this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

Europe

8488 readers
1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe πŸ‡ͺπŸ‡Ί

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, πŸ‡©πŸ‡ͺ ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] hh93@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

I wonder how long until all those people always glorifying atomic energie come here...

Usually this community is full of them even in threads only talking about renewables.

This is one of the main problems with atomic energy that we haven't got any idea how to solve - Germany got pretty much all of their uranium from Russia - France from an unstable country like Niger - it's just not something you can extract easily in countries that care about their citizens so it'll always come from a shitty place.

I wonder how the Venn diagram looks between those people that defend atomic everywhere and the people telling you all about how bad electric cars are because of their batteries...

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

This is one of the main problems with atomic energy that we haven’t got any idea how to use

Doesn't this apply to almost any form of power generation? Fossil fuels and raw materials for nuclear fuels are often imported from undemocratic or unstable countries. As are many of the raw materials required for renewable power generation and storage.

Using this as an argument againt nuclear power is as intellectually dishonest as the people using it as an argument against electric cars.

[–] blau@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Or people citing rain forest balsa wood in wind turbine blades as their greatest concern while being totally fine with lignite coal.

[–] Claidheamh@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I wonder how long until all those people always glorifying atomic energie come here...

You mean the realists who want to eliminate carbon emissions with more than wishful thinking? Or the people trying to educate against decades of the oil and gas corporations' anti-nuclear propaganda and fearmongering?

[–] Lotec4@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah yes nuclear energy only takes 20 years to build a new reactor. Ah the most expensive form of energy generation let's invest in that.

[–] Claidheamh@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Ah yes, much better to keep building new coal or gas plants instead. "Fuck the planet, we're trying to save a dime."

[–] Lotec4@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Good strawman where did I say build coal or gas instead? How are you saving the planet when 1 reactor takes 20 years?

[–] Claidheamh@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because that's what's happening. Countries are building and reopening fossil fuel plants.

In 20 years that reactor can make up for thousands of tons a year of CO2. That's the same argument people have been using for 60 years, and here we are now. That it takes time is no excuse not to start.

[–] Lotec4@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Which country? Country's are investing in renewables you know the energy source that's cheaper and quicker to deploy than nuclear.

Nuclear is bad for your grid it's not flexible. Look at Germany since they stopped using nuclear they where able to use way more solar and wind which previously had to be turned off because nuclear is not flexible.

[–] AbsolutelyNotABot@feddit.it 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

it's just not something you can extract easily in countries that care about their citizens so it'll always come from a shitty place

First two countries for known reserves are Australia and Canada, together they hold around 40% of all the uranium reserves of the planet. Uranium could also be extracted from seawater, obviously at a much higher price.

It's just that it's easier to extract it where exploitation rights for land is cheap. But that's unfortunately also true for many materials we need for renewables

[–] hh93@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah but even though we're using the cheapest Uranium possible atomic power is STILL much more expensive than renewables - I wonder how insane the prices would be if you only took Uranium from good sources.

Also those costs almost never include the cost of securing the waste for thousands of years since you can't just leave the waste laying around out of fear of dirty bombs.

Sure it looks decent in a vacuum but with all the factors playing into it from Uranium being a limited resource that costs a lot to the waste-management it's just much more expensive than just spending the money you'd need to buy one plant on renewables and energy-storages that are also ready to go a lot faster...

[–] uint8_t@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

the price of atomic energy is like 10% coupled to the price of uranium. the equipment, the salaries, the security measures, all those things are so much more expensive compared to the fuel.

people rarely grasp what 4 magnitudes of energy density increase mean.

[–] hh93@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

yeah but how much more is Uranium if it's mined in Canada compared to the one from Niger or Russia?

sure it's not the main cost-driver but it's not irrelevant either.

Also: an installed solar-panel is very cheap in maintenance - and most of the running costs of are heavily influenced by inflation, too It just doesn't make sense to push for building more atomic reactors - keeping the ones already there running IS making sense but building new ones that may start producing energy in 10 years AND are massively expensive is just not a reasonable investment

[–] uint8_t@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

solar alone is never going to cover your needs. the moment you add the cost of battery storage, nuclear is definitely cheaper. yes, even new construction. for now. when the cost of batteries go down to 1/10th of what it's today, this might change of course.

[–] geissi@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Usually this community is full of them even in threads only talking about renewables.

I think you have to mention Germany and energy in the title to summon them.

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

The question is more like: "How dependent is France on uranium which is a finite resource?"

"The demand for uranium continues to increase, but the supply is not keeping up. Current uranium reserves are expected to be depleted by the end of the century, and new sources of uranium are hard to find. As a result, uranium prices have been steadily rising, with some estimates predicting a doubling of prices by 2030. This is causing a global uranium squeeze, where the demand for the resource is outstripping the supply."

France: Let's build more nuclear plants, also do not invest into renewable energy, also since we are used to wars for oil, why not having wars for uranium in the future too?

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

Well, "By the end of the century" is almost 80 years away, that is significantly longer than any normal nuclear power plant lasts.

Also it is very difficult to know which exact price someone pays for uranium because they normal dont buy on the spot market, but via long lasting contracts.

So from my point of view we don't have sufficient information for a proper estimation of the situation.

[–] taladar@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

The end of the century at current rates of use which means about 77 years. At just 10% increased use annually that would double roughly every 7 years which means it won't last nearly that long.