[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/24/cars/eu-combustion-engine...
In general, I think there's a relatively healthy balance, albeit, with a fair bit of animosity between the sides.
The thing about "outdated technologies" is - they work. It's really easy to see in the software world, where I will choose a battle-tested technology any day, over the new flashy thing that everybody's buzzing about that is in theory or with many iterations will be great. So why would other industries be different? Surely there will be a drag from people whose wealth depends on the technology/approach being used, but that's just how it works. If I put a lot of effort into developing a thing, I will defend the thing as much as I can, and it's the job of the newcomers to push me over with big enough arguments.
Nuclear plants were shutdown by the conservatives. They decided this in 2011, when Fukushima happened, and executed it over the following decade while they were simultaneous derailing the switch to EV. A notable part here was that just months before Fukushima, they had already stopped the shutdown that previously was decided on.
Only the remaining three(?) plants were shutdown by the acting administration, because there was nothing to continue anyway. The previous administration had to renew the technical checks and order new nuclear rods for the plants to continue, which they obviously did not.
Overall, the whole act was a big clusterfuck of competing interests, but this wasn't the progressives fault, because they never had the power to fail this in the first place.
> In general, I think there's a relatively healthy balance, albeit, with a fair bit of animosity between the sides.
There is no healthy balance when you make up nonsensical lies to sabotage an ongoing process, which is even for the benefit of your own country.
And the BS about a "disaster" never happened. There were no blackouts, and even the prices went down. All the problems of the money driven fearmongers never manifested, yet they continue to spread lies about the greens doing harm and the all so great (money wasting) atomic plants...
And neither is the EV charging infrastructure already there to support the same use cases. And since there's no sign we'll be there in 10 years, then a lot of voters will be pissed that they'll be priced out of car ownership when the future they were promised didn't pan out.
I'm already betting the deadline will be extended past 2035 as we get closer to it.
So no, I don’t think range is a huge issue, and fast charging infra is a lot better in EU than US in my experience.
Price though - it’s a tall order to expect everyone to buy EVs when the low cost options are so much higher than the low cost gasoline options. I can see how that would make politicians nervous
100%. Honestly, I hope that we use this opportunity to improve public transit in Europe a lot more than it already is done.
Both:
1. Better bike lanes, everywhere, well maintained throughout seasons with good government subsidies on ebikes.
2. Public transit density and focus on lowering wait on connections. Basically, look at what Switzerland has done and try to copy it.
And I hope for all wars and world famine to end and all employers to let me WFH so I won't need a car and to raise my salary by at least inflation every year. The thing is we rarely get what we wish for, and in the EU countries I've been it's not really improving at the rate needed for people to give up on cars. The reality is the public transportation infra develops much slower than the demand shifts on the ground, hence why cars will always be with us.
The challenge, certainly in the UK, is that only half the population has the potential to charge their car "off-street" and the roll out of on street charging is slow and the costs mean it could cost more than conventional car - which given it's also more expensive makes it a challenge to justify.
Alas, I believe the poor in rentals will just end up with shitty rent seeking app-driven spyware chargers.
For a lot of people yeah. The cars isn't just for trips to work and the supermarket (which sometimes can be done by foot, public transport or bicycle), but that same car is used for vacation trips in summer and winter with the whole family.
You can call it an edge case, but edge cases matter to car owners if they can only afford one car per household. Also, a lot of people in the EU work in one country but have family in another and commute by care quite often. Charging speed and infra density isn't there to suport these cases.
Right, and the charging network isn't _that_ bad, is it? Like, I've now done 4 cross country trips in the US (PA <-> FL <-> WA) in both summer, and winter. With the pre-heat-pump-for-heating Tesla Model 3. I basically had to charge one to two times a day, for about 20-30 minutes each time. This was genuinely a good way to force me to stop and take a break too.
I don't really consider these cars a limitation for long distance trips either?
And most don't have (and can't afford) Teslas here. Maybe in Norway and Switzerland, but not all Europe is like that.
A lot of non-supercharger infra here is non-existent or slow charging meaning long distance trips are gonna be much longer and less predictable, hence why those who rent cars for long distance trips never rent EVs.
