this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2023
35 points (97.3% liked)

World News

38979 readers
3025 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
quinten@lemmy.world
NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
lemmyAtom@lemmy.world
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world
35
Sweden adopts ‘100% fossil-free’ energy target, easing way for nuclear (www.euractiv.com)
submitted 1 year ago by botlt_test@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 332@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think this is on balance good, but the swedish context makes it a bit problematic in some aspects.

The right has essentially weaponized some sort of perfect utopian image of nuclear that makes it the answer to all questions on climate policy. The unstated gist of it is this: "Since we're doing nuclear, we don't need to take any other actions to mitigate climate change". This allows them to take populist positions on carbon taxation and other "green" reforms that cause more harm than their push for more nuclear mitigates.

So yeah, as I said, this in itself is good, but watch out for the results on non-nuclear environmental policy.

[–] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Nuclear Power has always been the answer but it requires strict adherence to regulations. It helps that spent fuel is recyclable and can be used over and over for decades. Only in the United States is it not recycled due to 70s Era regulations.

Spent nuclear fuel can be recycled to make new fuel and byproducts. More than 90% of its potential energy still remains in the fuel, even after five years of operation in a reactor. The United States does not currently recycle spent nuclear fuel but foreign countries, such as France, do. There are also some advanced reactor designs in development  that could consume or run on spent nuclear fuel in the future.

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel

[–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nuclear and renewables together is where it is at. Anything less means more gas burned.

[–] FiendishFork@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It is unfortunate how deep anti nuclear sentiment goes with many people. Modern and future reactors are so different from old designs

[–] iridaniotter@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Even the old designs aren't that bad all things considered. Even including all exclusion zones, nuclear probably still uses the least amount of land per TWh per year...

Note on data:

spoilerBased on real-world data, except for CSP which uses expected data of existing sites. Only electricity production and not direct use of biofuels. Dedicated biomass includes only woody biomass from willow, poplar, and spruce trees. Residue biomass refers to using a coal plant to burn extant biomass, requiring no feedstock land use but using more space than coal plants because biomass is less efficient. American nuclear power plants use more space than most countries because of less reactors per plant. Factors in nuclear exclusion zones (area divided by total historical power generation) even though partially inhabited. Includes fuel production as "indirect land use", part of "total land use". Excludes run-of-the-river hydroelectric projects. "Spacing" includes space in between wind turbines and fossil gas well pads even if empty of any infrastructure. Excludes land needed to mine materials or other upstream land use, land needed for energy transmission, and offshore area impacts and underground impacts.

[–] CookieJarObserver@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Sweden has so much potential for actually clean energy... Nuclear is not good.

[–] iridaniotter@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Build nuclear reactors and people complain about waste. Build solar panels and people complain about the destruction of local habitats. Build wind turbines and people complain about the view. Build hydroelectric dams and people complain about the river ecosystem.

[–] IamtheMorgz@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Serious question, what options do they have? I don't know enough about Sweden to comment.

[–] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nuclear is the cleanest energy available on the planet. The fuel lasts for decades and is 90% recyclable. Heat up water, make steam, spin turbines. That's it. Then you recycle the rods and do it again. Only 10% of the energy can't be used after decades of producing power.

[–] LordR@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah, I see, you want the nuclear wastes in your appartment/house because it is so clean. We finally found a place for it.

Nuclear is nowhere near clean. And its waste stays radioactive for milennias. Renewable energy sources are way cleaner.

[–] chaogomu@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Here's a little science lesson for you, the longer something is radioactive, the less dangerous it is. Danger is expressed as dose over time. If that time is hundreds of thousands, or millions of years, the dose per second will be miniscule.

Also, if all the nuclear waste ever produced was gathered into one location, it would all fit on a standard football pitch. That's how efficient this stuff is.

And then you ask what do we do with this waste? Well, 90% of it can go right back into a reactor, a lot of the remaining 10% can be used in various industries, including medicine.

The rest? Just bury it and forget about it, by the time any theoretical future civilization digs it up, it will have decayed into a stable form.

The final little note, most of the anti-nuclear talking points were invented by the fossil fuel industry. Some of the talking points go back to the 1950s

[–] LordR@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

The final little note, most of the anti-nuclear talking points were invented by the fossil fuel industry. Some of the talking points go back to the 1950s

So instead of (rightly) not believing the fossil fuel industry you link to a website created by a guy working on nuclear reactors? This is exactly the same: big companies want everyone to build centralized big plants instead of local productionthat actually helps home owners and the regular people.

Nuclear waste is a huge problem as many countries simply don't find a place to burry the stuff. You don't need a lot of nuclear material to cause consequences that will last for centuries.

Nuclear Power Plants also might be safe under normal circumstances but they are not safe in case of human stupidity, wars and earthquakes/tsunamis.

Compared to something like solar or wind nuclear is just stupid. It is unsafe, only big corporations profit of it, has huge risks, is centralized and therefore a risk factor, way to expensive and simply a bad idea. It also takes decades to build Nuclear Powerplants.

So if you have some, let them keep running if you must but don't build new ones, invest into safe sources of energy instead.

[–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Grid-scale energy storage is not yet practical. When the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, do you want to burn gas or nuclear. Those are the choices.

Though, I suppose you could also go the German route, close your nuclear plants and then be forced to reopen coal plants due to power shortages.

[–] S4nvers@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

I think that‘s great and hope my country will clear the way to build more nuclear power plants too

Sure, the radioactive waste is not great, but renewable energy sources are too unstable to provide the baseline of power consumption

Nuclear could provide that base power. Renewable sources in combination with pumped-storage hydroelectric facilities (or other ways to store power) would then be able to cover the fluctuations in demand

Eventually we hopefully figure out how to generate power using fusion, but for now I don‘t think we have other good options