this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2023
166 points (95.6% liked)
Green - An environmentalist community
5310 readers
3 users here now
This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!
RULES:
1- Remember the human
2- Link posts should come from a reputable source
3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith
Related communities:
- /c/collapse
- /c/antreefa
- /c/gardening
- /c/eco_socialism@lemmygrad.ml
- /c/biology
- /c/criseciv
- /c/eco
- /c/environment@beehaw.org
- SLRPNK
Unofficial Chat rooms:
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
@Claidheamh @ndsvw
It depends on the renewables. Wind and photovoltaics have stability issues. Hydro and geothermal are more stable. Nuclear is compact and high power but has huge waste disposal issues.
The waste disposal is a solvable issue, that is still less nefarious than fossil fuel emissions. If you set the goal to replace ALL fossil fuel power generation, then nuclear is a necessary component of a renewable energy based grid. Geothermal and hydro are great and necessary, but can't provide a reliable base load for the entire grid. Nuclear plants are complemental to renewables, not competition.
What's the problem with how the waste is managed right now?
Strangely enough it hasn't been solved in the almost 70 years of nuclear energy. And I doubt it will be solved in the next 70 years either.
I think that depends on the definition of "solved".
In Finland, the Onkalo repository is being steadily built out (honestly, there might already be waste stored there, I haven't checked in on that story in a while. I know there was some delay due to COVID).
In the United States, there's been a lot of the usual politicking about where to build something that doesn't exactly sound appealing to have in one's backyard. Nobody wants to be the senator who allowed the government to build a nuclear waste site in their state, no matter how safe the site actually is.
This has led to the unfortunate situation where by law, the EPA is only allowed to consider a site in Nevada (because the other sites were in states represented by the Speaker of the House and President pro Tempore of the Senate), but because Nevada became an important state for Obama to become president, the site couldn't/wouldn't actually be built there and has been on hold pretty much ever since. My armchair understanding is that the Nevada site is probably one of the better places in the United States that you could store nuclear waste, but politics has ensured it will not be put there for a long, long time.
What do you mean hasn't been solved? Nuclear waste is being processed and stored constantly and with high safety. Not to mention reprocessing which could be done if not for being outlawed.
The only permanent storage for high level waste is currently being built in Finland, if I'm not mistaken. Germany thought they had found one, but they have to retrieve all waste because of leaks. Back to square one.
All we have up to now is temporary surface storage.
The pyramids weren't buried 1km under the surface in flowing salt which will further engulf the waste for geologic time scales.
Also we didn't forget about the pyramids. What does that even mean? People have lived right next to them since they were built.
Yes there are archaeological sites which have been forgotten and rediscovered.
Nothing you're saying is a strong argument about self sealing deep storage waste burial sites. I don't think you realize just how little waste nuclear reactors produce, they're not pyramids, they're a few barrels across years.
What do you prefer? A power plant where all the hazardous material it generates you throw out into the atmosphere, or one where you can capture all of it into a container and prevent it from going out into the environment?
Neither. I don't buy the assumption that they are necessary. Renewables plus storage are very well capable of reliable supply.
Edit: https://www.diw.de/de/diw_01.c.821878.de/publikationen/wochenberichte/2021_29_1/100_prozent_erneuerbare_energien_fuer_deutschland__koordinierte_ausbauplanung_notwendig.html (in German, published by the German Institute for Economic Research, an institution as unsuspicious of being "too green" as it gets)
Don't get me wrong, they are capable of a much larger percentage of supply than they currently provide, but to handle the predictable periods of peak demand on the grid, it would be incredibly inefficient to rely only on renewables plus storage. It's not the most environmentally friendly solution for that.
Do you have an english translation for the link in the edit btw?
Being too green is not the problem. The problem is not being green enough...
@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.
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".
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well no, because coal is deep deposits of carbon which have essentially left the carbon cycle. By digging it up and burning it we are adding carbon back which otherwise wasn't already an issue. Biofuels by definition rely on the carbon currently in the carbon cycle so they do not have this issue.
Sure, but the carbon in coal was captured from the atmosphere by plants previously (that's what I meant by "by that measure"). Let's just leave the carbon where it is, whether coal or plants, and not burn any more of it back into the atmosphere, please.
I'm saying they are fundamentally different and it is 100% true in theory that biofuel is carbon neutral. The plants scrub co2 from the atmosphere, then release that biomass out. It is physically not capable of releasing more than it scrubs except for conversion of co2 to higher co2 equivalent GHG.
Coal and oil are talking carbon from reserves which are currently not causing GHG effects and moving that carbon out to the atmosphere.
What's the difference for the greenhouse effect between burning dead reserves or living reserves?
The dead reserves, coal and oil, are NOT currently greenhouse gases (GHG). They have no effect on global warming, they are essentially inert.
Growing and burning living reserves takes currently active GHG, literally they use carbon from the air to grow their biomass (I.e. leaves, stems, everything). That ghg is temporarily stored in the plants, then equally released into the atmosphere from exactly where it came from.
The carbon can't be created or destroyed in either process from nothing, it's coming from somewhere. When burning the fuel that carbon is released to the atmosphere in the form of co2 and other products. Fossil fuels, from inert carbon repositories that haven't been in the atmosphere for many millions, hundreds of millions, of years. For biofuel, it's carbon that may have been in the atmosphere at most like... A year ago. As soon as yesterday.
Does that help clear things up? I was intentionally repetitive in case one method was more effective than the other.
I know all that, but I don't think you're understanding the point I'm making. Grow all those plants, and leave the carbon there. It's a much better use of our resources than burning it all again straight after. Let them become coal. And then continue not burning it.