As you can see on this thread, people would rather let climate change be worse than necessary than give up their anti-nuke religion. I understand - it is the reverse of Fox News: if you've only ever been exposed to your tribe's dogma, you can't rationally consider cost/benefits.
Matt, I think there are two very separate questions:
1. Does it make sense to close nuclear reactors half way through their operating life. Obviously No. Unless the Safety Inspectors say so. Existing nuclear is extremely cheap, safe, low carbon, etc. It is also funding waste disposal. Germany discovered that the fund for dealing with nuclear waste was only half full. Duh! I wonder why.
2. Should we be building new nuclear. That is a harder question. The best answer is probably that of the markets: "No, not at the price of EPRs and AP1000s in Europe and the USA". A lot of hope is being invested in SMRs, but I'm not sure that they will help. There are just too many engineering issues (=costs) in dealing with high temperature, high pressure water. But then I'm a fan of Molten Salt Reactors (chemically inert, low pressure), so maybe biased against PWRs.
You are right. But I think that as long as there are coal plants (especially new ones being built) we should be working to bring more nuclear onto the grid.
I'm generally a fan of of markets, but they won't get rid of coal as quickly as we should.
Matt Ball, you could not be more wrong. No one is "letting" climate change be worse than necessary. Fact check yourself. Georgia's Plant Vogtle is the only nuke plant under construction in the U.S. It's been 15 years and still not done. Just in the past year solar installed 33,000 megawatts. And Vogtle's cost? $35 billion for 2234 megawatts, whenever it gets done that is. And guess what? Georgia is the 2nd highest CO2 emitter in the U.S. and will continue to be with Plant Vogtle's tiny generation added.
You think this country can add 2200 MW of "clean" nuclear energy for $35 billion every 15 years and address climate change? That's just nuts. No tribe, no religion, just lived experience in Georgia. And don't tell me what other countries can do. They nationalize their nuclear construction and the U.S. would never do that.
But sure, go ahead and call people out for having "anti-nuke religion". Me thinks you doth protest too much because everything you say of others is actually true of you.
Patty, you can check my entry on Wikipedia if you think I'm some stooge (including my engineering background and time as a DOE Fellow).
I understand the instinct to say, "I know you are, but what am I?" But that isn't really an argument.
The fact remains that every day we go w/o pursuing nuclear (along with other carbon-free power) is a day climate change gets worse than it needs to be, as shown at the link in my original comment.
I'm sorry you can't engage in how to make things better and just resort to name-calling.
The 33 gigawatts of installed solar capacity only works when the sun is shining, so cut that capacity in half and add in the cost of batteries and/or natural gas peaking plants and it’s not as cheap as advocates claim. Part of the anti-nuclear religion is the ridiculously overbearing regulations, like the ones that made the Vogtle plant construction crew tear out $1B of reinforced concrete because some rebars were off by a few inches. And all that reinforced concrete is to prevent damage if a jumbo jet crashes into the plant because terrorists might do it to make a cheap dirty bomb, but this requirement isn’t there for the CDC in nearby Atlanta which has smallpox and other deadly pandemic possible biological agents on site, nor to actual nerve gas storage sites or nuclear weapons stored at military bases. It’s very easy to make things expensive with regulations, see how soon land approvals would take for the 2.3 gigawatts of solar (plus non-existent batteries) in Georgia that Vogtle is making unnecessary .
That's not how the grid works Buzen. You don't cut anything in half. But don't listen to me. Listen to energy expert Chris Nelder's podcast The Energy Transition and his guest Hannah Richie (the same!) on this excerpt about how to think about renewables on the grid. https://youtu.be/jO6DR0mEfbE. And listen to energy expert David Robert's podcast Volts and his guest Jan Pepper on this excerpt about a 24x7 grid with renewables: https://youtu.be/z-0VvmwBJ5s. Each excerpt is about 2-3 minutes.
Let's say you are right about the rebar and the inches (so unreasonable! so overbearing!) You realize $1B is only 1/35 of $35B right? That's 2.875% of the cost. I repeat to you what I said to Matt Ball: You think this country can add 2200 MW of "clean" nuclear energy for $35 billion every 15 years and address climate change? We cannot. Nuclear energy is a ridiculous distraction and waste of time. But don't listen to me. Listen to Stephanie Cooke: https://www.energyintel.com/0000018d-7a5e-d1ef-a5cd-fe7e077c0000
Actually, cut that capacity six fold to compare with nuclear.
And you know what, it's still cheap. Solar capacity is ridiculously cheap. With the help of some subsidies (thank you) Chinese firms are virtually giving it away (€120/KWp). That leaves us with two challenges:
1. How/where to deploy it. (The PV I put on my roof last month cost 15 times the module price).
2. How to deal with intermittency. The main problem there is winter/summer intermittency, which is especially a north European problem.
People who accuse others of dogmatism or ideology in the critical evaluation of nuclear power, in my experience, often have a hidden agenda, work for the nuclear lobby, or have invested their money in the wrong technology. And here I am speaking of fission reactors; nuclear fusion, although it also produces radioactive waste, may be judged differently (ionization of the walls due to neutron bombardment).
The point is that nuclear power has always contributed only a fraction to energy generation, and this will never change. This is confirmed by all experts, and even in the IPCC report, the topic is only a marginal note, accounting for 1-5% in the power grid.
Everything contributes "only a fraction to energy generation."
As per my original link, you can see that what is happening in the real world is that more coal is being burned. Simple facts.
You can check my entry on Wikipedia if you think I don't know what the IPCC says (including my engineering background and time as a DOE Fellow), if you would rather know the truth instead of just saying "hidden agenda!"
Just because someone describes themselves as an engineer or something else on the internet does not make it an argument, but at most a rhetorical trick, an appeal to authority.
Sureley there is a small Backlash Thank you Putin the small ignorant Minizar.
But:
Anyone who can only relate to the here and now and completely ignores the past and the future probably knows the book 1984 by Orwell very well, but I can't make anything of it.
--> The Phase out has already started, look at the new Report from the IEA.... and i bet, every year again, they will have to recalculate their Numbers
Anyone who obviously manipulates, tries to take things out of context, and subtly lies has a hidden agenda, and attempting to use the word now against me as a linguistic weapon doesn't help either.
Truth in the field of nuclear energy is by design excluded, due to critical infrastructure, military, etc.
The question whether nuclear energy is low carbon or not is totally misleading. If it were low carbon this does not mean that it is good or that there is good reason to have it:
Nuclear energy is much more expensive than renewable energy. Hinkly point will get some 13 cents plus inflation per kwh for the next 40 years. Renewables cost half and their price will go down further.
Nuclear energy does not pay for sufficient insurance. Fukushima - as are all nuclear plants in the world - was insured for less than 2 billion dollar. The damage was - and still is - more than 500 billion dollar. It is the state and the general public who finally pais for the damage.
Nuclear energy is endangering peace in the world by making proliferation possible. Without nuclear energy Iran , North Korea and many other states who now have would not have the technology to build nuclear bombs.
After 60 years of nuclear energy we still have not developed safe disposal for nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is the most dangerous waste ever produced by mankind.
Nuclear energy needs cooling with the water of nearby rivers. In France every summer many nuclear plants have to be shut down because there is not enough cooling water. Energy then needs to be imported.
Nuclear plants make societies prone to acts of terrorism. Imagine the attack to the World Trade Center had been made to a nuclear plant.
etc., etc. … I could go on and on with arguments that make it totally useless to question the carbon footprint of nuclear.
Thank you very much, you saved me time! Nuclear is according to IPCC necessarey and economically reasonable in an Range 1-5% of the Energy in the Grid... --> so Germany and its Energy Companies are exactly right with their Phase Out.