>and the charging network isn't _that_ bad, is it?
You've never interacted with non-supercharger chargers have you? Like broken ones with issues, or crap payment systems that don't work. It's the kind of things giving people major anxiety.
And EVs are marketed more towards the high end because mostly rich Europeans have a single family home with a charger at home where the EVs slot in. Most ICE car owners don't have chargers at home or in the vicinity meaning mostly the rich can quickly dump their ICES and replace them with an EV without loosing UX.
EU car manufacturers are just following the local market/demographics. Cheap EVs exist here, like the Dacia spring, but that's kinda crap and the charring infra issue still remains.
It's easier for a country where this doesn't matter as much to pass such legislation.
Like renewable energy? 1st quarter 2024: 58,4% electricity from renewable energy. Up from 48.5% last year.
Up until 2011 or so Germany was a leader in solar and wind power equipment production. Then they cut off subsidies and it took AN ENTIRE DECADE to get back where they were, in terms of adding additional capacity, by which point China absolutely towered over everyone else.
Europe has also missed the battery production train.
Oil and gas are considered geostrategic priorities and almost every country tried to secure its supply. Solar and wind power equipment production as well as battery production, for some reason, were treated as second class citizens in a world where they will replace oil and gas for 80% of uses.
And now they're back: https://www.cardino.de/en/blog-posts/subsidy-for-electric-ca...
'In Germany, the government has introduced various incentives to accelerate this shift. Among these are substantial subsidies for electric cars, which have been updated for 2023 and will be updated again for 2024. This article provides a detailed overview of these subsidies, their application process, and eligibility criteria.'
"Germany begs for electricity from Sweden – while simultaneously blocking nuclear power"
https://www.tn.se/naringsliv/37243/tyskland-tigger-el-fran-s...
What Sweden do not have is hydro capacity to also power nearby countries while maintaining low prices and energy independence. From a national perspective, the natural resources that is hydro power would results in lower energy prices in Sweden if they did not share the market prices of the European grid (Multiple energy experts has voiced this in the last few years of energy debates).
However, Sweden has agreements to allow free trade of energy as part of the EU membership. Many of the stakes holder in the hydro power is also non-state owned, which means they are legally allowed to export the energy at the highest bid even if that results in higher costs for Swedish citizens. In theory the government could issue tariffs to recover some of the value from the natural resources that is hydro power, but that would lead to rather severe geo political consequences. Denmark is for example one of the largest importer of Swedish energy, and energy tariffs would basically target the Swedish-Danish relationship in a rather major negative way.
I guess it's fine that they want to import but don't block nuclear in Sweden then.
Take this chart [0] from wikipedia [1]. Doesn't look too amazing. Now, being a gross exporter, the numbers are obviously skewed, but I didn't really mean EVs or electrical production specifically. German bureaucracy famously still runs on fax and emails are printed, there are lots of small-ish villages to small cities with _really_ bad internet connection among other things. It's a big country where politicians seem to be really afraid of change. It's not that the country is stuck in the 70s, but some things just take more time to arrive in Germany, or at least in parts of it.
[0]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/8v6gc06xa... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_Europe...
When doing my taxes, I've asked if I could send some required documents of my deceased father via email, and the lady _didn't even know if she had an external facing email address_. I was just to send it to info@, tell them to print it and put it on her desk. She also didn't have a direct phone line, so I had to call the central office first and ask them to connect me to her.
My mom runs a small business there and luckily she's got fax-to-email and email-to-fax. Just because younger people use other means of communication now doesn't mean it's a myth. It's very much there, and other means very much aren't.
One can so easily set-up a company without it so. 90% of what you read about companies and how to run and set them up im Germany on HN is wrong.
Fortunately, these times are over, and the company has celebrated the long overdue abolition of the fax machine ;-)
I was flying back from munich to hamburg last week, with a passenger jet, which is produced in my hometown, with internet in the plane - not a fax.
https://www.computerworld.com/article/1626950/the-fax-is-sti...
