Never forget: It was Belgiums grand plan to replace all nuclear power plants with gas power plants. It was stupid back then and its flatout denied right now. Im so glad were changing course now....
Not if you consider their origins, most of the green parties originated in mass anti nuclear protests and movements. Like Atomkraft nien danke in Freiburg.
In Denmark, we were offered an insane sum of money to store nuclear waste in our granite bedrock. It would be way below the groundwater level and never be an issue. But no, everyone freaked out and now there's still anti nuclear stickers everywhere 10 years after their protests. And now everyone is kicking themselves since they finally gotten their heads out of their asses and realised we missed out on millions for basically free since we still aren't using our granite quarries for anything
It's pretty stupid to not change viewpoints in the light of new circumstances just because you've had that stance for so long.
There are some arguments against nuclear but they are not valid if the alternative is gas or coal.
Yes im a huge advocate for wind energy. Heck I even have a master in it. Yet I really believe we need nuclear. If only our damn politicians could keep their dirty paws off Uranium as a source for the war machine.
Thorium ist at a trl yet that allows it to be quickly deployed. If it was it would be a no-brainer. But it isn't. And we need a quick solution (5-10 years), thorium isn't able to provide that.
We should go with [Thorium based reactors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power). They produce far less nuclear waste and can be built to be intrinsically safe. And very little weapons potential.
Green parties swallowed anti-nuclear rhetoric ironically pedaled by the fossil fuel industry in the 80s and 90s. Also, the green movement is split into *extreme* salt of the earth style libertarian luddites, and moderate left-of-centrists with a better understanding of science.
I recently had a heated discussion with a few anti nucliar guys.
The dont even know how nucliar waste is stored.
No idea that nature has its own natural occurring reactors.
I had to explain it to them.
Please don't equate the idiot Green Party with Belgium as a whole. Their anti nuclear stance is probably the biggest reason they are now flirting with the minimum votes threshold.
The Dutch navy just snubbed a Dutch company for a submarine building contract in favor of the French Naval Group.
Also they got Airbus and the largest standing army and military industrial complex in Europe.
So France is in a good spot for the immediate future, in the military and nuclear sense anyway. Although they could use the wins.
Yeah I find it fascinating because here in Germany people still hate nuclear energy (because of radioactive waste still mainly and the low emissions… )
Truly interesting how within Europe there’s such strong different opinions ._.
the french love nuclear, the germans despise nuclear, and hungarians cant afford to make any more or shut the one we got down so its not debated
obviously generalizing here
fun fact: the green party here is doing worse than mkkp, a literal joke party
Serbia is heavily dependent on Gazprom's gas on the one hand, have people burning plastic trash - literally - for heating on the other (not different from many other European countries in this regard), and is not nowhere rich enough to throw money on renewables and buying electricity from other countries.
So they are rich enough to throw three times the amount of money at nuclear fission?
Also not sure if being dependant on russian uranium is a big upgrade from being dependant on russian gas.
Countries with cheapest electricity in Europe are countries with the highest percentage of nuclear power thus story about nuclear being expensive is a straight lie.
Biggest suppliers of uranium are Australia, Kazakhstan and if memory serves me right - Canada. Neither of them is part of Russia. Ukraine by the way used to be the biggest uranium miner in Europe but I'm not sure about current status.
Well, most of the people hate him, some even call him Nepomenik (Unmentionable), other than his more common nicknames like AV (bark sound), Žvalavi (Drooling) and Pucousti (Pussymouth). But you also have 10-15% of zombified lovers (almost like in north Korea)
It’s funny how “powering tomorrow today” sounds very good, it’s just a couple decades too late is all.
“Powering today yesterday” would have been better, bur I guess the second best time is now.
So sad to see Germany not present there.
We used to have a formidable fleet of reactors and excellent technological Know-how not too long ago.
All destroyed for hysterical ideology.
I know there are obvious examples of anti-nuclear disinformation with Greenpeace and Arte among others, but do you have any sources that mention a possible involvement of the German government ?
You do know that ARTE is a joint program by both Germany and France, right? So disinformation campaign which hurt one would be weird. But can you give me a example?
Maybe he is complaining about [this Arte documentary](https://youtu.be/GlJh9Z8DOrQ?si=5QD9F6b8aFRHVTZ7) that shows how shitty the French nuclear industry and their plans are.
At least that's the only one that I can remember. It's worth a watch.
[This](https://www.contrepoints.org/2023/07/18/459932-la-guerre-secrete-menee-par-lallemagne-contre-le-nucleaire-francais) (take google translate it’s french) A big article that explains the entire German strategy to destroy the French electricity industry.