I do not understand why every where on social Media Nuclear Propaganda is so overwhelming.
- As far as i Know Nuclear and its Numbers of Death are absoluteley not reliable
-- > Now i do not trust Hannah Ritchie nor Our World in Data anymore.
This is context Switching or Lying by Omission
The Problem is much higher and not only the Emissions by a Nuclear Power Plant, and the power Plants today emit lots of Vaporized Water also a Problem...
a) Maintenance on the German nuclear power plants was not carried out! The costs for all the necessary upgrades would have been immense! No one wanted to pay for it – neither the Government nor Preussenelektra and Eon much less so!
b) The German nuclear power plants were not capable of load following, or only to a very rudimentary extent, which means they no longer fit with the renewable power generation of >52% in 2023.
c) Despite the shutdown of German nuclear power plants, Germany's coal consumption is like that of 1959, according to Prof. Dr. Bruno Burger, Fraunhofer ISE.
d) The German energy industry has been thinking European for a long time, and it was significantly cheaper to buy electricity from renewables from Norway, Denmark, Austria, and of course, nuclear power from France, Belgium, Sweden.
Here is it completley Explained the European View:
But this is again a straw man argument because oil and gas, and also uranium, must also be purchased by Germany!
Uranium world market 70%! is in the hands of Putin and his friends, even in Canada and India, Australia, and Niger, he is already causing trouble again, the Minister Putin!
Renewables cost never include the cost of storage, land prices (they use many orders of magnitude more land than equivalent nuclear) or transmission lines. Solar is cheap because it is made using slave labor and coal power in China.
The damage paid out for Fukushima was 12,000 billion yen or about $110billion and included tsunami related costs. Much of the cleanup was to remove soil which was “contaminated” with radiation levels (less than 1 mSv/year) lower than naturally occurring levels in areas in Brazil and India which are more than 10 times higher. This was not a health threat and money was spent removing it because of irrational fear of radiation which you also seem to exhibit. No one does from radiation at that accident.
Iran and North Korea do not get the uranium they need for nuclear power generation plants but uranium refineries which as you may recall from the aluminum centrifuge tubes and hacking sabotage in Iran are not even reactors.
All thermal reactors not just nuclear emit warm water, which is also found naturally. Environmentalists shutting down nuclear to save some fish by importing dirty coal energy from Germany are misguided.
There has never been a terrorists incident at a nuclear plant, maybe jumbo jets and airports make us prone to terror.
You neglected to complain about waste, but nuclear waste is safely stored on-site now and in a few hundred years will be safe enough to touch, but not eat or inhale, so somewhat safer than coal ash waste.
I don't see how wanting people to better understand the facts can be misleading. There are costs and there are benefits to everything. You have to understand both in order to make the right decision, including if that decision is that nuclear is not worth the risk.
Also, your use of the subjunctive “if it were low carbon” implies that you do not actually believe that nuclear is low carbon. I would use the phrase “Even though it is low carbon” instead.
“ As I’ve said many times before: it shouldn’t be renewables versus nuclear; it should be low-carbon versus fossil fuels. Nuclear is firmly in the former camp. We need to find a way of communicating this to the public.”
Let’s all work to understand the reality of engineering and scientific innovation as the route to helping the triple bottom line of People, Planet and shared Prosperity.
The debate around the role of nuclear energy, whether fusion or fission, in combating climate change is complex and marked by contrasting opinions. The statement highlighted underscores that the discussion should not be framed as renewables versus nuclear; rather, it should focus on low-carbon versus fossil fuels, with nuclear energy clearly belonging to the former category. This approach seeks to depolarize the debate and focus on the shared goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Let's delve into the concerns and perspectives raised:
### Risks of Nuclear Energy
- **Radioactive Waste:** The disposal of highly radioactive waste is one of the significant challenges of nuclear energy use. Ensuring safe storage over millennia requires robust technological solutions and careful site selection.
- **Accident Risks:** Disasters like Chernobyl or Fukushima or Three Mile Island, or the other >100 Accidents have highlighted the potential risks of nuclear fission.
While modern safety technologies can minimize the risk of accidents, it can never be entirely eliminated.
### Potentials of Nuclear Energy
- **Low-Carbon Energy Source:** Nuclear energy is among the few technologies capable of producing large amounts of baseload electricity without emitting CO2, making it a crucial component in climate change discussions.
- **Scientific and Technical Innovations:** Advances in reactor technology, including the development of Generation IV reactors and research into nuclear fusion, promise higher safety standards and more efficient fuel use. These innovations could address some of the traditional concerns about nuclear energy.
### The Need for a Comprehensive View
The argument that the choice should not be between renewables and nuclear but a unified front against fossil fuels is an important contribution to the debate. Every energy source has its advantages and disadvantages, and a diversified energy mix might be the most effective way to achieve decarbonization goals without compromising supply security.
The challenge lies in clearly communicating to the public the complexities and trade-offs associated with different energy sources. This includes an open discussion about the risks, costs, and environmental impacts of each technology. Emphasizing the importance of scientific and technical innovations is key to minimizing risks and maximizing the sustainability and efficiency of energy production.
### Conclusion
The debate should be less polarized and more fact-based, aiming to create an energy landscape that supports both the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the assurance of reliable, safe, and economical energy supply. Nuclear energy, both fusion and fission, carries risks that must be carefully managed, but it also offers potentials that should not be ignored in the fight against climate change. Recognizing that each energy source is part of a larger puzzle can help find common ground and make progress towards the goals of People, Planet, and shared Prosperity.
Germany will due to its limited Landmass and dense Population be against Nuclear Fission.
Sorry but I do not believe you! The information after surfing through every filter bubble, speak against you! Fusion maybe yes but like always a few years
1. There is radioactive waste that no one knows where to put.
2. As we can see in Ukraine, it's impossible to secure a nuclear plant from war or terroristic attacks.
3. The companies who run nuclear plants have a long historical record of lying, cover-ups, and bad management, resulting in constant problems.
Since it looks like you could live with these problems, why don't you move and live right next to a nuclear plant? Because it seems nuclear plants are similar to airports - everyone wants one, but no one wants it right around their house (better to build them right around someone else's house).
Since we are so unsuccessful in decoupling energy usage from overall consumption, and since energy usage is emitting CO2 (and since we use regenerative energy, our usage of fossil energy has grown), we need to maybe think about lowering consumption. What's so difficult to understand about this?
1. Everybody knows where to put radioactive waste. In the ground, buried for 500 years.
There is a separate issue of where to put spent fuel, which is sometimes mixed with the waste. The anti-nuclear groups would rather it were buried with the waste, meaning it needs to be kept buried for thousands of years. A better alternative would be to reprocess it and consume it in fast spectrum reactors, making more low carbon energy in the process.
2. Terrorists have been running this plant for almost 2 years now and still haven't found a way to weaponise it.
3. Old industry problems.
People familiar with nuclear plants are quite happy to live next to them. They provide jobs, make little noise or traffic (post construction), and are often parts of nature reserves.
Hmmmm. English is not my native language, but I guess the word Reading should be written in small letters in that sentence. And after the links, I feel like some commatas are missing. So maybe it's not me who should be reading more.
I care about the environment and human development. I just don't see why having nuclear plants are necessary to improve both.
Your English is great an nothing to be embarrassed about.
We should however both be embarrassed that Germany is currently getting 18GW of electricity from coal, whereas in this week of 2011 it was getting 17GW from nuclear.
The second part is absolutely correct: this country hasn't yet realized we need to discuss how to achieve carbon neutrality very soon. Since this country also opted out of nuclear energy, it is lying to itself if we get nuclear power from abroad. We opted out, so no nuclear power from here or anywhere else.
