this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024
137 points (96.6% liked)
Asklemmy
44157 readers
1528 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Germany: We moved our power creation from 60% coal and atom-driven to 60% wind and solar-driven in the last 6 years. This change is fundamental and canβt be reversed. We stopped our atom plants and have a plan out of coal. Even though our geography isnβt in favor for renewables, our country is dedicated in becoming carbon neutral. This is supported by most of the population and industry. (Yes renewables are cheaper than coal, gas, and atom)
Still open is the transition of heat and cars to electricity. Rather an emotional debate - Germans are car-crazy. The car discussion is similar to the gun debate in the US.
By atom, do you mean nuclear energy? Why did you stop the nuclear plant?, assuming that's what you're referring to.
How does this relate to Germany relying using natural gas from Russia, before their invasion of Ukraine? My understanding was that Germany had energy issues at the offset, which I wouldn't expect considering how much renewavles you use
Honestly, despite all of nuclears many benefits, there's still no good action plan for the significant amounts of substantially dangerous waste it leaves around. Hard to figure out a storage plan for an invisible poison seeping from a rock for the next 50,000 years.
Does it actually seep? my understanding of chemical waste is: that it doesn't generate a lot (the US has about a foot ball fields worth from all of our nuclear power plants in our total history, so nearly 70 years), and that they placed is secure, not leaking containers. You're right that it will eventually be a problem, but probably a problem that we will have to deal with later than our current climate crisis. An argument could be made that maybe new nuclear plants shouldn't be made, but if we have some up and running, that's cheap energy that generates little carbon.
That is the great misunderstanding of nuclear. It isnβt cheap. Itβs supported massively by tax money. In France with all its big nuclear plants for example, the power company went bankrupt. Nuclear is too expensive to run. The government took over the operations.
In Germany, the power companies refused to prolong the operations of nuclear at the beginning of Russian invasion. It was too expensive for them.
The only advantage that nuclear has, is that itβs independent of weather and doesnβt emit carbon. The drawback is the costs, inflexibility (always on), and reliance on cool water (which was an issue in France). Thatβs why MS, Amazon and all put there eggs into this basket for AI power - they shit money.
Nuclear is too expensive to run in the short term. Nuclear plants only start being profitable after like 10 years. But then they're really fucking profitable. So it makes sense a company could go bankrupt when you're 10 years in the red.
Also, on the topic of flexibility, this is only true for, like, 70s era nuclear. France has had load-following nuclear for some time now. Does it follow second-to-second variations? No, but it can load follow on the scale of the daily variations in demand.
I pasted some links, but the DoE says groundwater will most likely be contaminated. Depends on who you trust and how willing you are to suffer radioactive contamination. Granted, it's probably a better risk profile than say... Coal... But that doesn't change the fact we have no good longterm plan to store any amount of radioactive waste, and if history is your teacher, a plan will most likely not come to fruition.
What do you mean? We just outsource the waste management to private companies who assure us they will dispose of it in a safe and secure manner. (This is legitimately what America does with nuclear waste, with limited oversight -- fuck you Regan -- and it is fucking bananas).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository
http://fbaum.unc.edu/lobby/066_Nuclear_Repository/Organizational_Statements/PC/PC_Get_the_Facts_About_Yucca_Mountain.pdf
https://www.kunr.org/energy-and-environment/2020-07-12/yucca-mountain-faster-water-flow-undermines-project-safety-unr-geologist-says?_amp=true
https://ag.nv.gov/Hot_Topics/Issue/Yucca/
Amazing. Every single word you just said was wrong.
Deleted my comment because I was wrong, AfD does not lobby against nuclear plants.
However it does not change the fact that they are neonazi Putin enthusiasts
But they aren't conservative, either.
And the conservatives weren't the ones lobbying against nuclear. That was Merkel, who was a centrist.
Sudden culture shock from a Norwegian:
Almost all electricity used by Norwegian homes goes towards heating (including cooking and hot water), and charging cars. So counting heating separate from electricity suddenly makes the electric transition sound less impressive. (And the transition away from nuclear more baffling). It's still impressive to see Germany really follow through on renewables though. 60% renewable electricity is still a lot
Is there a plan to transition away from burning fossil fuels for heating?
There are plans yes, but also corrupt politicians and unethical media who straight up lie to the public and keep this plan from going forward.
German homes are relatively okay insulated. Very remote: burn wood or some sort of wood pellet stuff. Not clean, but it is local and renewable. Less remote: heat pumps, runs on electricity. Cities: many are planning/extending heat nets, those can be partially powered by left over heat from industry. And import nuclear electricity from France in winter I guess!
Yeah you folks did this in the wrong order.
Not when you consider the maintenance costs of the plants they closed. Basically of them were beyond original design life.
I guess, but the Energiewende must've been really expensive already and by my best guesstimation those upkeep costs would have been small in comparison. What irks me more about the situation is wrapping shutting down the nuclear plants in a guise of green policy while simultaneously supporting a huge coal industry. Very happy for all the renewables, still.
Why lump atom in with coal? Atom is great, coal stinks. You're confusing the stats.
Try to dismantle a nuclear plant. It costs tons of money and time. Ask the people at Nagasaki or Tschernobyl.
Dismantle a coal power plant takes time, but one can reuse the iron and such. All the open mining fields and mining tunnels are the problem. In Western Germany, there are areas where house crack or cars fall down sudden openings caused by old mining tunnels.
Try to dismantle at wind mill or solar fields. Itβs a quest of days and some bucks.
I prefer the easy way of living. So, my favorite are renewables.
You dismantled your plants because dismantling your plants is hard? π€ That seems backwards. Why not upgrade? Then you never have to dismantle. Keep it alive forever.
Upgrading would have cost way more. one of the reasons atom power is so expensive (without government subsidies) is the cost of the plants which needs to be recouped as well as the price of the uranium. not to mention that we haven't found a suitable place to store the waste for those thousands of years until it's harmless.
Who cares about cost. We should be willing to pay whatever it takes to end fossil fuel use.
That's why we invest in renewables.
@DrunkenPirate
> I prefer the easy way of living.
There is no such thing as "easy way of living".
Renewables suck at energy density, predictability and control.
Nuclear gives you all three.
Also, look into the solar panel manufacturing costs to the environment.
Of course, renewables are a must. But by dismantling nuclear you kneecapped yourselves, guys, big time.
@dragonfucker
Just stumpled upon this BBC article https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/oct/23/sellafield-cleanup-cost-136bn-national-audit-office Cleaning up Sellafield, Europes biggest nuclear dump costs now up to 136.000.000.000 Β£ Thatβs the cost of nuclear. The dangerous rests of the power creation.
@DrunkenPirate I'd accept this argument if it were still 1950s.
The year is 2024. Now we know better what to do with nuclear waste.
First, it's actually crazy recyclable. You can separate plutonium and unreacted uranium from fission products and use it again, making your fuel cycle way more efficient.
Second, you don't actually need to store the leftover fission products in an on-ground dump, that's actually mighty dumb. Instead, the borehole disposal can be used. Basically, drill a hole several kilometers deep - that's easy enough when you take the drilling equipment from all those oil barons - put your fission products in there (they're quite compact by volume, if you separate it out) and then seal the hole with concrete. Nobody's going to dig this up ever again. It's a solved problem.
Cleaning up sites like Sellafield is just dealing with the wartime legacy, when nuclear research was less about energy production, and more about bombs. It doesn't have to be this way.
Still, we have to manage the waste of former years. Needs money for ages.
Then you will love this documentary. It even mentions Germany a couple of times.