> Like renewable energy? 1st quarter 2024: 58,4% electricity from renewable energy. Up from 48.5% last year.
Generation, not consumption* (but still great!!)
There's a lot of spin about renewables but overall this is a failed energy policy.
Renewable energy is hugely increasing world wide.
But for Germany the priorities were other than decarbonization.
If they could just scale renewable energy then they would issue such plans, but they can't. There is no end-date for fossil fueled power plants, and plans for new ones are being built right now with operational times lasting long after 2035. German even pushed through a EU deceleration of making natural gas "green" in order to be able to continue invest and build more natural gas powered power plants. Germany is Europe's largest advocate for renewable power and natural gas with clear intention to continue supporting both for a very long time.
Scaling renewable energy is an open problem: it has never been done. It's easy to say that "renewables doubled last year" when they go from "marginal" to "still marginal". Renewable energy is intermittent, and that is completely unsolved between seasons.
That's not true. For example Japan has Plutonium for several thousand nuclear weapons, where the Plutonium comes from reprocessing of fuel of Nuclear Power Plants.
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2018-10/features/japans-misg...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency
Take Iran, which was hiding their nuclear weapons program behind a nuclear energy program. -> "Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful,[58] and had then enriched uranium to less than 5 percent, consistent with fuel for a civilian nuclear power plant."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran
> It's easy to say that "renewables doubled last year" when they go from "marginal" to "still marginal"
60% electricity from renewable for Germany is far from marginal.
With this logic, the Raspberry Pi foundation is involved in producing F35 fighter jets, because there is electronics in the F35.
> Take Iran, which was hiding their nuclear weapons program behind a nuclear energy program
As you say, there was a "weapons program" hidden there. It's not like a power plant reactor gives you the weapon technology magically.
> 60% electricity from renewable for Germany
All year? What happens when there is no wind and no sun?
> is far from marginal.
Electricity accounts for like 20% of the energy. So it's 60% of 20% = 12% and that's when there is wind and sun.
You should be able to see for yourself that your argumentation is nonsense.
For Japan the accusation is that the Government by purpose produced this stockpile of Plutonium, also by creating a certain nuclear industry, to be in a position to create nuclear weapons, if they see it necessary. That's a political decision and the nuclear industry around nuclear powerplants is an enabler, created by the government via its energy and defense policies.
> It's not like a power plant reactor gives you the weapon technology magically.
They designed it.
Remember, you claimed that there is no connection. I reality, government set up nuclear industry such that it supports their weapon programs.
> All year? What happens when there is no wind and no sun?
You can find out. There is enough information about this topic.
A renewable energy landscape is more than just "wind & sun". An electricity grid is also more than a nuclear fleet in France, which for weeks&months had poor availability.
"In France, state-controlled EDF's nuclear output dropped by 30% in 2022, to 279 TWh, as more than half of its 56 reactors were taken offline for repairs which had been delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic"
I think the same about yours. Any country can pretend to do research in nuclear energy and secretly work on nuclear weapons. Or just secretly do it. It's not like they need to make energy for that.
> You can find out. There is enough information about this topic.
It was a rhetorical question. I know Germany relies on fossil fuel to compensate and imports when needed (e.g. from France...). You can see it real time, there are interactive maps.
> A renewable energy landscape is more than just "wind & sun".
How do you compensate the intermittent production of wind and sun with renewables, then? And if you have another renewable that compensates entirely, why don't you just do that instead of wind and sun?
I don't understand the criticism of nuclear power. A pandemic broke out, and with it, there was a shortage of labor to allow for the scheduled maintenance of the reactors.
What fault does nuclear power have in this? If solar panels are not consistently maintained and cleaned, their production also decreases.
Anyway, I would like to point out that France is currently the largest exporter of electricity in the world. I wonder why, considering that according to your view, nuclear power creates so many problems. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/net-electricity-imports
> "unsolved problems"
Do you mean the intermittency of renewables?
> they have/use mostly government run industries.
I don't think in French nuclear is mostly used for gov industries. So I dont understand this point.
It's amusing how your arguments against nuclear are purely ideological and filled with intellectual dishonesty.