And it isn't doing enough about wind, solar, water power and reducing our energy usage. It is just going through the motions with respect to climate protection and Paris etc. I absolutely agree as a country we do a bad job, a bad job that directly impedes on my children's ability to live the life that I had and enjoyed.
That exactly why you need to do a little more research. I hope my fat fingers on my phone and autocorrect leaves you in a better position to comprehend the well intended suggestions and more help here for the new points you raise about what you don’t see.
I trust you are also going to campaign against solar power given the industry allegedly uses slave labour in China, and relies on massive state subsidies and dirty Chinese coal production?
(Personally I'm happy with my Chinese solar panels, and when the sun doesn't shine then I'm glad that my nearest power source is nuclear rather than coal).
Yeah sure. Wasn't that clear? I'm also really for high mortality rates for new-borns and, don't tell anyone, I run a secret circle where we drink children's blood to stay young. Was it really so easy to find out, or is it just you assuming WTF if anyone has a different take? I guess we'll never know.
Of course one could try to get oneself products not being built cheaply by forced labour or children labour. But why, if it's not your children, right?
Also, solar panels built with coal energy take much longer operational times until they really offer a CO2 advantage as compared to solar panels built with regenerative energy.
Hi Gregor. Maybe this is because English is not your first language, but the tone of your posts here are a bit aggressive and offensive. Which might explain the nature of the replies you are getting. I would be surprised if anybody posting here thinks nuclear fission is a good technology in the ideal world, but if the world is going to get to net zero by 2050 then we need lots more low carbon electricity in a system that works at night and when it’s not windy. I’ve not read about any realistic solutions for that which do not involve nuclear.
I think you are proposing the answer is lots of solar and wind, combined with less consumption to lower aggregate energy demand. You might win people round to your point of view if you can explain how that works in practice and can be implemented in 25 years.
I know, I know. Thing is I was reading quite alot about these topics and don't need someone else to tell me I should read about them at all. If people believe nuclear plants don't kill many persons or do not have any influence on their health, they should move close to them. For it appears people object quite alot to having nuclear plants being run or being built close to their homes, regardless of the statistics.
And Hannahs columns never tackle us saving energy or how to decouple consumption from energy usage, so I wonder why we can't even think about reducing our consumption.
* have implied I want to also argue against solar panels (while at the same time favoring forced labours abroad)
* have not made any good arguments about my points in my first reply.
Those points were:
* there is nuclear waste to handle, and there is no safe handling in sight
* nuclear plants cannot be secured from war or terrorism
* nuclear plant operators worldwide have a very long and bad history of lying, cover-ups and bad management
Which means nuclear plants are not the solution for our current predicament.
As for what I'd suggest:
* use solar and wind and water as much as possible where it is possible without hurting differently
* try to consume less as a society, for instance, by not driving to work every day (I walk, for instance) or flying onto a different continent thrice a year (maybe thrice a life?)
* maybe we should design products in a modular way, so we can just replace parts of them (which I'm working on in electronice industry)
* maybe we should also not try to eat ourselves to death, but only order and eat quite less
* maybe we should focus on re-use buildings instead of tearing them down and building new ones
1. The waste is safely stored now, and has never caused injury to anyone.
2. What is secure from war or terroristic attacks? Kim Jon Un’s toilet bunker? A fleet of drones with paint sprayers can take out whole fields of solar panels.
3. Germany has a long historical record of lying, cover-ups and bad management, resulting in constant problems.
Your Narratives about Germany especially Bavaria where i live is Black and White and absoluteley not True. I do not think you are really interessted in a real Debatte, you are dropping to much populistic and populism.
1. It is not. It cannot be safely stored for a 1000 years apparently. Radioactivity will leak out eventually.
2. Of course one cannot secure anything against war and terror. But if your solar panels get attacked, they won't blow up in a radio-active way. But a nuclear plant does.
3. That's really not the point. Call that country what you like, I agree on most of it. You see, I'm only proud about what I do, if at all, but never about my country. The point is, these cover-ups and lying happen everywhere, they are systematic.
Nuclear may be low-carbon, but carbon emissions are not the only consideration in building a sustainable future. When evaluating and promoting nuclear, are you taking into account the environmental and cultural impacts of extraction for the uranium and other materials needed for nuclear power? How would the Navajo Nation and other communities living on the front lines of extraction respond to your claims? I ask the same about the waste from nuclear power production. I'm not trying to be anti-nuke, but so many pro-nuke advocates ignore the impacts of extraction and disposal, focusing instead on nuclear's carbon-free emissions without looking at the full life cycle. Thank you!
Remove the Earth’s atmosphere or just the GHGs and Earth becomes much like Moon, no water vapor or clouds, no ice or snow, no oceans, no vegetation, no 30% albedo becoming a barren rock ball, hot^3 (400 K) on lit side, cold^3 (100 K) on dark. At our distance from the Sun space is hot (394 K) not cold (5 K). "
--> Bro what is wrong with you??? Lately a friend told me:
Somebody posted some BS on the Internet?? And maybe that was you???
The Other commentators are clearly not idiots but you spam them with your Climate Change Denier BS Content??? Lying by Omission and so on??? To much day spare time?
Sad to see this thread be full with the same dogmatic science denier anti-nuclear nonsense."
-->
Sorry, but anyone who simply stands up and claims in such a controversial topic as nuclear power, especially fission reactors, despite the fact that very nuanced arguments have been made about dependencies on fuel, dependencies on a few, etc., is just making themselves ridiculous and uncredible with empty phrases like science denial...
"People see the white smoke from a cooling tower and assume nuclear and coal plants are similar."
should be "People see what they think is white smoke - but is actually water vapor - from a cooling tower and assume nuclear and coal plants are similar."
Water vapor is indeed a significant greenhouse gas and plays a crucial role in Earth's climate system. However, its impact on climate change is a bit more nuanced than simply being a direct cause. According to NASA's Climate Change portal, water vapor acts as a feedback mechanism rather than a primary driver of current global warming. The increase in water vapor in the atmosphere does not directly cause global warming; instead, it amplifies the warming caused by other greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. As these gases increase Earth's temperature, this leads to more evaporation and a higher concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere, which then absorbs more heat and further warms the atmosphere, creating a positive feedback loop. This effect is estimated to more than double the warming that would occur from increasing carbon dioxide alone【36†source】.
The MIT Climate Portal explains that while water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas and responsible for about half of the greenhouse effect, it differs from other greenhouse gases like CO2 in its behavior in the atmosphere. Water vapor can condense and precipitate out of the atmosphere as rain or snow, which means it does not remain in the atmosphere long enough to have a lasting impact on climate in the same way as CO2. The rapid cycling of water through the atmosphere means that any additional water vapor from human activities does not accumulate in a way that significantly alters the climate. Instead, water vapor's role in climate change is more indirect, amplifying the warming effect of CO2 and other long-lasting greenhouse gases【37†source】.
In essence, while water vapor is indeed a potent greenhouse gas and plays a major role in the greenhouse effect, its contribution to climate change is primarily as an amplifier of warming initiated by other greenhouse gases. The critical issue remains the emission of long-lasting greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, which have a more direct and persistent impact on Earth's climate system.
I remember in the 1970s when the no-nukes movement moved from pouring blood on nuclear warhead (models) and after TMI decided that nuclear energy generation was also a good thing to stop. The simplistic hand-drawn posters at the university demonstrations I walked through always had curls of black Sharpie smoke coming out of the cooling towers (helpfully label with an atomic symbol, and rivers of green waste flowing out and dying stick figures). I decided then that they were so ignorant and blindly misguided that I changed my whole political outlook and decided to stay away from nonsensical anti-science and anti-data political groups, as well as communists, socialists, Democrats and Republicans, and especially now Trumpists and wokes.