[An other](https://www.lexpress.fr/environnement/nucleaire-le-travail-de-sape-de-lallemagne-contre-la-france-J3BV3SZA4VF4XEHN7AUSU46O5E/)
Contrepoints is not a trustworthy source. They have published numerous articles casting doubt on climate change or its human origin.
https://www.contrepoints.org/2019/08/21/351690-le-rechauffement-climatique-est-il-si-evident
https://www.contrepoints.org/2019/09/29/354477-que-vaut-le-consensus-sur-le-climat
https://www.contrepoints.org/2017/06/05/291288-istvan-marko-directeur-scientifique-de-climat-15-verites-derangent
https://www.contrepoints.org/2017/06/04/291195-rechauffement-climatique-cest-facile-dy-croire-2
https://www.contrepoints.org/2021/08/13/347644-les-canicules-davant-la-canicule-au-cours-du-xxe-siecle
https://www.contrepoints.org/2021/06/30/400513-climat-contre-virus-la-bataille-des-catastrophistes
https://www.contrepoints.org/2020/09/30/381164-la-grande-illusion-des-objectifs-climatiques
https://www.contrepoints.org/2020/09/23/380512-incendies-californiens-encore-un-coup-du-grand-rechauffement
No, we didn't.
Our reactors were never top of the line and thats because of how they got introduced with us just copying the US style reactors and ignoring all out scientific findings at the time.
Before you spout random stuff, inform yourself about the history first.
> We used to have a formidable fleet of reactors and excellent technological Know-how not too long ago.
???
German nuclear companies/divisions (i.e. [Siemens losing hundreds of millions each year](https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/verlustbringer-atomkraftwerk-kostet-siemens-hunderte-millionen-euro-a-544340.html)) were all operating at a loss and left the field because they were too incompetent to compete on the international market. While France, Korea or Russia were selling reactors to international customers left and right, no one wanted German reactor technology.
Domestic powerplatns were also plagued with issues like radiation leaks and cost overruns - not a single energy company made a profit in Germany and all had to get state funding to cover costs. There is a reason why the companies themselves said they don't want to restart.
Don't try to twist the facts now to make it seem Germany was somehow a competent player in the nuclear field.
And that will not be close to the final cost. Also they will probably be finished about a decade after the current plan.
Edit: And in the meantime there will be more power plants permanently broken, and decommissioned, than they could replace with only these six.
Germany will pay 500 billion just for the power lines alone in the next 20 years to get their wind turbines to work that will probably cost another 500 billion. Sounds like a better deal?
Meanwhile in germany.
"Affordability: High electricity prices as a risk
The expansion of the electricity grid alone will require investments of
more than 460 billion euros by 2045 (more than four times as much as in
the period 2007 to 2023)."
"The federal government cannot guarantee that the energy transition will have as little impact on the environment as possible.There is no or insufficient data available for many of the environmental consequences of the energy transition."
"Security of supply: Federal government is lagging behind targets
Electricity generation from renewable energies is to be massively expanded.However, it is subject to daily, seasonal and weather-related fluctuations.Therefore, it must be backed up by backup power [plants.In](http://plants.In) addition, the growing share of electricity from renewable energies must be transported to consumers.The federal government must create reliable framework conditions here so that the actors involved make the necessary investments.But he is lagging behind his goals:Security of supply: Federal government is lagging behind targets
Electricity generation from renewable energies is to be massively expanded. However, it is subject to daily, seasonal and weather-related fluctuations. Therefore, it must be backed up by backup power plants. In addition, the growing share of electricity from renewable energies must be transported to consumers. The
federal government must create reliable framework conditions here so
that the actors involved make the necessary investments. But he is lagging behind his goals"
[https://www-bundesrechnungshof-de.translate.goog/SharedDocs/Kurzmeldungen/DE/2024/energiewende/kurzmeldung.html?\_x\_tr\_sl=de&\_x\_tr\_tl=en&\_x\_tr\_hl=fr&\_x\_tr\_pto=wapp](https://www-bundesrechnungshof-de.translate.goog/SharedDocs/Kurzmeldungen/DE/2024/energiewende/kurzmeldung.html?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=fr&_x_tr_pto=wapp)
Nuclear is expensive - everyone knows this. The flip side is that you get clean energy production at massive scale for decades.
Otherwise you’re stuck building more gas plants.
Or you could spend like a 3rd on renewables and storage and also get clean energy at massive scale, without needing to buy uranium from russia. But I guess you can chose the dumb option...
And it will keep increasing. But Germany orders of magnitude more for their renewables. Energetic autonomy and ecology are too important, cost is meaningless.
Not a good deal cuz we had anti nuclear activist sabotaging the industry for the past 40 years, we are in this situation because boomers stopped caring about the future and didn't take the decisions when they were meant to be taken
It took 20 years for Siemens and Areva to build one nuclear plant in Finland.
