With climate change looming, it seems so completely backwards to go back to using it again.

Is it coal miners pushing to keep their jobs? Fear of nuclear power? Is purely politically motivated, or are there genuinely people who believe coal is clean?


Edit, I will admit I was ignorant to the usage of coal nowadays.

Now I’m more depressed than when I posted this

  • rufus@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Well, nuclear energy is expensive anyways and the amount of uranium on this world seems quite limited.

    It’s just not the technology of the future. In the long term we should use regenerative energies that are way cheaper.

    • bouh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nuclear is no more expensive than renewable. The amount of uranium is limited, but it’s not the only fuel for nuclear.

        • bouh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The paper doesn’t account account for availability. Nuclear has over 90% availability, which means for 1MW of power installed, you get on average over 0.9MW of power to use. Renewable are far below that, between 40 and 60% iirc. Which means you need to double the cost for a defined output. And that doesn’t consider batteries.

          Unless the document talks about that, please point me to the right chapter then.

          • rufus@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Damn. I shouldn’t have linked auch a long PDF. What are you talking about? I’m referring to the diagram (and text) on page 293. The annual Levelized Cost Of Energy.

            It’s not only calculated on sunny days. They take the annual energy output for the calculation. Availability and everything included or these numbers wouldn’t make any sense.

            And yes, we need batteries. But the nuclear plants also need other (faster) plants alongside. And this match isn’t a close call. With a 5 fold increase in being economical, we have plenty of money to spare to afford some batteries and hydroelectric dams.

            • bouh@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I was looking at the building cost. Looking more into the Wikipedia article, it seems to account for availability. But the numbers are very speculative still, there is a crazy variation both for the specific data points and for the studies. Another big factor is the interest rate for investment which can double the cost of nuclear energy depending on the assumption.

              Another thing that bother me is the speculative nature of these things. No photovoltaic power plant ever went through its whole lifespan. No significant energy production was made with variable renewable. Whereas nuclear was used for 70 years now. Yet the speculation makes it like nuclear will be expensive and unreliable and renewable will be cheap and reliable when the actual history is the exact opposite. Technology advances obviously, but still. I don’t consider renewable to be a tried and tested technology that scales while nuclear is.

              • rufus@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Idk. Solar cells have been around for a while, too. Wind turbines are kind of simple devices. I bet an engineer can predict their maintenance cost and lifespan fairly accurate. Hydroelectric power plants have been around for more than 100 years. Electric cars have been invented before the combustion engine took off. Nuclear power has been around for some time. But you can’t use that as an argument and simultaneously argue about using thorium which large scale deployments are still hypothetical.

                And I don’t think those numbers are 500% off. You can double some cost and were only at 200%. And they’re not complete speculation. They took the actual numbers of the previous year. And the years before that. These numbers are the ‘actual history’.

                No significant energy production was made with variable renewable

                Pardon? Norway? New Zealand? Switzerland? Iceland? Sweden? Countless others I probably forgot because I’m bad at geography? The USA and China, Philippines, Indonesia all have major ‘variable renewable’. Thousands and thousands of megawatts of energy are generated this way as of today. Then there is biomass if you’re geologically not that favored by nature, but I barely know anything about that. And who says we can’t use the sun and wind? Of course we can also use those.

                • bouh@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  What proportion of those countries’ energy is renewable? Because that’s the big problem: when renewable are less than 50% of your energy, you can balance the load with the rest ; when it’s 80%, it’s a whole different story. No country has the most of its energy from renewables, and thus we don’t know if it can even work over time, it’s not proven. The scale matters. Producing a prototype is not the same as the whole industrial thing. That’s exactly what’s happening with nuclear btw: after 30 years of abandon, the construction is hard and more expensive and time-consuming than expected because we need to relearn how to do it. But prototype is not industrialisation. And that’s a problem renewable will run into: industrialisation. Where do you all the silicium you need for the batteries and solar panels? How do you deal with balancing the load? And there will be unexpected problems. Nuclear already dealt with these problems. Will renewable actually be able to expand everywhere? Because there isn’t wind and sun everywhere. I severely doubt Switzerland can power itself this way for example.

                  And then, isthere any solar or wind farm of more than 30 years? I’m pretty sure there isn’t because their lifespan is less than that and the last models that are so efficient are less than 10 years old anyway.

                  The experience also shows that all countries that went for renewables ended up using more fossile energy btw. Spain and Germany most notably. How do you answer this problem? This is not theory, this is what happened when countries decided to use renewable energy.

                  • rufus@discuss.tchncs.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I’m sorry. Let’s end the argument here. We won’t agree. Some of your points are valid, most of them are plainly wrong or don’t contribute.

                    No country has the most of its energy from renewables

                    Yes, this page shows there are currently 4 countries above your arbitrary 80% demonstrating exactly that.

                    it’s not proven

                    Yes. See above.

                    a prototype

                    We’ve already established countries like Germany with close to 50% renewable aren’t a prototype. I’ve given countless other examples.

                    after 30 years of abandon, the construction is hard and more expensive

                    then don’t do it.

                    Nuclear already dealt with these problems.

