Why would a court decide this vs. an actual team of scientists?
EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy
701–710 of 1001 posts
Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy
#702I think a good exercise for the reader is to reflect on why they were ever against nuclear power in the first place. Nuclear power was always the greenest, most climate friendly, safest, cheapest (save for what we do to ourselves), most energy dense, most long lasting, option.
I was all for nuclear when it was the best option to displace fossil fuels. It is no longer, so I'm no longer all for it.
Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy
#703Earlier quoted context omitted.
but comparing to solar / wind there you also have to factor batteries production, battery replacement, wind turbine replacement and recycling (they are not easily recyclable), cleaning solar panels etc.
'recyclable' is such a vague term. E.g. radiation-affected typically easily recycled materials are very hard to deal with (think e.g. pipe steel from power plants) and are effectively non-recyclable, instead of close to 100% recyclable, as their non-contaminated counterparts. Opposed to that, battery recycling is mostly hard to deal with in terms of economics, and admittedly the chemistry involved is complex, but at…
I'm talking about wind turbine wings. A lot of stuff is fiberglass and have to be buried.
Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy
#704Earlier quoted context omitted.
You suggest people forget that without considering that perhaps you don't know: - We killed nuclear power in countries that can be trusted so that is not relevant. - Nuclear accidents are not as harmful as people imagine. - We have plenty of access to uranium resources in the west. - the time to build a reactor is often in large parts regulatory burdens. France built out 10% of its electricity generation needs in a y…
You mean western sources like the USA, that suddenly starts waving it's dick around when the wrong dipshit is elected? The USA that made a nuclear deal with Iran and then scrapped it for no fucking reason?
Is that a joke? You are conflating US meddling in international politics vs. protecting themselves and the world from Nuclear catastrophe by not fighting the likes of Iran, who openly admits wanting to nuke other countries, namely Israel (and by extension radiate Gaza, Jordan, Egypt, the nearby oceans, etc, as well) and the US. Iran who hid their nuclear enrichment facilities underground, which were known to enrich Uranium beyond what's needed for energy production.
Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy
#705Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a supporter of nuclear, I think most nuclear supporters will be happy if we achieve carbon neutrality by any means. But as other commenters pointed out, renewables are not achieving that in most places. According to Google, a staunchly anti-nuclear Germany has 6.95 tons per capita at 2023. France achieved that at 1986 (!!) and is now at 4.14. It's really a question that should be directed at renewables: "If renewa…
Quote: The winters in Germany are often colder and the country's climate is generally more continental. The south of France enjoys warmer Mediterranean temperatures and milder winters.
[deleted]
Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy
#706Earlier quoted context omitted.
So far it was either the cheapest or the safest. Also, solar is now both cheaper and safer.
but it's not 24/7 and europe even worse in winter and fall. Solar is unrealistic to replace most energy usage [1]. In EU it's just less than 5% usage. In germany less than 6% usage. And wind is not a replacement either (less than 11% energy usage in germany). And just for comparison in france nuclear power plants provides 37% of energy [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-sou...
Yes, but all that can be taken into account in the analysis, and renewables and storage have become so cheap they're now the superior option.
Europe is in an inferior position in a renewable-powered world compared to many other locations. I wonder if some of the reactionary takes trying to promote nuclear are a consequence of that. I think you're average far right type is not going to be comfortable living in a relative energy ghetto.
Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy
#707I think a good exercise for the reader is to reflect on why they were ever against nuclear power in the first place. Nuclear power was always the greenest, most climate friendly, safest, cheapest (save for what we do to ourselves), most energy dense, most long lasting, option.
So far it was either the cheapest or the safest. Also, solar is now both cheaper and safer.
Yep, the data suggests that.
Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy
#708Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is expensive because we choose to make it expensive. It is regulation pushing safety levels far beyond other industries, and far beyond science (radiation is far less harmful than regulatory models suggest)
You do NOT get to constantly taut the low mortality rates of nuclear AND call for less regulation at the same time. But even from a very matter of fact point of view, I'd rather have 1000 people die every year for 20 years, than have 20.000 people die on a single bad day/week. The economic and social impact is far, far bigger when it can't be "spread out" over multiple years.
Yes, you do. Especially given the outstanding new levels of nuclear tech and safety. The economic and social impacts are hugely positive. You will see this in the next decade as new facilities come online.
Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy
#709Earlier quoted context omitted.
but it's not 24/7 and europe even worse in winter and fall. Solar is unrealistic to replace most energy usage [1]. In EU it's just less than 5% usage. In germany less than 6% usage. And wind is not a replacement either (less than 11% energy usage in germany). And just for comparison in france nuclear power plants provides 37% of energy [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-sou...
60% of that energy is lost as waste heat and doesn't need replaced as we decarbonise and electrify. For already developed nations predictions are for electricity to double but energy use to halve at the same time as they electrify end uses.
Not everybody live in house and have enough rooftop area. In Europe majority people live in apartments. If you want to have wind warm and solar farm there is also energy wasted with power lines transmission. Energy powerbanks also have energy waste.
I'm all in to have energy mix and more people to have solar panels if they can but it's not a holly grail
Re: EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy
#710Earlier quoted context omitted.
> most long lasting ...which also applies to nuclear waste unfortunately, and that answers part of your question - e.g. as irrational as it may be, but at least in Germany nobody wants to have a nuclear waste storage in their backyard (the other part of the answer is Chornobyl - and for the same 'not in my backyard' reason). Also when looking at recent years, I'm not sure if it's a good idea to have a few large nucle…
If we already have to take care of a hole in some mountain for the next few hundred years, why not put 100 times the waste in it? Nobody would notice the difference.
Storage capacity of high level nuclear waste repositories is limited by heat buildup. I think people would notice when radioactive volcanoes start erupting.