This is a controversial topic but nuclear is absolutely not the way forward.
Compared to renewables, nuclear is expensive, will get even more expensive due to a very limited supply of pure uranium, has issues with safe long-term storage of radioactive byproducts and the potential to melt down comes with terrible consequences to the environment.
Yes, it produces the same power day and night.
But - we live in the 21st century. We have microchips, the Internet and plenty of ways to collect and store energy. No, it’s not as easy as a power plant that goes brrrrr 24/7, but building up a smart power grid is absolutely possible with our current tech.
With rooftop and balcony solar, we have finally found a way for people to decentrally generate (or even store) their own or their neighbors’ energy.
Yet, nuclear fission to heat up water to spin a turbine is still being flaunted as the future by some people.
Makes no sense to me.
Nuclear is expensive, but lot of those expense are unnecessary self inflicted burocracy. We know already how to make something cheap and safe, like we do in aerospace. It is about wanting to do it. Nuclear works at night. Natural gas cannot be the alternative. Battery could be, but as of now the technology is not ready, even more expensive for long term storage and cannot scale fast enough.
We can make nuclear the way forward for a century at least (not because of lack of fuel, that is not an issue, really). It is just understanding if we want to for the right reasons. It is a political issue, not a technical one.
lot of those expense are unnecessary self inflicted burocracy
What do you mean?
Hinkley Point C in the UK is way over budget and time at an estimated cost of £49B and an estimated build time of 13 years. It’s still not operational, so the final numbers may be a lot higher still.
Flamanville 3 in France was also way over budget and time, at somewhere between €13B and €24B (latter includes financing costs) and a build time of 17 years.
Yes, both were built during COVID, so ideally things would go a little smoother just due to a lack of a pandemic.
But - those are 2 different countries, both taking ages and ridiculous amounts of money to build a single nuclear power plant. What exactly is self-inflicted in these 2 instances?
The entire certification process of the components used in nuclear is a mess in Europe.
Parts needs to be certified multiple times for multiple entities, and the same is true for each component used in building those parts. Each country in Europe has different regulations, so the same design needs to be adapted and recertified so it is always the first of a kind. The process is done multiple times during construction as the criteria changes with continuous renegotiating and amendments to the contracts.
That makes the costs explode. Nuclear in China is as safe and costs 3 to 7 times less. The difference is know how (they never stopped building), standardization and scale.
Alright, the world is still waiting for your microchips and internet powered grid. Meanwhile Germany has super expensive and super dirty electricity, while France has some of the cleanest in Europe.
Another trillion € thrown at renewables alone with absolutely no baseload tech will certainly fix it.
France’s nuclear power plants are operated by a state comapny about 70 billion in debt. Every private company not backed by tax money would be bancrupt multiple times…
The state is the only one willing to pay for these because no sane private investor would finance these due to the extraordinary bad ROI and uncalculatable risks involved no insurer in the world is willing to cover.
I’d speculate the reasons are a mix of backward-thinking or when it comes to Katharina Reiche, possibly corrupt, politicians and a grid that isn’t prepared to handle this kind of load.
Either way, these fluctuations in renewables are extremely lucrative to investors. Store power when the sun shines or the winds are strong, release it in the night hours and pocket the difference.
So, what is actually in the way of renewables apart from a good and controllable grid and some conservative politicians? I don’t think there’s much.
As for nuclear, even if you leave the risks of meltdown out of it, the upfront and running costs do not allow it to be competitive.
And yes, French power is cheaper, but take a look at the taxes and fees added to power in Germany. The actual power generation makes up only 41.3% of its household price.
I don’t get why you’re being downvoted. Germany went the German environmentalists’ way in full and now they have the dirtiest electricity in Europe. I really don’t get what’s controversial about this.
Let’s not forget that Germany already has like 3x its peak consumption in installed renewable capacity.
What abandoning nuclear does to a mofo.
This is a controversial topic but nuclear is absolutely not the way forward.
Compared to renewables, nuclear is expensive, will get even more expensive due to a very limited supply of pure uranium, has issues with safe long-term storage of radioactive byproducts and the potential to melt down comes with terrible consequences to the environment. Yes, it produces the same power day and night.