                    You’re sure nuclear is without issues nowadays?

                    there isn’t wind and sun everywhere

                    That’s why we shouldn’t only do 100% of those. I’ve explained several alternatives and you can store and transport energy across the continent.

                    silicium you need for the batteries and solar panels

                    We don’t focus on batteries and solar. We need a diverse mix. In fact we don’t need batteries at all, we need energy storage. But this doesn’t have to be batteries. Same applies to solar. I’m living a bit far north and it gets rainy here sometimes. Maybe just take another kind of energy.

                    Btw. where do you get your uranium 235? Is that a different argument?

                    How do you deal with balancing the load?

                    Well, how do you do it? Nuclear also is generating a relatively constant amount of energy. Day and night, 24/7. Nuclear also doesn’t balance the load. Same argument applies here.

                    Nobody says it has to be 100% this or that by tomorrow. It needs to be a diverse strategy. It needs to factor in individual geographical facts. If we’re only at 70% renewable tomorrow it’s better than 20%. It is a process. We don’t have to skip everything and jump to 100% immediately. Let those natural gas plants run a bit and balance out things, as they do today. Just put in the effort. Once there are cheaper alternatives, use them and don’t cling to old technology just for the sake of it.

                    is there any solar or wind farm of more than 30 years

                    Let’s scrap solar for the sake of this discussion. Let’s say material science is completely wrong and they vastly over-exaggerated lifespan of solar panels. Solar is a small fraction of the equation. Tell me what in a wind turbine we don’t understand. Windmills have been around for centuries. As have been generators. I’m not looking that up but I bet we had wind farms in the 70s. Water power has been used to generate electricity for more than a century. It works at scale for some time now. Geothermal works with steam and turbines. They’re also in your nuclear plant. Can you explain all this away?

                    and the last models that are so efficient are less than 10 years old

                    As is everything that made some progress. My computer is faster and better in most aspects than the one I had a decade ago.

                    The experience also shows that all countries that went for renewables ended up using more fossile energy btw. Spain and Germany most notably. How do you answer this problem? This is not theory, this is what happened when countries decided to use renewable energy.

                    Politics. Germany was supposed to invest into renewables and phase out the old stuff. In a sane way. Then we switched off all the nuclear plants at once (after Fukushima). Obviously this requires buying energy from neighboring countries and ramping up other technology. We subside companies wreacking havoc throughout the Niederrhein for brown coal which isn’t even economical in the first place. Instead of investing that money into our future. We also killed off our domestic solar industry years ago. The war in Ukraine happened. That took us by surprise and we were dependant on Russian natural gas. I’m not an expert on Spain.

                    You’re right with your distinction between theory and the real world. What we should do isn’t always what we do (or did). When someone does something stupid, it doesn’t automatically make it right or wrong. But you’re supposed to learn from their mistakes. And factor in everything if you want to talk about what makes sense for the future.

                    The wikipedia article on renewable energy also has some facts about history and state of the art in green energy, so you can have a look at the world-wide numbers and decide if your perspective is that this is sci-fi or actually out there. I don’t say this is easy or possible without changes to the energy grid, society or whatever. And I don’t argue we need to do 100% solar. Or get rid of all of the batteries in the world. Or do everything with lithium batteries. Or the problems getting from 0-20% are the same as going from 80-100%. That’s not my argument. My argument is, if it’s the cheapest option in the long run. And the way to not further temper with climate. Why not use this? Why not invest in this unless there is a proper argument against it? We’ve already begun, made some mistakes and are getting smarter by the day. Nuclear has so many challenges that are difficult to solve. And looking at the numbers, it’s unlikely it will improve so much in its current form that it’ll become better than renewable anyways. I’d be happy to reconsider things once sombody gets a nuclear fusion reactor viable for real-world use.

        • bouh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Thorium is one of the most abundant material on earth. Unlike lithium for example.

          • rufus@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yeah. But the technology is - at this point - more sci-fi than anything else. Probably nothing we need to worry about in the next few years.

            And you still need to mine some non-renewable resource. It’s still nuclear and produces waste. And it seems super expensive.

            • bouh@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              There are working thorium reactor for 50 years or something. Hardly sci-fy.

              Renewables need batteries to work. Which needs lithium.

              • rufus@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Sure. Just use molten salt energy storage, hydroelectric dams or whichever of the dozens of technologies makes most sense where you are.

                Combine different kinds of renewables so you get power at night and when the wind isn’t blowing. Build more then enough and if you got excess energy, maybe make some hydrogen.

                Have your devices and industry ‘smart’ so it draws less power when there’s less supply.

                You really don’t need to do everything with ‘normal’ batteries like in a smartphone.

                The ‘working’ thorium reactors are for research. They don’t generate energy. At least if we’re speaking about generating energy for a whole country. The planned thorium reactors of the next many years also don’t generate any significant amount of energy. With that argumentation we also (almost) have nuclear fusion power plants.

                A thorium power plant that contributes to the power grid and shows up in the numbers is sci-fi. I mean, it’s not impossible. It’s just lots of very expensive work left to do.