I don't understand your connection between nuclear weapons and nuclear energy.
It is OWNED by the French state. The French government rescued its nuclear industry from bankruptcy.
> It's amusing how your arguments against nuclear are purely ideological and filled with intellectual dishonesty.
Personal attacks don't support your point of view.
I'm out.
Okok, your statement wasn't clear to me. Sure, it's definitely true what you say, but what exactly is your point? What are you trying to prove or say with "French nuclear is mostly used for gov industries"?
The nuclear industry in these countries is mostly owned and fullydirected by the government: electricity providers and companies selling&building nuclear powerplants.
Nuclear power is especially strong when central governments direct & pay for the the industry, which is far from a free market. China: authoritarian dictatorship with centrally planned economy. France: government owned. Japan: government directed, TEPCO rescued by the government.
Nuclear: big government. Centralized. State-owned monopolies.
Renewable energy: lots of energy producers, strong local ownership, distributed industry, distributed grid, markets for energy, ...
Firstly, the notion that the nuclear industry is predominantly government-owned and directed is somewhat outdated. While it's true that historically, many countries relied on state-run entities for nuclear power, the landscape is changing. Countries like the United States have a mix of private and public involvement in their nuclear sectors, with significant contributions from private companies.
Secondly, the argument that renewable energy operates within a "free market" is misleading. Renewable energy industries, especially solar and wind, receive substantial government subsidies globally. In 2021 alone, global renewable energy subsidies exceeded $120 billion, highlighting that renewables are not thriving purely on market dynamics. Moreover, the renewable sector is heavily influenced by government policies, incentives, and international competition, particularly from countries like China, which dominates the solar panel market through state-supported enterprises.
The claim that renewables foster "local ownership" and "distributed industry" oversimplifies the reality. While small-scale renewable projects do exist, the production of critical components, such as solar panels and wind turbines, is concentrated in the hands of a few major players, often backed by significant government support. This centralization can lead to market distortions and dependencies, similar to those seen in the nuclear sector.
Lastly, suggesting that support for nuclear power equates to endorsing "big government" overlooks the complexity of energy policy. Effective energy infrastructure, whether nuclear or renewable, requires substantial investment and regulation to ensure safety, reliability, and sustainability. Both sectors depend on a combination of public and private investment and face significant challenges that require coordinated efforts beyond simplistic free-market solutions.
In summary, both nuclear and renewable energy sectors involve significant government intervention and investment. The debate should focus on how best to balance these investments to achieve a sustainable and reliable energy future, rather than framing it as a binary choice between free markets and government control.
https://www.statista.com/chart/24687/solar-panel-global-mark...
https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2023/08/china-leads-race-bot...
"the U.S. Government will move into markets currently dominated by Russian and Chinese State Owned Enterprises (SOE) and recover our position as the world leader in exporting best-in-class nuclear energy technology, and with it, strong non-proliferation standards"
Russia and China have state owned enterprises. Now the US government will move into their markets...
"The U.S. has ceded its leadership position to countries with state-owned-enterprises, including Russia and China,"
The US government is the actor who is directing the US industry.
> The claim that renewables foster "local ownership" and "distributed industry" oversimplifies the reality.
The topic was that "we", Germany, don't want this. We want to strengthen local ownership of energy production. There are a lot of examples here. Nuclear power plants are so far large (large plants are more cost effective) and based on large monopolies (granted or even owned by the government).
Example: Before the movement towards renewable energy, the grid and the electricity production was owned by only four large companies each occupying a region in Germany.
The electricity grid was then taken away from them and opened to many players. Now (basically) everyone has the right to be a producer and to feed electricity into the grid. Now we have a large landscape of energy producers, with the goal to establish this across the EU.
Nuclear power plants (owned by very few companies in protected markets) are dinosaurs in the effort to create dynamic energy markets.
Nuclear power demands long-term contracts and guaranteed prices for huge monopolistic players. See for example the new nuclear power plants in the UK...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_...
"EDF has negotiated a guaranteed fixed price – a "strike price" – for electricity from Hinkley Point C under a government sanctioned Contract for difference (CfD)."