No need to waste our time by discussing nuclear power. Please reed the Artikel from J. Haverkamp, greenpeace: Whatever nuclear power could theoretically deliver, it does too low, too late and against too high costs.Furthermore the risks of nuclear energy are high and are growing by older plants and by the climate change itself (flood, Lack of water).
A lot of confusion comes from over-use of the terms "renewable" and "clean". Many people use these as synonyms for "good". Others jump in and argue over whether or not they're actually good. Facts get drowned out by opinions.
If the goal is to inform rather than polarize, and if what we want to talk about is carbon emissions, then let's follow this article's lead and use language that's clear: "low-carbon" vs. "high-carbon".
Just looking at carbon isn’t always best. Look at how biomass (in UK mostly southeastern trees from the USA chopped into pellets and burned to make steam for power generation) is low carbon, when the CO2 released per unit of electricity is more than from coal, but is “natural” since the trees had previously extracted that carbon from the current atmosphere, as opposed to the atmosphere used millions of years ago for fossil fuels. This doesn’t account for the actual pollution, particulate matter and collecting, processing and shipping the biomass. It is pretty high carbon, but activists and nuclearphobes like it because it is natural.
The argument that focusing solely on carbon emissions to evaluate energy sources can be misleading is valid, especially in the context of biomass energy production. The assertion highlights a critical debate in the environmental and energy sectors, particularly concerning the use of biomass for power generation. Let's dissect and counter the points raised:
1. **Carbon Emissions of Biomass vs. Coal:**
While it's true that burning biomass releases CO2, the argument oversimplifies the carbon cycle involved in biomass energy. Biomass is considered a renewable energy source because the carbon it emits when burned is part of the current carbon cycle; the CO2 released was recently captured from the atmosphere by the growing plants. In contrast, burning fossil fuels releases carbon that has been locked away for millions of years, adding to the current atmospheric CO2 levels and directly contributing to climate change.
2. **"Natural" CO2 Emissions:**
The distinction between "natural" CO2 from biomass and CO2 from fossil fuels is misleading when discussing climate impacts. Regardless of the source, CO2 emissions contribute to the greenhouse effect and global warming. However, the argument fails to acknowledge that the sustainability of biomass as an energy source depends on the balance between the CO2 released when biomass is burned and the CO2 absorbed by new growth. If biomass is harvested sustainably—meaning the rate of harvest does not exceed the rate of regrowth—it can be part of a balanced carbon cycle.
3. **Environmental Impact Beyond Carbon:**
The claim correctly points out that evaluating biomass energy solely on carbon emissions is insufficient. The environmental impact of biomass energy also includes factors like biodiversity loss, deforestation, and the energy costs of processing and transporting biomass. These aspects can significantly diminish the environmental benefits of biomass if not carefully managed.
4. **Pollution and Particulate Matter:**
Burning biomass does produce pollution and particulate matter, similar to fossil fuels, which can have serious health and environmental impacts. This point underscores the importance of considering a comprehensive range of environmental and health impacts when evaluating energy sources, rather than focusing narrowly on their "natural" status or carbon neutrality.
5. **Mischaracterization of Support for Biomass:**
The assertion that biomass is supported solely because it is "natural" and by "activists and nuclearphobes" is an oversimplification. Support for biomass often comes from its potential as a renewable energy source that, if managed sustainably, could help transition away from fossil fuels. However, the critique that biomass is not a panacea for climate change is valid; its role in a sustainable energy future depends on careful consideration of its full environmental impact and lifecycle carbon emissions.
In conclusion, while biomass energy has the potential to be part of a low-carbon energy future, its sustainability and environmental impact are complex and must be evaluated holistically. It is critical to consider the entire lifecycle of energy sources, including CO2 emissions, environmental degradation, and pollution, rather than simplifying the debate to natural versus unnatural sources. The argument against biomass on the grounds of its carbon and environmental impact is a reminder of the need for a nuanced approach to energy policy and climate change mitigation strategies.
As you can see on this thread, people would rather let climate change be worse than necessary than give up their anti-nuke religion. I understand - it is the reverse of Fox News: if you've only ever been exposed to your tribe's dogma, you can't rationally consider cost/benefits.
But it is way worse. https://www.mattball.org/2022/10/environmentalists-are-literally-making.html
Matt, I think there are two very separate questions:
1. Does it make sense to close nuclear reactors half way through their operating life. Obviously No. Unless the Safety Inspectors say so. Existing nuclear is extremely cheap, safe, low carbon, etc. It is also funding waste disposal. Germany discovered that the fund for dealing with nuclear waste was only half full. Duh! I wonder why.
2. Should we be building new nuclear. That is a harder question. The best answer is probably that of the markets: "No, not at the price of EPRs and AP1000s in Europe and the USA". A lot of hope is being invested in SMRs, but I'm not sure that they will help. There are just too many engineering issues (=costs) in dealing with high temperature, high pressure water. But then I'm a fan of Molten Salt Reactors (chemically inert, low pressure), so maybe biased against PWRs.
Canada OPG has selected the BWRX-300 for the first SMR scheduled to be completed in North America, https://www.cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca/eng/resources/status-of-new-nuclear-projects/darlington/
The U.K. has down selected to six SMR companies for the next phase of their competition, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/six-companies-through-to-next-stage-of-nuclear-technology-competition and https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/six-different-smr-designs-taken-forward-by-great-british-nuclear-02-10-2023/ .
You are right. But I think that as long as there are coal plants (especially new ones being built) we should be working to bring more nuclear onto the grid.
I'm generally a fan of of markets, but they won't get rid of coal as quickly as we should.
Take care.
You won´t get nuclear fast enoug onto the grid... look at china....
https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/the-new-denial-is-delay-at-the-breakthrough
https://counterhate.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/CCDH-The-New-Climate-Denial_FINAL.pdf
https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/wnisr2023-v4-hr.pdf
It is all Propaganda(Well Paid we know) due to miss Oresces, but only Propaganda:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-08404-9
-- Coordination Patterns in Astroturfing
https://marianamazzucato.com/books/the-big-con/
https://histsci.fas.harvard.edu/people/naomi-oreskes
Hannah herself:
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-construction-time
And if we care about human thriving, we need to be going all-in on everything:
https://www.mattball.org/2024/01/energy-abundance-is-most-important.html
Matt Ball, you could not be more wrong. No one is "letting" climate change be worse than necessary. Fact check yourself. Georgia's Plant Vogtle is the only nuke plant under construction in the U.S. It's been 15 years and still not done. Just in the past year solar installed 33,000 megawatts. And Vogtle's cost? $35 billion for 2234 megawatts, whenever it gets done that is. And guess what? Georgia is the 2nd highest CO2 emitter in the U.S. and will continue to be with Plant Vogtle's tiny generation added.
You think this country can add 2200 MW of "clean" nuclear energy for $35 billion every 15 years and address climate change? That's just nuts. No tribe, no religion, just lived experience in Georgia. And don't tell me what other countries can do. They nationalize their nuclear construction and the U.S. would never do that.
But sure, go ahead and call people out for having "anti-nuke religion". Me thinks you doth protest too much because everything you say of others is actually true of you.
Patty, you can check my entry on Wikipedia if you think I'm some stooge (including my engineering background and time as a DOE Fellow).
I understand the instinct to say, "I know you are, but what am I?" But that isn't really an argument.
The fact remains that every day we go w/o pursuing nuclear (along with other carbon-free power) is a day climate change gets worse than it needs to be, as shown at the link in my original comment.