But - we live in the 21st century. We have microchips, the Internet and plenty of ways to collect and store energy. No, it’s not as easy as a power plant that goes brrrrr 24/7, but building up a smart power grid is absolutely possible with our current tech.
With rooftop and balcony solar, we have finally found a way for people to decentrally generate (or even store) their own or their neighbors’ energy.
Yet, nuclear fission to heat up water to spin a turbine is still being flaunted as the future by some people. Makes no sense to me.
Nuclear is expensive, but lot of those expense are unnecessary self inflicted burocracy. We know already how to make something cheap and safe, like we do in aerospace. It is about wanting to do it. Nuclear works at night. Natural gas cannot be the alternative. Battery could be, but as of now the technology is not ready, even more expensive for long term storage and cannot scale fast enough.
We can make nuclear the way forward for a century at least (not because of lack of fuel, that is not an issue, really). It is just understanding if we want to for the right reasons. It is a political issue, not a technical one.
What do you mean?
Hinkley Point C in the UK is way over budget and time at an estimated cost of £49B and an estimated build time of 13 years. It’s still not operational, so the final numbers may be a lot higher still.
Flamanville 3 in France was also way over budget and time, at somewhere between €13B and €24B (latter includes financing costs) and a build time of 17 years. Yes, both were built during COVID, so ideally things would go a little smoother just due to a lack of a pandemic.
But - those are 2 different countries, both taking ages and ridiculous amounts of money to build a single nuclear power plant. What exactly is self-inflicted in these 2 instances?
The entire certification process of the components used in nuclear is a mess in Europe.
Parts needs to be certified multiple times for multiple entities, and the same is true for each component used in building those parts. Each country in Europe has different regulations, so the same design needs to be adapted and recertified so it is always the first of a kind. The process is done multiple times during construction as the criteria changes with continuous renegotiating and amendments to the contracts.
That makes the costs explode. Nuclear in China is as safe and costs 3 to 7 times less. The difference is know how (they never stopped building), standardization and scale.
Alright, the world is still waiting for your microchips and internet powered grid. Meanwhile Germany has super expensive and super dirty electricity, while France has some of the cleanest in Europe.
Another trillion € thrown at renewables alone with absolutely no baseload tech will certainly fix it.
France’s nuclear power plants are operated by a state comapny about 70 billion in debt. Every private company not backed by tax money would be bancrupt multiple times… The state is the only one willing to pay for these because no sane private investor would finance these due to the extraordinary bad ROI and uncalculatable risks involved no insurer in the world is willing to cover.
Germany is drowning in requests for large commercial batteries to be built and/or connected to the grid (source, e.g.: https://www.smard.de/page/home/topic-article/444/221208/entwicklung-bei-uenb-und-vnb). We are talking about a give or take 10% approval rate.
I’d speculate the reasons are a mix of backward-thinking or when it comes to Katharina Reiche, possibly corrupt, politicians and a grid that isn’t prepared to handle this kind of load.
Either way, these fluctuations in renewables are extremely lucrative to investors. Store power when the sun shines or the winds are strong, release it in the night hours and pocket the difference.
So, what is actually in the way of renewables apart from a good and controllable grid and some conservative politicians? I don’t think there’s much.
As for nuclear, even if you leave the risks of meltdown out of it, the upfront and running costs do not allow it to be competitive.
And yes, French power is cheaper, but take a look at the taxes and fees added to power in Germany. The actual power generation makes up only 41.3% of its household price.
And, at a deeper level, what you get when your political movement (German environmentalists, in this case) opposes everything and recommends nothing.
I don’t get why you’re being downvoted. Germany went the German environmentalists’ way in full and now they have the dirtiest electricity in Europe. I really don’t get what’s controversial about this.
Simply because it’s a lie.
https://energyboard.eu/en/electricity-mix/
How is it a lie? https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/fifteen_minutes?signal=carbon-intensity
German electricity is much dirtier than it would be if they kept nuclear.
That’s what you said.