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/france-seeks-more-uk...
"PARIS, Jan 25 (Reuters) - France wants the British government to contribute more money to two new nuclear plants its state-owned energy utility EDF was contracted to build in the UK, given delays and spiralling costs, three people familiar with the matter told Reuters."
A state-owned French company builds for the British government a nuclear power plant.
We are not talking about a distorted "free market". There is no market at all, it's all government controlled: building and financing.
Your position is very transparent; it’s a celebration of ideologies that prefer "good" inefficiency. Even though goodness is a completely subjective factor and communicates nothing except a political position, to me, the goodness of a technology, especially in this time of extreme climate urgency, has only one valuable metric: pollution. I understand that this might not be your priority, and for this reason, I have no intention of continuing this discussion with you.
Taking the disaster of the Energiewende as a virtuous example is laughable, given that it is one of the greatest environmental and economic disasters. And of course, the Energiewende is also financed with state money. Your problem is very simple: if the money goes to nuclear power, it's bad; if it goes to renewables, under the guise of collective and decentralized well-being, it's perfectly fine. What's "free market" about this? Absolutely nothing.
You don't like state-owned nuclear power but completely ignore my argument that every solar panel bought is equivalent to the same thing, just at a higher level. Instead of the French buying electricity from the French government, you have the Germans (like you and me, as a non-German living in Germany) buying electricity from German fossil fuels and Chinese-made panels. Are you content with this? Honestly, I prefer to give money to the French state rather than the Chinese state if I had to choose. Besides, we are talking about a democratic state that has also decarbonized. You criticize, but they are decades ahead of any European state.
Meanwhile, as we are writing, France is polluting at 18 gCO₂eq/kWh, and Germany at 210 gCO₂eq/kWh with a daily peak of 510 gCO₂eq/kWh. Moreover, if German pollution is so low, it’s also because you're importing 2.2 GW from France's "bad and evil" government-financed nuclear power. Not to mention that the French have the lowest electricity bills in Europe, and the Germans almost always have the highest. It's up to others to make their own considerations.
EVEN if I were to buy solar panels from China, then I'm still financing them, I'm buying them, I'm installing them, I'm operating them, I'm selling the energy and the profits from solar electricity is MINE - over the full lifetime. Solar energy production is more than "chinese panel manufacturing".
The nuclear reactor Flamanville/France, which has massive cost overruns and delays:
* controlled by the state
* financed by the state
* bought by the state
* constructed by the state
* operated by the state
* energy sold by the state
ALL, literally all, of the electricity production and distribution from French nuclear power plants is owned by the state. That's Marxian!
If I see where I live, the Wind Farms serving the region:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_offshore_wind_farms_in...
The construction firms for Wind Turbines are Vestas, Siemens, etc. These are not state owned. They are private enterprises.
Example, the German Wind Farm "Kaskasi". The Turbines were built by Siemens. The Wind Farm is owned by RWE, a private enterprise. https://www.rwe.com/en/the-group/countries-and-locations/off...
> Energiewende is also financed with state money
The Energiewende had established a mechanism where the consumer pay higher prices (which you have lamented about), which finances the build-up of renewable energy -> the money goes to the renewable energy electricity providers, which are private enterprises and individuals.
The energy companies, the grid, the construction companies, etc., none are owned by the German state. These are all private enterprises or local municipal utilities.
> The German Wind Farm "Kaskasi". The Turbines were built by Siemens. The Wind Farm is owned by RWE, a private enterprise So I suppose you have been against the closure of German reactors, right?
Like for example the one in Emsland, built by Siemens, and owned by RWE, exactly like the wind plant you take as an example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emsland_Nuclear_Power_Plant
If this thing blows up, then what happens?
> fact remains that it delivers reliable, cheap, and clean electricity
That's your opinion, it's not a fact. Don't think that your opinions are facts and thus automatically what other people say is wrong. Be honest in communication with other people, so that your opinions are just opinions. You can argument in favor of your opinions, but they remain opinions and are not facts, just because YOU believe in them.