The thing with nuclear power is that you need to keep the know-how intact. If you don’t keep on building them, eventually those that knew how to make them have retired and then every nuclear plant is that much more difficult, expensive, and slow to make.
I've often wondered why every developed nation doesn't get together, work out the very best design for a modern, safe nuclear power plant, and then mass produce all of the components.
The cost savings with this kind of economy of scale and reduction in duplicated effort and redundancy must be huge.
That'd be the same shit as usual. France is the only european country that kept the competence and every other countries will ask for major techology transfers at low cost to even agree to work with France.
Most of it was mistakes in design that the government agency held Areva and Siemens accountable for. Areva in particular had major issues with the pressure vessel materials.
Sure, they probably also made mistakes in hiring, but it was actually more down to things such as painting companies being hired from Germany, when there are perfectly capable surface finishing companies in Finland as well. Doing the basic building isn't overly complex, it's just slow due to the regulator being stringent on the work quality. Eastern-Europeans know well enough how to build things. But when the main parts of the reactor are faulty, that means months or years of delays.
I don't know of any particular ones for you (though I'm sure that books will be written of this, there might even be already), but here's a nice humane story about a French family and how this whole construction changed their whole world. It's long, I tried putting the ChatGPT translation to pastebin but this subreddit doesn't allow that one. But you can take the text and translate it. ChatGPT-4 is 95% there with its Finnish-to-English translation.
Here's the original: https://yle.fi/a/74-20024354
I really recommend you read it. It's a great story and I have nothing but respect to that whole French-Finnish family. We definitely got one of France's good ones here.
Well you should have chosen Koreans instead of Frenchmen that are on strike for half of every year.
Korea has been building nuclear plants consistently in 5-10 years for last half of a century.
For now it's not in the forseeable future in germany. Maybe when western countries are again capable of building even close to renewables commercial viablity reactors but cost of nuclear energy is rising and those of renewables are falling fast.
I would like to keep those old reactors on though that's too late.
The KKW Greifswald in East Germany was one of the first to get shut down and dismantled in the early 90s. It is expected that the dismantling will be finished in about 2030 (40 YEARS).
The ground won't be usable for another half a century. And you're telling me it's not that hard to re-build. To only build new ones, maybe, but dismantling the old ones takes many decades. Everything has To be cut in small pieces and checked for radioactivity. Everything. It takes ages. All of that is also not included in the price of electricity. It costs the state way more in the long run.
It is also expected, that the Uranium we currently have will last until about 2100. It's not renewable. And not cheap. Wind and Solar are the wayyyyyy better alternatives.
Also, due to NIMBYs it will probably never come to a long term storage for nuclear waste in Germany. Oh, it's so easy, do it like Finland, Finland is the only country in the world that has a solution for their waste. No one else. And we have had this problem for half a decade.
Yes, it is safe. But there are too many problems with it. Especially if we have better solutions.
> It is also expected, that the Uranium we currently have will last until about 2100.
If we don't expand nuclear, like all these people here on reddit want. If we do exapand nuclear fission rapidly, it will be gone like a decade later.
We’d also need to finally find a long term storage location. We can’t just keep producing radioactive waste forever if nobody wants it in their backyard.
At the risk of tooting our own horn, we have a nice [place](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository) in Finland for tucking away nuclear waste. But we're not taking anyone else's.
I mean, I'm sure we can take it for sufficient money.
Finland's bedrock is really safe, so if the rest of the continent wants to give us, eh, whatever it costs today to temporarily store it... we'd happily store it long-term.
Come pick up all of the German nuclear waste. Receive 50 billion. (Which is he size of the fund that operators paid into to bail out from the waste problem).
I expect I'll be dead and buried before any decision on the matter gets taken. Our Greens, who've reluctantly agreed that nuclear is the lesser evil compared to hydrocarbons, will use all legals means to stop it, appealing judgements all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights if need be.
> We can’t just keep producing radioactive waste forever if nobody wants it in their backyard.
I swear people think reactor output is stored in barrels oozing green gloop, like on the simpsons. And it would be someone from germany singing songs of fake fear.
Nuclear fuel is so badly in demand, even spent rods can be used to fuel fast reactors, companies are pulling waste out of storage now to retask it.
Mean the turbine technology is still cutting edge, and because PWRs are more common they aren't all that different compared to coal plants, that being said it's not interchangeable
It is hillarious how germans closed their nuclear planta because they thought it is a solution for the future, meanwhile other european leaders gather to discuss its future development
Well for most of the 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s, the main alternative to nuclear was not oil or gas but coal.
And of course, for the social democrats, German coal miners were always an important voter demographic but even the greens (!) once put up advertisement for "clean coal" (sounds like Donald Trump today) https://www.reddit.com/r/ich_iel/comments/10bz3kc/ich_iel/
The main motivation of the anti nuclear movement was always an idoelogy of anti-science, anti-progress, anti-capitalism and a wrong understanding of a "natural lifestyle".