                • bouh@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Thorium reactor that contribute to the power grid is as much sci-fy as all the technologies you describe to have a working renewable energy grid.

                  Meanwhile there are whole countries powered from nuclear energy, and switching to thorium makes no difference for the grid itself.

                  Finally if ecofanatics didn’t shut down or sabotage research on thorium reactors we would be closer from a working tech.

    • BigNote@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Right, but that’s why people are talking about nuclear as a bridge technology, not as a permanent solution. Whether or not we can make it pencil out before smashing through all of the critical tipping points in global temperature averages is not something I’m qualified to have an opinion on, but I’m credibly informed that we might at least want to give it a serious look.

      • rufus@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        At one point in the future I’m sure we can look back, do the calculations and see if that had been a good bridge or an expensive thing for the taxpayer to deal with the dismantling and long time storage.

        As of now I think the time of that bridge technology has come to an end anyways. We now have efficient renewable energies available. And concepts for energy storage. I think we should invest in that instead of putting the money into a thing of the past.

    • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well you didn’t google any of that.

      Nuclear power plants are expensive to build but the cost of running one especially when adjusted to the amount of electricity it produces is not significantly more than running any other power plant. Also uranium is not considered to be a gobally scarce resource.

        • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The high cost is largely explained by the fact that there’s no “standard model” for nuclear power plants but instead they’re all designed and built from scratch which can make them really expensive. Olkiluoto 3 nuclear power plant in Finland is the world’s 8th most expensive building at whopping 12 billion dollar cost to build. The original price estimate was 3 billion. Many of the buildings on that list ahead of Olkiluoto 3 are also nuclear power plants.

          This however isn’t some inherent probem about nuclear power itself but rather the way we do it. It doesn’t need to be that expensive.

          • rufus@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yeah, I’m still not convinced. If current state of the art makes it 5 times more expensive than current state solar or wind. Your explanation needs to be more than ‘but we choose to build it more expensive than it needs to be’.

            Sure theoretically this might not be an inherent problem. But the same applies to renewable. I’m not sure if solar or wind are close to something limiting their efficiency or cost of production. There might be new technology advancing both of them. We can talk about this and look for more information. But it’s a very hypothetical discussion. As of now in the real world, there are real-world power plants and if no-one can demonstrate to bridge that big gap in economic efficiency… Maybe there’s something to it…

            And apart from that. I’d argue that there are some inherent problems. For example mega-projects having issues with their budget. That’s a very interesting topic but inherent to big and complex projects for several reasons. Also a nuclear plant and all the infrastructure around it is inherently more complex and more expensive than for example a wind turbine and what we need to assemble a bit of steel tubing, wings and a bit of copper. (Broadly speaking.) I think it’s a combination of factors. But I’d be surprised if the future holds something increasing the economic efficiency of nuclear (fission) power plants by that factor.

            (Edit: Those numbers from the video are for the US. But 5 times more expensive is huge.)

            • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              We don’t choose to build it more expensive than it needs to be. It’s by nature always going to be more expensive to build one of something instead of what the cost per unit is going to be when you make many.

              Wind and solar isn’t going to solve the issue untill we come up with a way to store energy on large scale. When you plug in an appliance that electricity is not taken from a reserve but it’s produced for you in real time. Wind doesn’t blow and sun doesn’t shine according to how much electricity is needed at each moment. Finland produces all its electricity basically by hydro, wind and nuclear power. When it’s windy we have excess electricity and the prices drops to negative and we got to sell it abroad but when it’s calm the opposite is true. This wouldn’t be the case if we could somehow store that excess energy.

              • rufus@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                cost per unit

                We’re talking about effective cost of the resulting power, altogether. All things included. (Except for nuclear waste, which is a topic for a different discussion and difficult to quantify.) Just comparing one aspect wouldn’t be fair.

                store energy on scale

                Yeah, and science and investors are way ahead of politics. There are several concepts already available or already in place somewhere. Several promising ideas and projects that need funding. Storage facilities that aren’t able to store energy because Bavaria is not willing to run cables across the country. It is a complex topic that also needs individual solutions. For example depending on geography you could have dams and pump water. Or one of the concepts that work everywhere. Infrastructure and cunsumer get more advanced/intelligent. You could charge your car automatically during periods where renewable is abundant. You can fine-tune factories, maybe have the large heat pump of an office building vary temperature a bit when there is a Dunkelflaute. Some countries just get geothermal power for free because of their location… You can put those storage facilities close to energy generation or close to the consumer. And as supply and demand changes prices, it’s also well aligned with the way our economy (and capitalism) works.

                We should really hurry up and put in the effort this needs. Because we really need those storage facilities. And I’d like energy costs to come down again, and CO2 emissions also.

                And if I remember correctly, the current natural gas power plants are the ones that can react to supply and demand the most quickly. But this seems not to be a good idea anymore, now that we have enough problems with the natural gas in central europe. I (personally) would be happy if there was an alternative.

                I haven’t heard any scientist in the last years tell something different from renewable plus storage is the way. Not unless some miracle happens and we get fusion reactors or something. But it’s still unclear it that’s going to happen.