I'm sorry you can't engage in how to make things better and just resort to name-calling.
You Try to Trick and Fool the Readers here!
https://euvsdisinfo.eu/years-of-war/
The 33 gigawatts of installed solar capacity only works when the sun is shining, so cut that capacity in half and add in the cost of batteries and/or natural gas peaking plants and it’s not as cheap as advocates claim. Part of the anti-nuclear religion is the ridiculously overbearing regulations, like the ones that made the Vogtle plant construction crew tear out $1B of reinforced concrete because some rebars were off by a few inches. And all that reinforced concrete is to prevent damage if a jumbo jet crashes into the plant because terrorists might do it to make a cheap dirty bomb, but this requirement isn’t there for the CDC in nearby Atlanta which has smallpox and other deadly pandemic possible biological agents on site, nor to actual nerve gas storage sites or nuclear weapons stored at military bases. It’s very easy to make things expensive with regulations, see how soon land approvals would take for the 2.3 gigawatts of solar (plus non-existent batteries) in Georgia that Vogtle is making unnecessary .
Oh and I guess from your comments that you don't realize that Vogtle isn't making anything unnecessary: last October GA Power has asked for 6600 MW of dirty fossil fuel and gas energy to be added to their portfolio. 2nd round of hearings tomorrow. What to know what the U.S. Department of Defense thinks of their request? Here you go: https://www.ajc.com/news/business/regulators-sound-skeptical-of-georgia-powers-fossil-fuel-request/FPML25IEJFBOJPWIRWAIUGERKE/.
It makes me sad how uninformed nuke boosters like you are, and how inappropriately confident.
That's not how the grid works Buzen. You don't cut anything in half. But don't listen to me. Listen to energy expert Chris Nelder's podcast The Energy Transition and his guest Hannah Richie (the same!) on this excerpt about how to think about renewables on the grid. https://youtu.be/jO6DR0mEfbE. And listen to energy expert David Robert's podcast Volts and his guest Jan Pepper on this excerpt about a 24x7 grid with renewables: https://youtu.be/z-0VvmwBJ5s. Each excerpt is about 2-3 minutes.
Let's say you are right about the rebar and the inches (so unreasonable! so overbearing!) You realize $1B is only 1/35 of $35B right? That's 2.875% of the cost. I repeat to you what I said to Matt Ball: You think this country can add 2200 MW of "clean" nuclear energy for $35 billion every 15 years and address climate change? We cannot. Nuclear energy is a ridiculous distraction and waste of time. But don't listen to me. Listen to Stephanie Cooke: https://www.energyintel.com/0000018d-7a5e-d1ef-a5cd-fe7e077c0000
Actually, cut that capacity six fold to compare with nuclear.
And you know what, it's still cheap. Solar capacity is ridiculously cheap. With the help of some subsidies (thank you) Chinese firms are virtually giving it away (€120/KWp). That leaves us with two challenges:
1. How/where to deploy it. (The PV I put on my roof last month cost 15 times the module price).
2. How to deal with intermittency. The main problem there is winter/summer intermittency, which is especially a north European problem.
Thanks, Buzen. Seems like we should be friends. :-)
https://www.mattball.org/search?q=nuclear
People who accuse others of dogmatism or ideology in the critical evaluation of nuclear power, in my experience, often have a hidden agenda, work for the nuclear lobby, or have invested their money in the wrong technology. And here I am speaking of fission reactors; nuclear fusion, although it also produces radioactive waste, may be judged differently (ionization of the walls due to neutron bombardment).
The point is that nuclear power has always contributed only a fraction to energy generation, and this will never change. This is confirmed by all experts, and even in the IPCC report, the topic is only a marginal note, accounting for 1-5% in the power grid.
You find it in the IPCC: Page 38
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf
Numbers: CO2-Emissionen [g/kWh] 2 – 288 Page 5 --> Meta Analysis
https://wua-wien.at/images/stories/publikationen/studie-energiebilanz-nuklearindustrie-kurzfassung.pdf
Hi Flo,
Everything contributes "only a fraction to energy generation."
As per my original link, you can see that what is happening in the real world is that more coal is being burned. Simple facts.
You can check my entry on Wikipedia if you think I don't know what the IPCC says (including my engineering background and time as a DOE Fellow), if you would rather know the truth instead of just saying "hidden agenda!"
Just because someone describes themselves as an engineer or something else on the internet does not make it an argument, but at most a rhetorical trick, an appeal to authority.
Sureley there is a small Backlash Thank you Putin the small ignorant Minizar.
But:
Anyone who can only relate to the here and now and completely ignores the past and the future probably knows the book 1984 by Orwell very well, but I can't make anything of it.
--> The Phase out has already started, look at the new Report from the IEA.... and i bet, every year again, they will have to recalculate their Numbers
https://www.iea.org/news/the-energy-world-is-set-to-change-significantly-by-2030-based-on-today-s-policy-settings-alone
Anyone who obviously manipulates, tries to take things out of context, and subtly lies has a hidden agenda, and attempting to use the word now against me as a linguistic weapon doesn't help either.
Truth in the field of nuclear energy is by design excluded, due to critical infrastructure, military, etc.
The question whether nuclear energy is low carbon or not is totally misleading. If it were low carbon this does not mean that it is good or that there is good reason to have it:
Nuclear energy is much more expensive than renewable energy. Hinkly point will get some 13 cents plus inflation per kwh for the next 40 years. Renewables cost half and their price will go down further.
Nuclear energy does not pay for sufficient insurance. Fukushima - as are all nuclear plants in the world - was insured for less than 2 billion dollar. The damage was - and still is - more than 500 billion dollar. It is the state and the general public who finally pais for the damage.
Nuclear energy is endangering peace in the world by making proliferation possible. Without nuclear energy Iran , North Korea and many other states who now have would not have the technology to build nuclear bombs.
After 60 years of nuclear energy we still have not developed safe disposal for nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is the most dangerous waste ever produced by mankind.
Nuclear energy needs cooling with the water of nearby rivers. In France every summer many nuclear plants have to be shut down because there is not enough cooling water. Energy then needs to be imported.
Nuclear plants make societies prone to acts of terrorism. Imagine the attack to the World Trade Center had been made to a nuclear plant.
etc., etc. … I could go on and on with arguments that make it totally useless to question the carbon footprint of nuclear.
Thank you very much, you saved me time! Nuclear is according to IPCC necessarey and economically reasonable in an Range 1-5% of the Energy in the Grid... --> so Germany and its Energy Companies are exactly right with their Phase Out.
I do not understand why every where on social Media Nuclear Propaganda is so overwhelming.
- As far as i Know Nuclear and its Numbers of Death are absoluteley not reliable
https://wolff-roland.dgusv.de/
- The Problem with Nuclear Waste is absoluteley not solved, with SMR Reaktors we would have more high Radioactive waste
https://thebulletin.org/2023/12/nuclear-expert-mycle-schneide r-on-the-cop28-pledge-to-triple-nuclear-energy-production-trumpism-enters-energy-policy/
-- > Now i do not trust Hannah Ritchie nor Our World in Data anymore.
This is context Switching or Lying by Omission
The Problem is much higher and not only the Emissions by a Nuclear Power Plant, and the power Plants today emit lots of Vaporized Water also a Problem...
I
Right now, Germany is getting 18GW of electricity from coal (and another 12GW from gas)
Since 2011, it has retired 20GW of nuclear capacity. That capacity could now be providing 18GW of power.
That would mean that 18GW of coal capacity could be mothballed and right now, Germany would be getting about 0 from coal.
Anyone can see that Germany made a catastrophic mistake exiting nuclear.