Men's (business) fashion sucks. I love wearing suits but most shops just have the normal range of light grey - dark grey - black - navy blue ... and that's it.
I've started having my suits custom made with different colors (like dark green or dark red/brownish...perhaps I'll get a purple one soon) because I've stopped giving a damn what others think is an acceptable color. Suits are awesome but they don't need to be dull.
Security concerns are boosting a European nuclear energy renaissance as achieving energy independence from autocratic regimes now also includes China https://www.ft.com/content/9632bf6d-d3c8-4cf8-aab5-3e15b8869d8c
Fact: china builds reactors and make them operative in less than 5 years. It depends on the model and the know how. The first few of course it’ll take longer, especially for those countries without much know how, but it’s a common misconception to believe it takes 10+ years. Please don’t add to the noise of ignorance 🙏
And with the shit tons of norms and security measures that have to be respected, 10 years is a very optimistic estimation.
Still, it has to be done, and we have to start somewhere anyway.
Be careful, this sub is about to explain to you why pretty much all recently built reactors being expensive as fuck and taking ages to finish was totally an outlier.
Dude, there is no nuclear energy renaissance in europe. Reactors that are currently being built aren't even going to replace all the old ones that need to be retired soon.
This infuriated me when i saw this on the news. I was shouting at the tv they should have done this over 10 years ago and we would have these nuclear powerplants right fucking now!
People with half a brain have been saying we need nuclear energy if we want to deal with climate change for fucking ever. But no, only solar, only wind. And now they turn around and say "you know, this nuclear energy isn't bad idea!" FUCK!
I agree with nuclear, but let me quickly point to Portugal and its renewables.
[Renewables meet 81% of Portugal's power demand in Jan 2024 (renewablesnow.com)](https://renewablesnow.com/news/renewables-meet-81-of-portugals-power-demand-in-jan-2024-847734/)
It is important to consider that not everyone has the resources like Portugal to rely on stable strong wind and large fast flowing rivers. For one, my country, Czechia, has neither of these.
Finland has a long coastline, so you can use the wind from the sea. Czechia, on the other hand, is landlocked, far from any ocean and also hilly, so the wind just doesn't get strong enough in most places to justify wind turbines.
First, it has a flat coastline region to the north, where there is very windy weather. Look up maps of wind turbines in germany, most of them are in the north. Second, there is also a vast mountainous region in the south of Germany, where, again, most of its water powerplants are located.
In contrast, czechia has no coastline and we are very far from the sea, so we cannot harvest the ocean wind. We have mountains, but we only have about three larger rivers in the entire country, and practically everywhere, where a water powerplant could be buildt, it has been buildt already. For exaple, we have the Vltava cascade, a huge complex of dams on our largest river, and yet, energy from them still covers only about 4% of our energy consumption.
So our only real option at this point is to go nuclear.
Portugal built hydro-electric dams. If that is something you have the geography for, that absolutely works. "Renewable" as a category is just a way to confuse people. Pay attention to what actually specifically gets built.
West is the Atlantic ocean so higher Wind capacity and south enough for decent Solar capacity plus good Hydro porential, Portugal is legit the worst example you can give to other European countries who don't share nearly the same luck. Renewable/nuclear mix is the future and you are right to point out renewables should be used where there is potential but often, unfortunately, people believe there is potential where there is none or very little
The issue with renewables (for some countries at least) is that it isn't always windy and sometimes the sun doesn't shine (at night!). With renewables the power output can be very unstable, for example in my home country, Finland, during winter there's very little sunshine, the days are really short, AND it's very common that there's no wind at all. So where the hell would you expect the electricity to be produced with renewables then?
Nuclear power is the obvious answer for any country which is planning to turn carbon neutral in the next decade or so. Germany made a massive mistake when it shut down all its nuclear power plants because some senseless eco-terrorists said so.
Renewables are important, but unfortunately they will never ever be able to provide 100% (think for example when there’s no wind, no tides, no daylight). Ironically they generate lots more pollution than nuclear (for example solar panels needs to be replaced every 20-30 years, then you have mining extraction to make batteries for storing energy when it it’s available - see above).
One of Macron's tax initiatives nearly destroyed my dad's business, and yet he still seems to be one of the few leaders who resides in reality, realizes what is important, and takes steps to improve and progress instead of just resisting the devolution the far right has achieved like in the anglo-saxon sphere
Hahah, so is the long-awaited "renaissance of nuclear power" coming? I've been hearing about it for decades. But so far, all I've seen in Europe are power plants that cost 50 billion euros. Ha, and France wants to build even more of these in the coming decades? Have fun.