> So I suppose you have been against the closure of German reactors, right?
I'm for closing of nuclear reactors. You ignore the other things I said: nuclear power plants work only in a political environment, where they got a state-support/owned monopoly. Who do you think insures them? Who do you think sets up the regulatory environment that the get a large part of the market, who do you think is setting up the environment for waste storage. Hint: it's the government. We have extremely costly state financed clean-up operations for nuclear waste storage. These are old reactors.
To massively reduce the world co2 production, there is currently only ONE way known: massive scaling of renewable energy. The contribution of nuclear energy is neither cheap, nor clean, nor safe. It also does not scale. Nuclear energy stagnates since decades. Remember: China is bringing new coal power plants online, each week there are new ones.
Thus the industrialized countries have the responsibility (and the opportunity) to develop and share renewable energy technology, to be able be much faster in deployment, with improving technology. It's the only cost effective way known, which also can make a sizeable contribution.
90 percent of solar panel production is in Chinese hands, between slavery in Xinjiang and environmental impacts of rare earth mining.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014...
https://www.antislavery.org/latest/solar-panel-industry-uygh...
https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2024/03/28/solar-panel-productio...
And on the transparency of China emission...
https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2023/7/3/solar-pa...
Do you have any data regarding uranium? Consindering that a typical 1,000 MWe Light Water Reactor (LWR) produces 20 to 30 tons of spent fuel per year.
> Many countries still work with Russian Rosatom (even France), which has a track record for environmental catastrophes.
Which catastrophes?
> If this thing blows up, then what happens?
Ahahaha you have to study nuclear energy more.
> That's your opinion, it's not a fact. Don't think that your opinions are facts and thus automatically what other people say is wrong.
Its cheap and clean, its a fact.
https://app.electricitymaps.com/map
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
> nuclear power plants work only in a political environment, where they got a state-support/owned monopoly.
German nuclear power worked, and you decided to shut it down, you certainly didn't shut it down because it didn't work. Your arguments are self-contradictory.
Your comments are now indefensible, now you are self-contradictory, bring absurd arguments, and even deny facts.
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2023/08/04/h...
> https://www.dw.com/en/are-nigers-uranium-supplies-to-france-...
"He added that some 90% of Niger's population has no electricity, and price exploitation means Niger today also receives too little income for its exports."
https://reliefweb.int/report/niger/niger-uranium-blessing-or...
"Instead, say local and international organisations, uranium mining by foreign-dominated companies has caused environmental damage and health problems in the far north of the country."
"Niger is the world's third to fifth-ranking producer of uranium, producing over 3,000 tonnes of uranium a year. However, the UN Development Programme's 2006 Human Development Index considers Niger the poorest country in the world, where life expectancy is 45 years old, 71 percent of adults cannot read, and 60 percent of the population lives on less than $1 a day."
These things don't look good, I would say.
> > If this thing blows up, then what happens? > Ahahaha you have to study nuclear energy more.
You have to do that. The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant is a nuclear power plant, which is in the war zone in the Ukraine. Russia is attacking for months the electricity production and distribution in the Ukraine. If the cooling of the nuclear powerplant gets destroyed, then we have a possible meltdown or other scenarios. We already have a million refugees from the Ukraine in Germany. If a nuclear powerplant in the Ukraine gets destroyed (for example because Russia decides to bomb it), then we potentially will see millions more refugees.
So much for safe energy. There are nuclear powerplants in a warzone in Europe, and this affects us all. Direct or indirectly.
> Which catastrophes?
You really can use Google? Just recently in the news: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/04/22/russias-record-flo...
We have here former uranium mines, which were exploited by and for Russia. Google for "Wismut". It costs us many billions to clean up the russian legacy.
> Its cheap and clean, its a fact.
Selective data does not make it "cheap" and "clean". It also does not make it a fact. Consumer prices are also not "facts" about the complete cost structure of nuclear power. Consumer prices are designed by energy policy. Much of the costs of nuclear power are not payed by consumers, but by tax payers (Nuclear Power Plants can't be insured, unlike solar panels -> the tax payer will pay for these events -> for example a single Earth Quake in Japan causes costs the tax payer of several hundred billion dollars -> TEPCO, the owner of several damaged powerplants lacks the money to pay for that...