This is once again taking things out of context!
a) Maintenance on the German nuclear power plants was not carried out! The costs for all the necessary upgrades would have been immense! No one wanted to pay for it – neither the Government nor Preussenelektra and Eon much less so!
b) The German nuclear power plants were not capable of load following, or only to a very rudimentary extent, which means they no longer fit with the renewable power generation of >52% in 2023.
Deep Dive? -->
https://www.tab-beim-bundestag.de/news-2017-05-05-lastfolgefahigkeit-deutscher-kernkraftwerke.php
c) Despite the shutdown of German nuclear power plants, Germany's coal consumption is like that of 1959, according to Prof. Dr. Bruno Burger, Fraunhofer ISE.
Here is the document!
https://www.energy-charts.info/downloads/Stromerzeugung_2023.pdf
Page 26, The Summary of Coal (Stone and Brown)
d) The German energy industry has been thinking European for a long time, and it was significantly cheaper to buy electricity from renewables from Norway, Denmark, Austria, and of course, nuclear power from France, Belgium, Sweden.
Here is it completley Explained the European View:
https://youtu.be/UVf2Yw7uFoE?si=Ula7_F06aU-Y-2iq
But this is again a straw man argument because oil and gas, and also uranium, must also be purchased by Germany!
Uranium world market 70%! is in the hands of Putin and his friends, even in Canada and India, Australia, and Niger, he is already causing trouble again, the Minister Putin!
https://www.rosalux.de/fileadmin/rls_uploads/pdfs/sonst_publikationen/20220503_Uranatlas_Faktenblatt_Russland.pdf
I am not sure if you try to manipulate the debate or if you are Really Interesting in facts and Context.
We say in Germany:
""Trust no statistic that you haven't falsified yourself.""
Renewables cost never include the cost of storage, land prices (they use many orders of magnitude more land than equivalent nuclear) or transmission lines. Solar is cheap because it is made using slave labor and coal power in China.
The damage paid out for Fukushima was 12,000 billion yen or about $110billion and included tsunami related costs. Much of the cleanup was to remove soil which was “contaminated” with radiation levels (less than 1 mSv/year) lower than naturally occurring levels in areas in Brazil and India which are more than 10 times higher. This was not a health threat and money was spent removing it because of irrational fear of radiation which you also seem to exhibit. No one does from radiation at that accident.
Iran and North Korea do not get the uranium they need for nuclear power generation plants but uranium refineries which as you may recall from the aluminum centrifuge tubes and hacking sabotage in Iran are not even reactors.
All thermal reactors not just nuclear emit warm water, which is also found naturally. Environmentalists shutting down nuclear to save some fish by importing dirty coal energy from Germany are misguided.
There has never been a terrorists incident at a nuclear plant, maybe jumbo jets and airports make us prone to terror.
You neglected to complain about waste, but nuclear waste is safely stored on-site now and in a few hundred years will be safe enough to touch, but not eat or inhale, so somewhat safer than coal ash waste.
I don't mean to embarrass you, but unfortunately, you are wrong even here, as the following study shows:
And i have many more calculations; Scientific Calculations, not driven by Nuclear Lobbyists, nor renewable Energy Lobbyists.
Response to ‘Burden of proof: A comprehensive review of the feasibility of 100% renewable-electricity systems’
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032118303307
I don't see how wanting people to better understand the facts can be misleading. There are costs and there are benefits to everything. You have to understand both in order to make the right decision, including if that decision is that nuclear is not worth the risk.
Also, your use of the subjunctive “if it were low carbon” implies that you do not actually believe that nuclear is low carbon. I would use the phrase “Even though it is low carbon” instead.
For anyone planning to read the comments on this piece, my advice is Stop Now. It's just angry people shouting from their trenches
Why do you lie? we post Facts, Studies and we use Arguments.
A good read thanks.
Underlining it well with:
“ As I’ve said many times before: it shouldn’t be renewables versus nuclear; it should be low-carbon versus fossil fuels. Nuclear is firmly in the former camp. We need to find a way of communicating this to the public.”
Let’s all work to understand the reality of engineering and scientific innovation as the route to helping the triple bottom line of People, Planet and shared Prosperity.
The debate around the role of nuclear energy, whether fusion or fission, in combating climate change is complex and marked by contrasting opinions. The statement highlighted underscores that the discussion should not be framed as renewables versus nuclear; rather, it should focus on low-carbon versus fossil fuels, with nuclear energy clearly belonging to the former category. This approach seeks to depolarize the debate and focus on the shared goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Let's delve into the concerns and perspectives raised:
### Risks of Nuclear Energy
- **Radioactive Waste:** The disposal of highly radioactive waste is one of the significant challenges of nuclear energy use. Ensuring safe storage over millennia requires robust technological solutions and careful site selection.
- **Accident Risks:** Disasters like Chernobyl or Fukushima or Three Mile Island, or the other >100 Accidents have highlighted the potential risks of nuclear fission.
While modern safety technologies can minimize the risk of accidents, it can never be entirely eliminated.
### Potentials of Nuclear Energy
- **Low-Carbon Energy Source:** Nuclear energy is among the few technologies capable of producing large amounts of baseload electricity without emitting CO2, making it a crucial component in climate change discussions.
- **Scientific and Technical Innovations:** Advances in reactor technology, including the development of Generation IV reactors and research into nuclear fusion, promise higher safety standards and more efficient fuel use. These innovations could address some of the traditional concerns about nuclear energy.
### The Need for a Comprehensive View
The argument that the choice should not be between renewables and nuclear but a unified front against fossil fuels is an important contribution to the debate. Every energy source has its advantages and disadvantages, and a diversified energy mix might be the most effective way to achieve decarbonization goals without compromising supply security.
The challenge lies in clearly communicating to the public the complexities and trade-offs associated with different energy sources. This includes an open discussion about the risks, costs, and environmental impacts of each technology. Emphasizing the importance of scientific and technical innovations is key to minimizing risks and maximizing the sustainability and efficiency of energy production.
### Conclusion
The debate should be less polarized and more fact-based, aiming to create an energy landscape that supports both the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the assurance of reliable, safe, and economical energy supply. Nuclear energy, both fusion and fission, carries risks that must be carefully managed, but it also offers potentials that should not be ignored in the fight against climate change. Recognizing that each energy source is part of a larger puzzle can help find common ground and make progress towards the goals of People, Planet, and shared Prosperity.
Germany will due to its limited Landmass and dense Population be against Nuclear Fission.
and sorry what is wrong with you?
do you see yourself ?? while watching in a mirror or is it empty???
you old bad white man think you are the one person you think you are gallilei? and then writing BS on the Internet?
Aha????
Sorry but I do not believe you! The information after surfing through every filter bubble, speak against you! Fusion maybe yes but like always a few years
away like Helion e.g. Fission nope!
1. There is radioactive waste that no one knows where to put.
2. As we can see in Ukraine, it's impossible to secure a nuclear plant from war or terroristic attacks.
3. The companies who run nuclear plants have a long historical record of lying, cover-ups, and bad management, resulting in constant problems.
Since it looks like you could live with these problems, why don't you move and live right next to a nuclear plant? Because it seems nuclear plants are similar to airports - everyone wants one, but no one wants it right around their house (better to build them right around someone else's house).
Since we are so unsuccessful in decoupling energy usage from overall consumption, and since energy usage is emitting CO2 (and since we use regenerative energy, our usage of fossil energy has grown), we need to maybe think about lowering consumption. What's so difficult to understand about this?
1. Everybody knows where to put radioactive waste. In the ground, buried for 500 years.
There is a separate issue of where to put spent fuel, which is sometimes mixed with the waste. The anti-nuclear groups would rather it were buried with the waste, meaning it needs to be kept buried for thousands of years. A better alternative would be to reprocess it and consume it in fast spectrum reactors, making more low carbon energy in the process.