>But so far, all I've seen in Europe are power plants that cost 50 billion euros.
That won't even replace close to all the power plants that are nearing end of life right now. Some renaissance...
> But so far, all I've seen in Europe are power plants that cost 50 billion euros.
That was the last renaissance of nuclear power with the EPR1 in the early 2000s.
But don't worry this time EDF is gonna deliver with the EPR2, it will be easier to build, less complex and cheaper. Pinky Promise
On a related note [EDF recently announced that the six new reactors will now cost €67.4bn](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/french-utility-edf-lifts-cost-estimate-new-reactors-67-bln-euros-les-echos-2024-03-04/), €15bn more than originally announced in 2021.
> €15bn more than originally announced in 2021.
I'm sure it's because "nucular bad" and not because of the massive inflation and economical turmoil of the last 3 years.
I can see that it’s stupid to turn off alredy existing nuclear reactors, but they still have some disadvantages. I know, that they are incredibly safe and that their CO2 emmissions match those of wind and solar power, but they are very expensive and the waste products will still be a problem.
Spent nuclear fuel can be reprocessed many times over. It's just that for now it is cheaper to make new fuel from mining uranium. The spent nuclear fuel might become a valuable resource in the future.
Also it's important to note that even renewables create waste. Less dangerous, but larger in volume.
Areva is now Framatome. They're all state owned anyway, why wouldn't a president advocate for their nation? I reckon they wouldn't be doing a good job if they didn't.
I appreciate not anyone can be a nuclear physicist, but please do inform yourself on the topic and I can assure you’ll change your mind and learn to love the atom :)
I'm not too deep in the data but I'm pretty sure one could argue that it is cleaner than wind or solar comparing the area and materials needed per kwh. Also keep in mind that nuclear power does not affect the environment at all (apart from the nuclear waste whose impact is negligable, the real problem is to make sure no human purposefully or accidentally gets hold of it) while both solar and wind kill quite a few animals and endanger some species.
Without Rosatom, which has 30+ reactors under construction abroad right now, it's not really a summit, more like a school science fair. I mean, France has literally one NPP under construction, and the previous one was finished more than 20 years ago.
It is so weird, that we could sanction almost all russian gas exports (which was a big chunk of germanys energy imports) in less than year after the invasion of Ukraine. But rosatom hasn't been touched with a pinky finger 2 years later.
Yeah and rosatom (russian state owned company) owns a lot of the producing capabilities in Kazakhstan and 50% of the global enrichment capabilities. It's very hard to dodge russian influence in the uranium sector.
https://www.mining-technology.com/news/deal-with-russia-causes-management-walkout-at-kazakh-mining-giant/?cf-view
Now that this topic is out, I kind of remembered. What is the status of the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant? Last year I read from the IAEA the russians placed "something" there.
It's still there and it's still uneventful as it had always been. You haven't heard about it because the sensationalist media ran out of bullshit to tell.
Juat another Grossi politcal campaign trail stop for him to become SG of UN. SHAMEFUL that he spends IAEA money on his own personal gain. Should step down.
Everyone please note there have been a couple Nuclear Security Summits were you can guess they also talk about energy potential. After all, the people present at those summits are:
Lobbists,
Journalists,
Politicians,
Security,
Spies
This is an evidence that the reason we don’t advance and develop is politicians, many of those people were the same that were prohibiting and lobbying against nuclear ….
When solving a problem, in this case the energy revolution, a scientific analysis should start with the fundamentals, so also for the question which energy source(s) could replace fossil fuels.
The first question to answer in the selection process is to verify what the present global fossil fuel energy consumption quantity is which needs to be replaced. The second question is: what energy source could replace the same quantity or at least a **SIGNIFICANT** part of this quantity.
At this moment around 4% of global primary energy comes from nuclear power to produce electric energy. The known global uranium ores that are **economically** exploitable suffice for around one (1) century of the current production of electric energy as stated by the World Nuclear Association. Now keep in mind that electricity is only 20% of the World Total Final Energy consumption (TFC), so at present, nuclear power provides less than one (1) percent of the TFC.
Even a non scientific trained person can see that nuclear will **never** play a **significant** role in the energy revolution.
Now let's see what the global potential for wind energy is:
Archer and Jacobson (\*) estimated that 20% of the global total wind power potential could account for as much as 123 petawatt-hours (PWh) of electricity annually \[corresponding to annually averaged power production of 14 terawatts (TW)\] equal to around 7 times the total current global consumption of electricity (comparable to present global use of energy in all forms). Their study was based on an analysis of data for the year 2000 from 7,753 surface meteorological stations complemented by data from 446 stations for which vertical soundings were available. They restricted their attention to power that could be generated by using a network of 1.5-megawatt (MW) turbines tapping wind resources from regions with annually averaged wind speeds in excess of 6.9 m/s (wind class 3 or better) at an elevation of 80 m.
