97
Rolls-Royce gets Poland's backing to build its nuclear power plants
(www.euronews.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 May 2024
97 points (96.2% liked)
Europe
8324 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
They will need like 25 years for construction while not building any wind or solar farms
Nuclear energy is not clean. Less CO2 intensive, maybe, but definitely not clean. It might be good in the short term but the long term looks grim regarding nuclear waste, among other issues.
That is my point.
Yes and you didn't bring up that oil is not clean either?
What? No. I was merely putting in perspective that nuclear energy is not a magic thing that will solve everything.
It's not magic, but it has advantages that are hard to beat in terms of resource usage. Renewables also have advantages, but you can't handwave away their own problems and limitations anymore than you can do so for nuclear energy.
Yah but we can manage Nuclear waste. We can’t manage runaway climate change. CO2 is the enemy.
Really? How?
Unless it's a reprocessing plant, the waste is not managed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository
But the important part is that we can not manage CO2, the existential threat.
Still mad that the visitor centre was closed when I stayed basically nextdoor to it.
Will the Polish waste be stored there? If not, it's not managed.
Yes, we can. It called renaturalization. Has countless other benefits.
That’s the model. Poland and other countries can build similar projects. Are you being intentionally obtuse?
They don't. Therefore it's not managed.
Your need to lash out with personal attacks shows that you know that your argument holds no water.
My argument is that we CAN manage nuclear waste. That facility shows that we CAN. Poland CAN build such a facility. Ergo we CAN.
More importantly we CANNOT manage CO2.
I asked if you were being intentionally obtuse because you tried to reframe my argument as we ARE managing nuclear waste in all places properly. Everyone knows we are not. But the good news is that we can.
Nobody has ever successfully managed nuclear waste for 100,000 years. All you CAN do is make baseless claims and lash out with insults.
your argument boils down “Humanity has not managed nuclear waste for for 100.000 years. Therefore humanity can not manage nuclear waste for for 100.000 years“
If you feel in your heart of hearts that this is your strongest argument so be it.
I don’t feel this is a strong argument at all. I believe humanity can use the Finnish model and will do well. Hell we built tombs that have remained intact for over 2000 years. Those were built with Bronze Age technology. With modern technology I believe we can do even better.
This all being said the larger issue is that we CANNOT manage CO2. CO2 is the existential threat we must face.
As for insults I don’t want you to feel insulted. I believe people who read this thread will see that I was not insulting in any way.
A) Baseless claim.
B) Alternative to fossil enegery is regnerative, not nuclear power where the entire feasibility study of locking away waste is "trust me bro".
I would argue that the alternative to fossil fuels is “both and”.
We should use both renewable, nuclear, and other approaches as we develop them. We need to keep an open mind here. Climate change is a major threat.
You keep on acting like there is no way to manage nuclear waste. Is building out a real and complete storage facility with 100.000 year management plan “trust me bro” in your mind? Because I see it as more than that.
The Finnish model exists and is well regarded. You can’t just pretend it does not exist.
You argue a lot of things, as long as nuclear waste comes out as totally fine.
Well regarded by nuclear fans, of course. Nobody is denying that. Totally unproven to work because nobody tried it, yet. That thing's construction isn't even finished. Check back in 100000 years until making further claims. I'll revoke my misgivings once it's proven to work. Until then don't pile up new waste.
CO2 is not an existential threat, corporations and financial entities are because what we call polution, they call it life.
Yes CO2 is the existential threat. Even in socialist countries CO2 is produced.
Economic systems and forms of production do not make energy sources clean. Socialist and capitalist countries both ought to and must fight against CO2 production.
Socialist countries? Of course definitions vary, so which ones are you referring to?
Also neo-libs don't want any state interference on business, unless it involves bailing them out with tones of money. So which capitalist country will do otherwise with so much lobbying going on?
Whatever ones exist now or have ever existed as defined by you.
Your answer is a conversation stopper and I will respect that.
I respect your position. But for clarity, the reason I offered you such a choice is to offer you the best opportunity to present a strong case.
We hide it under the carpet and future generations will deal with it. This strategy has worked superbly for climate change.
The US produces less than half the volume of an Olympic-sized swimming pool of nuclear waste per year in total, so it's not exactly hard to manage. Wind and even solar take up a lot more space than nuclear for the same energy, even if we were to consider decades worth of nuclear waste storage. Nuclear power production has about 130x higher density than wind, and needs 34x less space than solar PV.
And that's considering that the US doesn't even use their used nuclear fuel efficiently like, say, France. 96% of French nuclear fuel is recycled by them, while the US doesn't really recycle their nuclear fuel. Thanks to free market capitalism fuel recycling never got commercialized in the US, so the over of century of usable fuel we have in recyclable nuclear fuel is just wasted. It's cheaper to just buy new fuel rather than recycle, so of course companies don't recycle. American problems I guess.
If space were a big issue than nuclear would still win by a long shot even over the long-term. There's very little of it produced, it doesn't take up much space to properly and safely store for tens to hundreds of thousands of years, and the power production is extremely reliable so you don't need miles upon miles of giant batteries to store excess power just in case.
Storing and monitoring that waste for 100'000 years is too expensive, even if we manage to do it.
Nuclear power is simply not cost-effective.
I am very well aware of the state of nuclear waste in France, and it's not 96% recycled. This is absolutely laughable.
I should say up to 90-96%. It depends on the methods and the type of fuel you use. Currently widely used nuclear technology is more like 30-50% recyclable. That number is able to be increased by using more recyclable fuel technology, which is available.
French nuclear waste in total is 0.0018 km³ (three olympic swimming pools) after 8 decades of using nuclear and primarily using nuclear for 4 decades, so I'm not so sure how you imply that the "state of nuclear waste" is bad. Even with the "inefficient" ways of using/recycling nuclear, there's not a lot of waste produced in the first place.
Only ~10% of French waste is actually long-lived too, meaning after a few decades to 3 centuries, 90% of it will no longer have abnormal radioactivity. Meaning the radioactiveness of the waste just goes away on its own after a moderately short period of time and it basically just turns into a big rock.
Right, and I am up to 90% made of Mars dust.
0.0018 km3 is an enormous volume for something so dangerous. And that doesn't taken into account the waste created during extraction and transformation of nuclear fuel. Map of nuclear waste storage here https://reporterre.net/CARTE-EXCLUSIVE-Les-dechets-radioactifs-s-entassent-partout-en-France
And recycling is an abusive terminology for nuclear waste, since reusing waste creates again nuclear waste, waiting for "valorisation ultérieure" i.e. stored.
See source in Frenc https://inventaire.andra.fr/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/fr/andra_essentiels_2021_in_web.pdf
Considering that modern reactors seem to require well over a decade to be built, not really "short term", and certainly "too late" for any sort of climate related purpose of emission curbing.