2. Terrorists have been running this plant for almost 2 years now and still haven't found a way to weaponise it.
3. Old industry problems.
People familiar with nuclear plants are quite happy to live next to them. They provide jobs, make little noise or traffic (post construction), and are often parts of nature reserves.
1. There's no truely safe place in sight.
2. Hmmmm. We'll see.
3. Who cares, if old or new. The record is there.
So, put up your name and go and live there.
Do a little reading please:
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
https://open.substack.com/pub/zionlights/p/everything-i-believed-about-waste-was-wrong
If you care about the environment and human
development, you will I’m sure look again with new eyes.
Hmmmm. English is not my native language, but I guess the word Reading should be written in small letters in that sentence. And after the links, I feel like some commatas are missing. So maybe it's not me who should be reading more.
I care about the environment and human development. I just don't see why having nuclear plants are necessary to improve both.
Your English is great an nothing to be embarrassed about.
We should however both be embarrassed that Germany is currently getting 18GW of electricity from coal, whereas in this week of 2011 it was getting 17GW from nuclear.
The second part is absolutely correct: this country hasn't yet realized we need to discuss how to achieve carbon neutrality very soon. Since this country also opted out of nuclear energy, it is lying to itself if we get nuclear power from abroad. We opted out, so no nuclear power from here or anywhere else.
And it isn't doing enough about wind, solar, water power and reducing our energy usage. It is just going through the motions with respect to climate protection and Paris etc. I absolutely agree as a country we do a bad job, a bad job that directly impedes on my children's ability to live the life that I had and enjoyed.
That exactly why you need to do a little more research. I hope my fat fingers on my phone and autocorrect leaves you in a better position to comprehend the well intended suggestions and more help here for the new points you raise about what you don’t see.
https://bigthink.com/progress/pessimism-is-a-barrier-to-progress/
https://hannahritchie.com/
Ps I’m not sure about your “commatas”?? I suspect we both share fat fingers on phones.
https://thebulletin.org/2023/12/nuclear-expert-mycle-schneider-on-the-cop28-pledge-to-triple-nuclear-energy-production-trumpism-enters-energy-policy/
https://wolff-roland.dgusv.de/
--> Do you Think we are all Stupid People?
Hmmmm. Let's see for commata. Why not use this page ➜ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/comma
Commata is a plural for comma.
I trust you are also going to campaign against solar power given the industry allegedly uses slave labour in China, and relies on massive state subsidies and dirty Chinese coal production?
(Personally I'm happy with my Chinese solar panels, and when the sun doesn't shine then I'm glad that my nearest power source is nuclear rather than coal).
Yeah sure. Wasn't that clear? I'm also really for high mortality rates for new-borns and, don't tell anyone, I run a secret circle where we drink children's blood to stay young. Was it really so easy to find out, or is it just you assuming WTF if anyone has a different take? I guess we'll never know.
Of course one could try to get oneself products not being built cheaply by forced labour or children labour. But why, if it's not your children, right?
Also, solar panels built with coal energy take much longer operational times until they really offer a CO2 advantage as compared to solar panels built with regenerative energy.
Hi Gregor. Maybe this is because English is not your first language, but the tone of your posts here are a bit aggressive and offensive. Which might explain the nature of the replies you are getting. I would be surprised if anybody posting here thinks nuclear fission is a good technology in the ideal world, but if the world is going to get to net zero by 2050 then we need lots more low carbon electricity in a system that works at night and when it’s not windy. I’ve not read about any realistic solutions for that which do not involve nuclear.
I think you are proposing the answer is lots of solar and wind, combined with less consumption to lower aggregate energy demand. You might win people round to your point of view if you can explain how that works in practice and can be implemented in 25 years.
I know, I know. Thing is I was reading quite alot about these topics and don't need someone else to tell me I should read about them at all. If people believe nuclear plants don't kill many persons or do not have any influence on their health, they should move close to them. For it appears people object quite alot to having nuclear plants being run or being built close to their homes, regardless of the statistics.
And Hannahs columns never tackle us saving energy or how to decouple consumption from energy usage, so I wonder why we can't even think about reducing our consumption.
I want to point out that people in this thread:
* have called me out for using commata as a plural for comma (s. here ➜ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/comma)
* have implied I want to also argue against solar panels (while at the same time favoring forced labours abroad)
* have not made any good arguments about my points in my first reply.
Those points were:
* there is nuclear waste to handle, and there is no safe handling in sight
* nuclear plants cannot be secured from war or terrorism
* nuclear plant operators worldwide have a very long and bad history of lying, cover-ups and bad management
Which means nuclear plants are not the solution for our current predicament.
As for what I'd suggest:
* use solar and wind and water as much as possible where it is possible without hurting differently
* try to consume less as a society, for instance, by not driving to work every day (I walk, for instance) or flying onto a different continent thrice a year (maybe thrice a life?)
* maybe we should design products in a modular way, so we can just replace parts of them (which I'm working on in electronice industry)
* maybe we should also not try to eat ourselves to death, but only order and eat quite less
* maybe we should focus on re-use buildings instead of tearing them down and building new ones
* etc.
1. The waste is safely stored now, and has never caused injury to anyone.
2. What is secure from war or terroristic attacks? Kim Jon Un’s toilet bunker? A fleet of drones with paint sprayers can take out whole fields of solar panels.
3. Germany has a long historical record of lying, cover-ups and bad management, resulting in constant problems.
I am from Germany and in Germany we all now about the Russian/Chinese/US Propaganda with Misinformation.
Take a Look:
https://euvsdisinfo.eu/
Your Narratives about Germany especially Bavaria where i live is Black and White and absoluteley not True. I do not think you are really interessted in a real Debatte, you are dropping to much populistic and populism.
1. It is not. It cannot be safely stored for a 1000 years apparently. Radioactivity will leak out eventually.
2. Of course one cannot secure anything against war and terror. But if your solar panels get attacked, they won't blow up in a radio-active way. But a nuclear plant does.
3. That's really not the point. Call that country what you like, I agree on most of it. You see, I'm only proud about what I do, if at all, but never about my country. The point is, these cover-ups and lying happen everywhere, they are systematic.
Nuclear may be low-carbon, but carbon emissions are not the only consideration in building a sustainable future. When evaluating and promoting nuclear, are you taking into account the environmental and cultural impacts of extraction for the uranium and other materials needed for nuclear power? How would the Navajo Nation and other communities living on the front lines of extraction respond to your claims? I ask the same about the waste from nuclear power production. I'm not trying to be anti-nuke, but so many pro-nuke advocates ignore the impacts of extraction and disposal, focusing instead on nuclear's carbon-free emissions without looking at the full life cycle. Thank you!
perfect reply! and pro nuclear and centralized energy which can only be operated by specialists builds the same dependencies like in the past
decentealiced renewables creates more democracy and independence!
Dr. Hermann Scheer, solar world economy!
"
Remove the Earth’s atmosphere or just the GHGs and Earth becomes much like Moon, no water vapor or clouds, no ice or snow, no oceans, no vegetation, no 30% albedo becoming a barren rock ball, hot^3 (400 K) on lit side, cold^3 (100 K) on dark. At our distance from the Sun space is hot (394 K) not cold (5 K). "
--> Bro what is wrong with you??? Lately a friend told me:
Somebody posted some BS on the Internet?? And maybe that was you???
The Other commentators are clearly not idiots but you spam them with your Climate Change Denier BS Content??? Lying by Omission and so on??? To much day spare time?