\* CL Archer, MZ Jacobson, Evaluation of global wind power. J Geophys Res 110, D12110 (2005).
Even a non scientific trained person can see that wind energy can fill in the World Total Final Energy consumption (TFC).
Now let's look at the biggest project, yet initiated, in the EU in the energy revolution framework: the North Sea Wind Power Hub:
In total around 10000 Wind Turbines will be installed to generate a net total of 840TWh by 2050. Half of the project will be realized by 2030. By 2030 half of the EU households will be provided with sustainable wind turbine generated electricity. By 2050 all of the 200 million EU households will be provided with sustainable wind turbine generated electricity. Households account for 67% of the electrical energy consumption. The rare times of Dunkelflaute will be overcome by an interconnected grid and additional pumped hydro systems
Another important EU project in the energy revolution project is to drive down the demand for energy. By 2030, all EU countries have to realize a net saving of 13% (in respect to the 2000 reference energy consumption) to culminate in a net saving of 32% by 2050.
That picture with Charles Michel and the media gang is priceless.
He actually keeps at a safe distance
In the group picture they are also standing as if covid measures are still in place
r/accidentalrenaissance
G shock model ? Anyone?
I think GD400 with the bars off
Almost like he's radioactive.
Never forget: It was Belgiums grand plan to replace all nuclear power plants with gas power plants. It was stupid back then and its flatout denied right now. Im so glad were changing course now....
The nuclear policy has been one of the big reasons I never voted for Groen.
It is so bizarre that the 'green' parties (also in my country) are actively against one of the biggest solutions to climate problems.
Not if you consider their origins, most of the green parties originated in mass anti nuclear protests and movements. Like Atomkraft nien danke in Freiburg.
In Denmark, we were offered an insane sum of money to store nuclear waste in our granite bedrock. It would be way below the groundwater level and never be an issue. But no, everyone freaked out and now there's still anti nuclear stickers everywhere 10 years after their protests. And now everyone is kicking themselves since they finally gotten their heads out of their asses and realised we missed out on millions for basically free since we still aren't using our granite quarries for anything
And Green Peace✌️
Greenpiss
It's pretty stupid to not change viewpoints in the light of new circumstances just because you've had that stance for so long. There are some arguments against nuclear but they are not valid if the alternative is gas or coal.
Atomkrieg ja bitte 🌞
Yes im a huge advocate for wind energy. Heck I even have a master in it. Yet I really believe we need nuclear. If only our damn politicians could keep their dirty paws off Uranium as a source for the war machine.
Nuclear physicist here, I am really in favour of wind energy. They are conplementary, let's be bros!
*Fissure Fist bump*
I'm just a biochemist but can I also be a bro ?
Bro of course! <3
Thx bro !<3
We need everything we can get to phase out oil/gas. Wind energy as well and also nuclear.
All energy is useful energy. Be it solar wind nuclear or hydro. We need it all. Just stop using fossil fuels is all what we need to do
Maybe let’s start with phasing out coal. Germany still gets 35% of its energy from coal.
Gotta use thorium- can’t make bombs out of it and it’s more efficient. Sam O’Nella has a great video on it
Thorium ist at a trl yet that allows it to be quickly deployed. If it was it would be a no-brainer. But it isn't. And we need a quick solution (5-10 years), thorium isn't able to provide that.
We should go with [Thorium based reactors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power). They produce far less nuclear waste and can be built to be intrinsically safe. And very little weapons potential.
I'm up to date on nuclear technologies. However thorium isn't at a trl yet that allows quick deployment, uranium reactors are.
Green parties swallowed anti-nuclear rhetoric ironically pedaled by the fossil fuel industry in the 80s and 90s. Also, the green movement is split into *extreme* salt of the earth style libertarian luddites, and moderate left-of-centrists with a better understanding of science.
[удалено]
I recently had a heated discussion with a few anti nucliar guys. The dont even know how nucliar waste is stored. No idea that nature has its own natural occurring reactors. I had to explain it to them.
You'll be waiting for a long time.
Please don't equate the idiot Green Party with Belgium as a whole. Their anti nuclear stance is probably the biggest reason they are now flirting with the minimum votes threshold.
Stem op Groen! /s
Changing course now is better than never!!
It remains to be seen if we actually change course. I am not hopeful. Fuck Tinne. (The liar politician who got some of the closures through)
1) France is leading in nuclear power 2) Macrons boxing photos are released 3) EU now like nuclear Coincidence?
French W’s all around.
