Earlier quoted context omitted.
I couldn't find that number. Is it hidden in the figures or did you calculate it off something?
Those exact numbers are cited in the last paragraph of the article.
My bad, I skimmed it looking for km2 or 1.3.
Nuclear energy is clean
621–630 of 709 posts
Re: Nuclear energy is clean
#622Re: Nuclear energy is clean
#623Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many years have France been safely operating their Nuclear plants? Germany too? You speak of a Chernobyl exclusion zone, but I don't see anyone living where they've put up large scale solar farms or next to wind turbines. You're right about humans not managing long term consequences well. From lead poisoning 40 years ago to 20 years from now when we have to deal with the waste of solar left behind (perhaps toxic…
> We need nuclear now. No nonsense blockers. Build more plants and replace the coal, oil and gas base load stations we're running now to try slow the rate of carbon we're throwing into the sky. you can't get it now. You have to wait at least 10 years to get a plant up & running. solar and wind - doesnt take even a year
Do i really need to correct myself to say we need to start building now for you not to defeat my argument?
Re: Nuclear energy is clean
#624Earlier quoted context omitted.
Renewables are not baseload. If you add batteries to the mix, nuclear is better. Not to mention the quantity of power produced. Nuclear is expensive because it's long term investment. Renewables also cost more in resources (concrete, steel, copper), there are sourced charts about this. Renewables are better than coal and gaz, but not better than nuclear. There's nothing wrong with renewables, but it's not enough to o…
It doesn't have to be batteries, it can be pump storage plant or similar installations. Problem that those don't work aren't technical. There are often legislative in nature or the infrastructure for energy transportation is inadequate. We don't know how feasibly we can get Uranium. The market is unstable right now because of political problems. The topic is very complex, there are disadvantages with every form of en…
The more we obtain uranium (prospecting, mining, milling...), the more we add to the associated carbon footprint.
Therefore a sustained growth of installed nuclear capacity will lead us to exploit mines at always lowering ore grades => more emissions.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222817608_Life_cycl...
Re: Nuclear energy is clean
#625Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are a lot of pump storage plants with various forms of storage mechanisms. Renewables are part of the general energy mix so of course these storage plants also store energy from renewables. In Switzerland and Austria it has become a business because of the overproduction of Germany. Given, they have the matching topography that make them easier to build, but you won't necessarily need that. Hydroelectric power…
k, I will bite. Give me a source for a pumped storage facility that buy wind or solar when overproduction causes the prices to be low, and then sells it when the price is high. How much do they pay on average, how much at the point of sale, and how is the ROI per kw/h. All the existing pumped storage facilities that I know of do not generate their profit from buying low and selling high. They generate profits by prov…
Re: Nuclear energy is clean
#626Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not workable. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and is found in great abundance in all galaxies. It is particularly present in the Sun, which is problematic because it is not very accessible to us :) On Earth, there is also a lot of hydrogen in water and in hydrocarbons. However, it does not exist in free form, i.e. just hydrogen. It is always associated with something else, for example with oxyge…
> Something like a thousand wind turbines would be needed to replace a nuclear plant (and remember: wind turbines does not work all the time) Your calibration is off by quite a few years. The current off-shore turbines being built are 15 MW with capacity factors of around 60%.[1] So lets do 50% for wind and 90% for nuclear. Wind: 1,000 * 15 MW * 0.5 = 7.5 GW Nuclear: 1 * 1650 MW (EPR) * 0.9 = 1.485 GW The HYBRIT plan…
Re: Nuclear energy is clean
#627Earlier quoted context omitted.
> far beyond the time horizon of what a normal human brain is capable of processing This is just hyperbole though. All the other arguments aside, it's perfectly possible for humans to plan, and make risk estimates, beyond a human life span.
The Germans could not even properly manage one of their test locations (for weak and medium-level radioactive nuclear waste, not for waste from nuclear plants) longer than a few decades. One person who worked there said that after a few years they didn't know anymore what and how much exactly was stored there.
Re: Nuclear energy is clean
#628Earlier quoted context omitted.
You just considered one axis of the waste properties. It must also be in the equation that the waste will remain radioactive and toxic for thousands of years, far beyond the time horizon of what a normal human brain is capable of processing. Also, the effects (spatial, biological) if the waste is released for whatever reason (which we may not even know now). So the debt we transfer to future generations goes far, too…
We're making the Earth unhinhabitable for millions of people already with climate change I think a small pile of hot rubbish well hidden is the least of our problems
If renewables are adequate there is no need for this hot rubbish.
Re: Nuclear energy is clean
#629Earlier quoted context omitted.
We've kicked the can so far down the road that the cost isn't really a factor any more -- both Nuclear and Renewable are less than the cost of doing nothing. The question is what Sadly nobody in charge seems to be bothered. Europe should have been plating the Iberian peninsular in solar for the last 10 years, especially after Crimea. Germany was doing great with solar until about 2015, when it pretty much stopped. Fr…
Germany seems to have been building out a fair bit of wind. Enough? No, but more than others.
Germany is big in Solar, but it should have been increasing not decreasing.
Denmark is good with wind, but should be generating 150% of its usage from wind over the course of the year by now
The biggest thing pro-carbon afficiandos complain about is that renewables require storage. No they don't. If you need to use gas or oil for 30 days a year due to cloudy windless winter days, that's 90% of your energy use with renewable, that's a massive benefit.
Until there's a significant problem for a month or two with excess renewable energy in the EU, and the vast majority of home heating system has been converted from gas to electric, and the same with transport (both cars and trains) then there is a demand for increased renewable production even without storage.
If renewables in the EU had continued the 2005-2010 growth it would be generating 36% of Europe's electricity by now instead of 22%. That rate should have increased from 2010, not decreased. It should be aiming for well over 100%, with excess dumped into electric cars, green hydrogen generation, hot sand, etc.
Renewables need to increase 10-fold across the EU to offset energy imports.
But instead short term thinking won out, as it always does in democratic countries.
Re: Nuclear energy is clean
#630Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're making the Earth unhinhabitable for millions of people already with climate change I think a small pile of hot rubbish well hidden is the least of our problems
If renewables are adequate there is no need for this hot rubbish.
Well, sadly they are not