You don't care about renewable energy, despite all the data confirming that it has significant flaws as a technology.
Your only concern is that there shouldn't be nuclear energy, regardless of how much it can reduce carbon emissions or how many lives it can save. For you, nuclear energy is inherently harmful.
And honestly, I feel sorry for you. I can only imagine the fear from decades of media misinformation and collective anxiety about incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima, especially in Germany.
Have a nice day!
I care about renewable energy (for example for many years my electricity contract is from a local provider of 100% renewable energy).
Nuclear energy will save much less lives, than a rapid expansion of renewable energy, which is the only viable way to make a large impact on global CO2 emissions. I also think that Nuclear energy is inherently harmful in general, such that it best is avoided, especially given that it does not scale for the challenges ahead.
Here is a task for you: xy graph the following, on a time axis: share of nuclear powered electricity from the last 20 years and the yearly electricity production.
Then graph the yearly renewable energy installations and produced electricity over that period.
Then compare.
With a little math knowledge you can deduce that the situation to use nuclear energy for reducing CO2 worldwide is hopeless, renewable has been scaling much quicker and will accelerate even more in the current future.
The numbers you can collect are mostly facts and then you can find out for yourself which technology scales better. You would not fall victim to desinformation, if you collect reliable data and try to analyze it. There is only a little math needed.
Good luck!
Once a panel or blade reaches the end of its life, it is no one's responsibility to have to recycle it. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turb...
Nuclear power is the only source that solves all the "problems" on the bill.
Plus most nuclear powerplants don't cover the costs after a shutdown, incl. dealing with the materials and their radiation. We have often seen that the money available is not covering the costs of dealing with waste, spent fuel, etc. -> tax payer covers it -> the French government can't increase the state controlled electricity prices, without huge public protests.
The part about public protests is kind of cliché, as a french myself, rising the electricity prices happened and people were fine. The protests happened mostly for the oil prices. One thing about french electricity, is that because of the European agreement "ARENH" [1] (will end in 2025), they are forced to sell at capped price to private actors, in order to boost the competition. If this wasn't the case, then maybe the nuclear power sector could be much less costly, or profitable.
[1]: https://www.conseil-etat.fr/en/news/rising-energy-prices-the...
I was under the impression that that problem is easier solvable than making nuclear cost effective and making it scale in a safe way. For decades nuclear power deployment stagnates, while renewable technology is rapidly expanding and getting cheaper by the day, with more storage options. Nuclear power already has difficulty keeping the current level of electricity production, while increasingly outdated and aging nuclear powerplants need to be replaced.
> rising the electricity prices happened
The state rescued the French nuclear industry from bankruptcy, it's now a full government owned monopolistic electricity energy landscape. If the electricity price would be high enough to pay for the costs of the nuclear landscape, that would not have happened. Why were companies like Areva such a commercial failure?
Err, what? #6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_...
But for population, which is what I think about when specifying country size without any explanation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_...
Germany is #3 here. You'll see that Russia and Turkey are partly in Europe and bigger than Germany, but since they're mostly in Asia I think most people wouldn't consider them mainly European but rather mainly Asian. There's bound to be some discussion here since it really isn't very clear cut. I'll rephrase to "Germany is at least the third-biggest country in Europe".
citation needed. Otherwise, your prejudice has no place here.
But I agree it doesn't really hold up to more detailed scrutiny.
Heh, that's quite funny, where are you from? :-)
I believe you, but those people would then be wrong :-).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Eu...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_...
Russia and Türkiye are partly in Asia, so not really completely European
Those buildings are incredible, some packed full with robots all squeezed into the smallest possible space. Videos on YouTube [0] give you an impression of what it looks like, but being there, seeing and hearing all those machines, is yaw-dropping.
For those who have the opportunity to go, go! People like to go to museums to look at paintings and the like, this is no different, but you get to see what modern production can look like at its peak.