When do we get the next one?

  • johnhowson
    link
    fedilink
    1
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    @Claidheamh
    Nuclear is also very expensive. Bioenergy is the one I missed. That is far cheaper than nuclear and could be scaled up easily. I’m sure there will be a need for both the existing nuclear and indeed some fossil fuels for a while yet. But I think we should focus on getting our renewable energy resources in place in advance of building any new nuclear plants.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      It may be expensive to build, but it’s much cheaper to run. Just compare France’s and Germany’s energy prices.

      Bioenergy is just more emissions we really can’t afford to put into the atmosphere. It’s basically just a fancy name for “burning wood”.

      • johnhowson
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        @Claidheamh straw too. Biofuels are in fact carbon neutral. But yes release CO2. Nuclear also produces CO2 mainly due to the mining, processing and transportation of the fuel. But far less than say coal or gas. The reality is that some new reactors are going to be built. But I believe the money would have been better invested in onshore wind.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Biofuels are in fact carbon neutral.

          That’s what their marketing would like you to believe. But they’re only carbon neutral if you take into account the carbon being sequestered by the growth of plants before they’re burned. By that measure they’re just as carbon neutral as coal.

          Nuclear also produces CO2 mainly due to the mining, processing and transportation of the fuel.

          That’s not nuclear that produces CO2, that’s mining, processing, and transportation. It’s transversal to anything you build, be it nuclear, bioenergy, wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, anything. In the ideal conditions of your power being entirely carbon-free, then so is all of that.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            31 year ago

            Wind, solar, geothermal etc. need constant mining of fuel?

            They need one-time mining of construction material to build those things, and that’s it, for the next few decades.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              21 year ago

              and that’s it

              Point is that’s just as big an “it” as the nuclear costs. Which, in a zero emissions world, is a very small “it”. I’m not arguing against renewables, I’m arguing against fossil fuels. We need to replace all of it ASAP, and realistically nuclear is the easiest, most reliable way to reach that goal. Just compare Germany and France’s emissions per capita, and then the distribution of their power source, and electricity costs.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                3
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                ASAP? Take a look at planning and construction times of nuclear plants. Like Hinkley Point C in the UK for instance. Announced in 2010, generation now postponed to 2026, years behind schedule and billions over budget. And that’s on an already pre-existing nuclear site.

                Cost? Estimated 100 GBP/MWh. The difference to market prices will probably be coughed up by the taxpayer.

                Renewables are way faster to install, for a fraction of the cost.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  1
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  They should have started sooner and with more plants. But it’s still much better for that nuclear plant be complete in 2030, than never. Delays and mismanagement aren’t unique to nuclear, and no excuse to stop from building it.

                  Renewables are way faster to install, for a fraction of the cost.

                  So why are we still using fossil fuels then? The best time to start building alternatives is yesterday. Second best time is now.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    21 year ago

                    So why are we still using fossil fuels then?

                    You already gave the answer: Because they should have started sooner.

    • @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      01 year ago

      I don’t support any continued burning it fossil fuels. That’s what every previous generation said and look at the thermometer.