effort this needs. Because we really need those storage facilities. And I’d like energy costs to come down again, and CO2 emissions also.
And if I remember correctly, the current natural gas power plants are the ones that can react to supply and demand the most quickly. But this seems not to be a good idea anymore, now that we have enough problems with the natural gas in central europe. I (personally) would be happy if there was an alternative.
I haven’t heard any scientist in the last years tell something different from renewable plus storage is the way. Not unless some miracle happens and we get fusion reactors or something. But it’s still unclear it that’s going to happen.
- BigNote ( @BigNote@lemm.ee ) 2•1 year ago
Right, but that’s why people are talking about nuclear as a bridge technology, not as a permanent solution. Whether or not we can make it pencil out before smashing through all of the critical tipping points in global temperature averages is not something I’m qualified to have an opinion on, but I’m credibly informed that we might at least want to give it a serious look.
- rufus ( @rufus@discuss.tchncs.de ) 2•1 year ago
At one point in the future I’m sure we can look back, do the calculations and see if that had been a good bridge or an expensive thing for the taxpayer to deal with the dismantling and long time storage.
As of now I think the time of that bridge technology has come to an end anyways. We now have efficient renewable energies available. And concepts for energy storage. I think we should invest in that instead of putting the money into a thing of the past.
- Blackmist ( @Blackmist@feddit.uk ) English29•1 year ago
Because it got cheaper than natural gas.
Nobody thinks it’s clean, they just don’t care.
- Mrs_deWinter ( @Mrs_deWinter@feddit.de ) 25•1 year ago
It didn’t, at least not in the way you think. The headlines of the past few days show the aftermath of the last decades: industry contracts that were made in the last century and the political heritage of a generation of politicians who are no longer in power.
Coal is being phased out and that’s not changing. It cannot change substantially anyway; there is only so much coal in the gound. Recent political decisions moved to keep most of it there. For technological, political, economical and industry related reasons this won’t be a fast process unfortunately.
One of the roadblocks of our transition to a sustainable energy supply is how much money (and in our capitalisic society, therefore, power) the industry itself holds. Coal lobbies will work hard for you not to think about them too much. Nuclear lobbies will work hard for you to blame those pesky environmentalists. A game of distraction and blame shifting. This thread is a good example of how well it’s working.
Our resources are limited. This is true for good old planet earth as well as our societies. We only have so much money, time, and workforce to manage this transition. And as much as I’d love to wake up tomorrow to a world with PVC on every roof, a windmill on every field, and decentralised storage in every town center, this is just not realistic overnight. We’ll have to live with the fact of our limited resources and divert as much as possible of them towards such a future. (And btw, putting billions of dollars in money, time, and workforce towards a reactor that will start working in 10-30 years is not the way to do this, as much as the nuclear lobby would like you to think that.)
- DeltaTangoLima ( @DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com ) English19•1 year ago
Over here (Australia) we never stopped. Our coal lobby is simply too influential with our government.
- CanadaPlus ( @CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org ) 19•1 year ago
Again? Did we stop?
It doesn’t look like anyone has mentioned metallurgical coal yet. Even if you don’t burn it for energy, the carbon in steel has to come from somewhere and that’s usually coke, which is coal that has been further pyrolised into a fairly pure carbon producing a byproduct of coal tar.
- Gsus4 ( @Gsus4@feddit.nl ) 5•1 year ago
How much of that carbon is emitted Vs embedded in the steel matrix? 50%?
- CanadaPlus ( @CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org ) 4•1 year ago
I’m not actually sure. I imagine it depends on how exactly it’s mixed in.
The green alternative would be to go back to charcoal (or “biochar” if you want to sound fancy), but it might be a bit more expensive.