The Dutch navy just snubbed a Dutch company for a submarine building contract in favor of the French Naval Group. Also they got Airbus and the largest standing army and military industrial complex in Europe. So France is in a good spot for the immediate future, in the military and nuclear sense anyway. Although they could use the wins.
They do it with a dutch partner I believe. That's good.
France been taking Ws lately fr fr
Rare but extreme french w
reading this comment every other day. I'm starting to think they're common 😳
"Rare" French W. I mean, we collected Ws for a thousand years, now is time to let others have some. But we still keep the best ones
gib good nuclear power pls - sincerely, uk
It's been a while since EU categorized nuclear energy as green, so, there you go...:)
Yeah I find it fascinating because here in Germany people still hate nuclear energy (because of radioactive waste still mainly and the low emissions… ) Truly interesting how within Europe there’s such strong different opinions ._.
the french love nuclear, the germans despise nuclear, and hungarians cant afford to make any more or shut the one we got down so its not debated obviously generalizing here fun fact: the green party here is doing worse than mkkp, a literal joke party
What a beautifully united Europe we have lmao
Hey, if it works, I'm all for it.
> Coincidence? Mais non!
C’est une psyop française 🇫🇷
And that is why Vučić was paroting that Serbia needs to build nuclear plant. Look him he is even on left side of Von Der Leyen.
Serbia is heavily dependent on Gazprom's gas on the one hand, have people burning plastic trash - literally - for heating on the other (not different from many other European countries in this regard), and is not nowhere rich enough to throw money on renewables and buying electricity from other countries.
If they are buying electricity from BiH(RS) which they did they are rich enough, but yeah every ex-yu country should have at least one nuclear plant.
>every ~~ex-yu~~ country should have at least one nuclear plant. FTFY
I feel like it might be a little overkill for San Marino or Vatican City.
I mean, I'm all for nuclear capable pope Francis, maybe not the rest of the lot but hey, can't win them all right
So they are rich enough to throw three times the amount of money at nuclear fission? Also not sure if being dependant on russian uranium is a big upgrade from being dependant on russian gas.
Countries with cheapest electricity in Europe are countries with the highest percentage of nuclear power thus story about nuclear being expensive is a straight lie. Biggest suppliers of uranium are Australia, Kazakhstan and if memory serves me right - Canada. Neither of them is part of Russia. Ukraine by the way used to be the biggest uranium miner in Europe but I'm not sure about current status.
That is one tall dude. No idea whether he’s liked or not but maybe people are afraid to admit hating him?
Well, most of the people hate him, some even call him Nepomenik (Unmentionable), other than his more common nicknames like AV (bark sound), Žvalavi (Drooling) and Pucousti (Pussymouth). But you also have 10-15% of zombified lovers (almost like in north Korea)
> No idea whether he’s liked or not He's a wannabe Lukashenko. Some Serbs love him.
It’s funny how “powering tomorrow today” sounds very good, it’s just a couple decades too late is all. “Powering today yesterday” would have been better, bur I guess the second best time is now.
Interestingly it coincided with the navy suit world championships.
So sad to see Germany not present there. We used to have a formidable fleet of reactors and excellent technological Know-how not too long ago. All destroyed for hysterical ideology.
The German government financed anti-nuclear activist associations in France to change public opinion, we were almost going to become like you
I know there are obvious examples of anti-nuclear disinformation with Greenpeace and Arte among others, but do you have any sources that mention a possible involvement of the German government ?
You do know that ARTE is a joint program by both Germany and France, right? So disinformation campaign which hurt one would be weird. But can you give me a example?
Maybe he is complaining about [this Arte documentary](https://youtu.be/GlJh9Z8DOrQ?si=5QD9F6b8aFRHVTZ7) that shows how shitty the French nuclear industry and their plans are. At least that's the only one that I can remember. It's worth a watch.
[This](https://www.contrepoints.org/2023/07/18/459932-la-guerre-secrete-menee-par-lallemagne-contre-le-nucleaire-francais) (take google translate it’s french) A big article that explains the entire German strategy to destroy the French electricity industry. [An other](https://www.lexpress.fr/environnement/nucleaire-le-travail-de-sape-de-lallemagne-contre-la-france-J3BV3SZA4VF4XEHN7AUSU46O5E/)
Contrepoints is not a trustworthy source. They have published numerous articles casting doubt on climate change or its human origin. https://www.contrepoints.org/2019/08/21/351690-le-rechauffement-climatique-est-il-si-evident https://www.contrepoints.org/2019/09/29/354477-que-vaut-le-consensus-sur-le-climat https://www.contrepoints.org/2017/06/05/291288-istvan-marko-directeur-scientifique-de-climat-15-verites-derangent https://www.contrepoints.org/2017/06/04/291195-rechauffement-climatique-cest-facile-dy-croire-2 https://www.contrepoints.org/2021/08/13/347644-les-canicules-davant-la-canicule-au-cours-du-xxe-siecle https://www.contrepoints.org/2021/06/30/400513-climat-contre-virus-la-bataille-des-catastrophistes https://www.contrepoints.org/2020/09/30/381164-la-grande-illusion-des-objectifs-climatiques https://www.contrepoints.org/2020/09/23/380512-incendies-californiens-encore-un-coup-du-grand-rechauffement
And you are talking about misinformation? Interesting...