"Benji Semi coherent ramblings
Sad to see this thread be full with the same dogmatic science denier anti-nuclear nonsense."
-->
Sorry, but anyone who simply stands up and claims in such a controversial topic as nuclear power, especially fission reactors, despite the fact that very nuanced arguments have been made about dependencies on fuel, dependencies on a few, etc., is just making themselves ridiculous and uncredible with empty phrases like science denial...
Disingenuous bullshit it’s truly not appreciated.
I think it has something to do with nuclear waste and nuclear accidents, with people associating these with pollution, and therefore CO2 emissions.
"People see the white smoke from a cooling tower and assume nuclear and coal plants are similar."
should be "People see what they think is white smoke - but is actually water vapor - from a cooling tower and assume nuclear and coal plants are similar."
Water vapor is indeed a significant greenhouse gas and plays a crucial role in Earth's climate system. However, its impact on climate change is a bit more nuanced than simply being a direct cause. According to NASA's Climate Change portal, water vapor acts as a feedback mechanism rather than a primary driver of current global warming. The increase in water vapor in the atmosphere does not directly cause global warming; instead, it amplifies the warming caused by other greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. As these gases increase Earth's temperature, this leads to more evaporation and a higher concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere, which then absorbs more heat and further warms the atmosphere, creating a positive feedback loop. This effect is estimated to more than double the warming that would occur from increasing carbon dioxide alone【36†source】.
The MIT Climate Portal explains that while water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas and responsible for about half of the greenhouse effect, it differs from other greenhouse gases like CO2 in its behavior in the atmosphere. Water vapor can condense and precipitate out of the atmosphere as rain or snow, which means it does not remain in the atmosphere long enough to have a lasting impact on climate in the same way as CO2. The rapid cycling of water through the atmosphere means that any additional water vapor from human activities does not accumulate in a way that significantly alters the climate. Instead, water vapor's role in climate change is more indirect, amplifying the warming effect of CO2 and other long-lasting greenhouse gases【37†source】.
In essence, while water vapor is indeed a potent greenhouse gas and plays a major role in the greenhouse effect, its contribution to climate change is primarily as an amplifier of warming initiated by other greenhouse gases. The critical issue remains the emission of long-lasting greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, which have a more direct and persistent impact on Earth's climate system.
Thank you. Glad this glaring error has been pointed out.
I remember in the 1970s when the no-nukes movement moved from pouring blood on nuclear warhead (models) and after TMI decided that nuclear energy generation was also a good thing to stop. The simplistic hand-drawn posters at the university demonstrations I walked through always had curls of black Sharpie smoke coming out of the cooling towers (helpfully label with an atomic symbol, and rivers of green waste flowing out and dying stick figures). I decided then that they were so ignorant and blindly misguided that I changed my whole political outlook and decided to stay away from nonsensical anti-science and anti-data political groups, as well as communists, socialists, Democrats and Republicans, and especially now Trumpists and wokes.
it is great when Accounts like yours use words as Weapons:
"nonsensical anti-science and anti-data political group"
We did the Numbers... we did a whole bunch of studies.... and i would accuse you of being anti science and political....
--> Trumpism enters this debatte.
https://thebulletin.org/2023/12/nuclear-expert-mycle-schneider-on-the-cop28-pledge-to-triple-nuclear-energy-production-trumpism-enters-energy-policy/
No need to waste our time by discussing nuclear power. Please reed the Artikel from J. Haverkamp, greenpeace: Whatever nuclear power could theoretically deliver, it does too low, too late and against too high costs.Furthermore the risks of nuclear energy are high and are growing by older plants and by the climate change itself (flood, Lack of water).
"The secret of change is to focus all of your energy not on fighting the old, but on building the new." – Socrates
Good article!
A lot of confusion comes from over-use of the terms "renewable" and "clean". Many people use these as synonyms for "good". Others jump in and argue over whether or not they're actually good. Facts get drowned out by opinions.
If the goal is to inform rather than polarize, and if what we want to talk about is carbon emissions, then let's follow this article's lead and use language that's clear: "low-carbon" vs. "high-carbon".
Just looking at carbon isn’t always best. Look at how biomass (in UK mostly southeastern trees from the USA chopped into pellets and burned to make steam for power generation) is low carbon, when the CO2 released per unit of electricity is more than from coal, but is “natural” since the trees had previously extracted that carbon from the current atmosphere, as opposed to the atmosphere used millions of years ago for fossil fuels. This doesn’t account for the actual pollution, particulate matter and collecting, processing and shipping the biomass. It is pretty high carbon, but activists and nuclearphobes like it because it is natural.
The argument that focusing solely on carbon emissions to evaluate energy sources can be misleading is valid, especially in the context of biomass energy production. The assertion highlights a critical debate in the environmental and energy sectors, particularly concerning the use of biomass for power generation. Let's dissect and counter the points raised:
1. **Carbon Emissions of Biomass vs. Coal:**
While it's true that burning biomass releases CO2, the argument oversimplifies the carbon cycle involved in biomass energy. Biomass is considered a renewable energy source because the carbon it emits when burned is part of the current carbon cycle; the CO2 released was recently captured from the atmosphere by the growing plants. In contrast, burning fossil fuels releases carbon that has been locked away for millions of years, adding to the current atmospheric CO2 levels and directly contributing to climate change.
2. **"Natural" CO2 Emissions:**
The distinction between "natural" CO2 from biomass and CO2 from fossil fuels is misleading when discussing climate impacts. Regardless of the source, CO2 emissions contribute to the greenhouse effect and global warming. However, the argument fails to acknowledge that the sustainability of biomass as an energy source depends on the balance between the CO2 released when biomass is burned and the CO2 absorbed by new growth. If biomass is harvested sustainably—meaning the rate of harvest does not exceed the rate of regrowth—it can be part of a balanced carbon cycle.
3. **Environmental Impact Beyond Carbon:**
The claim correctly points out that evaluating biomass energy solely on carbon emissions is insufficient. The environmental impact of biomass energy also includes factors like biodiversity loss, deforestation, and the energy costs of processing and transporting biomass. These aspects can significantly diminish the environmental benefits of biomass if not carefully managed.
4. **Pollution and Particulate Matter:**
Burning biomass does produce pollution and particulate matter, similar to fossil fuels, which can have serious health and environmental impacts. This point underscores the importance of considering a comprehensive range of environmental and health impacts when evaluating energy sources, rather than focusing narrowly on their "natural" status or carbon neutrality.
5. **Mischaracterization of Support for Biomass:**
The assertion that biomass is supported solely because it is "natural" and by "activists and nuclearphobes" is an oversimplification. Support for biomass often comes from its potential as a renewable energy source that, if managed sustainably, could help transition away from fossil fuels. However, the critique that biomass is not a panacea for climate change is valid; its role in a sustainable energy future depends on careful consideration of its full environmental impact and lifecycle carbon emissions.
In conclusion, while biomass energy has the potential to be part of a low-carbon energy future, its sustainability and environmental impact are complex and must be evaluated holistically. It is critical to consider the entire lifecycle of energy sources, including CO2 emissions, environmental degradation, and pollution, rather than simplifying the debate to natural versus unnatural sources. The argument against biomass on the grounds of its carbon and environmental impact is a reminder of the need for a nuanced approach to energy policy and climate change mitigation strategies.
Absolute Propaganda Shitshow here!
I show you for what we made the Internet!
Send stupid little funny Videos around and not this PR shit!
Today it is only marketing shitshow and a money and time consuming
shithole!
I am out here you Doom&Gloom Loverboys!
Take this!
https://youtu.be/N7itFdNE2Qw?si=xcOUSZ5StXpWjqcP
:-)