- Beowulf ( @Beowulf@unilem.org ) 15•1 year ago
It will slow when nuclear is the main energy source, especially in the United States (its currently ~47%)
Nuclear can also get recycled, and for the average American, the actual waste that can no longer be recycled is about a soda can (standard 12 ounce can)
Imo, the US needs to work toward nuclear usage being 90-95% instead of using coal. There’s still a need for natural gas but it can be minimized
- bob_lemon ( @bob_lemon@feddit.de ) 16•1 year ago
Imo, the US needs to work toward nuclear usage being 90-95% instead of using coal. There’s still a need for natural gas but it can be minimized
Why? Wind and solar are cheaper, faster to build and don’t produce toxic waste. They can easily cover most of the energy needs. Or technically all of it, once you start using any overcapacity for hydrogen production (which is needed for carbon neutrality anyways).
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
- Beowulf ( @Beowulf@unilem.org ) 3•1 year ago
Here in Texas, we use wind and solar a lot. That’s why in 2021 when it froze, we had zero power. The wind turbines were seized from the freeze and snow covered the solar panels. We had dropped our coal production until we had to suddenly go to 100% utilization.
And with it being texas and hardly snowing, we don’t have infrastructure in place for the roads. There’s no snow plows, road salt, tire chains, etc…
- Wanderer ( @Wanderer@lemm.ee ) 4•1 year ago
I think that was propaganda.
The shitty electrical grid and the gas plants that couldn’t operate in winter failed. Wind power prevented worse blackouts as they kept working.
- roguetrick ( @roguetrick@kbin.social ) 8•1 year ago
Fuel reprocessing through the purex process has never been economical and frankly doesn’t make much sense. You’d want to increase the volume of those very nasty fission products for eventual storage through vitrification anyway (inverse square law gets very important for big gamma emitters) so you’d need a big site regardless. It’s fine if you’re recovering plutonium to make a bomb, but it seems to create a lot of chemical waste without much benefit otherwise.
- Semi-Hemi-Demigod ( @Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social ) 5•1 year ago
The fuel is cheap. It’s the reactors are consistently over budget. Westinghouse Electric is bankrupt because of the last nuke they built.
- danielton ( @danielton@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz ) 14•1 year ago
I’m sure places that are still banning nuclear power aren’t helping either.
- const_void ( @const_void@lemmy.ml ) 10•1 year ago
$$$
- Cynoid ( @Cynoid@lemm.ee ) 9•1 year ago
I blame the release of both Factorio and Victoria 3.
- SplicedBrainwrap ( @SplicedBrainwrap@beehaw.org ) English8•1 year ago
Until all coal plants are replaced there will be a need for more coal. We can’t just shut down these plants over night, the world is transitioning to cleaner energy production, unfortunately it’s just not happening fast enough.
- FarFarAway ( @FarFarAway@kbin.social ) 6•1 year ago
I get the feeling they’re talking about all the publicity around coal in the past few days.
Germany is dismantling windmills to expand a coal mine. A state in the US gave the go ahead to restart a power plant (and supposedly turn it into a hydrogen plant eventually) , and another state is expanding mines. Australia approved enough new mines to add another 150 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. Canada is expanding exports of thermal coal. Not to mention, China and India using a bunch of coal in general.
These are all headlines I’ve seen, in like the past week. Even though demand for coal hasn’t really ceased, it seems like recently, there’s a renewed push.
- sirjash ( @sirjash@feddit.de ) 10•1 year ago
Just FYI, those windmills were at the end of their lifespan and would’ve been torn down either way. I don’t support coal mining, but let’s not make this more stupid than it is.
I genuinely thought coal was phased out as an option for power, and that fossil fuels were starting it’s (very long) descent to being phased out just the same.
Fossil fuels will take way longer, but why the more recent interest in coal again?? That’s the part I cannot understand, and I don’t know where it came from
- theotherone ( @theotherone@kbin.social ) 8•1 year ago
Coal is a fossil fuel, btw. Part of the problem is that through subsidies, the cost of energy is being kept artificially low in the US. We need the increase in cost to de-incentivize oil/gas/coal.
Lol nope we’re fucked
- Yadaran ( @Yadaran@feddit.de ) 6•1 year ago
Tf you mean stopped
- a German