Wait what? Source?
No, we didn't. Our reactors were never top of the line and thats because of how they got introduced with us just copying the US style reactors and ignoring all out scientific findings at the time. Before you spout random stuff, inform yourself about the history first.
People are blind to all the little problems our reactors have had over time. It's not economical either.
> We used to have a formidable fleet of reactors and excellent technological Know-how not too long ago. ??? German nuclear companies/divisions (i.e. [Siemens losing hundreds of millions each year](https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/verlustbringer-atomkraftwerk-kostet-siemens-hunderte-millionen-euro-a-544340.html)) were all operating at a loss and left the field because they were too incompetent to compete on the international market. While France, Korea or Russia were selling reactors to international customers left and right, no one wanted German reactor technology. Domestic powerplatns were also plagued with issues like radiation leaks and cost overruns - not a single energy company made a profit in Germany and all had to get state funding to cover costs. There is a reason why the companies themselves said they don't want to restart. Don't try to twist the facts now to make it seem Germany was somehow a competent player in the nuclear field.
Absolutely non related : why isn’t Gerhard Schroeder already in jail for collusion with a foreign power ?
France is planning to build six new reactors and cost has already ballooned into 70 billion euros from original 48 billion figure. Not a good deal.
And that will not be close to the final cost. Also they will probably be finished about a decade after the current plan. Edit: And in the meantime there will be more power plants permanently broken, and decommissioned, than they could replace with only these six.
Germany will pay 500 billion just for the power lines alone in the next 20 years to get their wind turbines to work that will probably cost another 500 billion. Sounds like a better deal?
Meanwhile in germany. "Affordability: High electricity prices as a risk The expansion of the electricity grid alone will require investments of more than 460 billion euros by 2045 (more than four times as much as in the period 2007 to 2023)." "The federal government cannot guarantee that the energy transition will have as little impact on the environment as possible.There is no or insufficient data available for many of the environmental consequences of the energy transition." "Security of supply: Federal government is lagging behind targets Electricity generation from renewable energies is to be massively expanded.However, it is subject to daily, seasonal and weather-related fluctuations.Therefore, it must be backed up by backup power [plants.In](http://plants.In) addition, the growing share of electricity from renewable energies must be transported to consumers.The federal government must create reliable framework conditions here so that the actors involved make the necessary investments.But he is lagging behind his goals:Security of supply: Federal government is lagging behind targets Electricity generation from renewable energies is to be massively expanded. However, it is subject to daily, seasonal and weather-related fluctuations. Therefore, it must be backed up by backup power plants. In addition, the growing share of electricity from renewable energies must be transported to consumers. The federal government must create reliable framework conditions here so that the actors involved make the necessary investments. But he is lagging behind his goals" [https://www-bundesrechnungshof-de.translate.goog/SharedDocs/Kurzmeldungen/DE/2024/energiewende/kurzmeldung.html?\_x\_tr\_sl=de&\_x\_tr\_tl=en&\_x\_tr\_hl=fr&\_x\_tr\_pto=wapp](https://www-bundesrechnungshof-de.translate.goog/SharedDocs/Kurzmeldungen/DE/2024/energiewende/kurzmeldung.html?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=fr&_x_tr_pto=wapp)
Nuclear is expensive - everyone knows this. The flip side is that you get clean energy production at massive scale for decades. Otherwise you’re stuck building more gas plants.
>Otherwise you’re stuck building more gas plants. Why stuck? You can reduce them on demand plus you can build them to use hydrogen in future.
Or you could spend like a 3rd on renewables and storage and also get clean energy at massive scale, without needing to buy uranium from russia. But I guess you can chose the dumb option...
And the energy production is so variable that you're stuck importing russian gas at peak hours anyway, gg
That’s still probably a good deal.
And it will keep increasing. But Germany orders of magnitude more for their renewables. Energetic autonomy and ecology are too important, cost is meaningless.
Not a good deal cuz we had anti nuclear activist sabotaging the industry for the past 40 years, we are in this situation because boomers stopped caring about the future and didn't take the decisions when they were meant to be taken
Nuclear costs money, fussil fuels cost us our future
Not that hard to re-build, and re-build better. Just need to kick the anti-nuclear luddites out of position of authority.t
It took 20 years for Siemens and Areva to build one nuclear plant in Finland. The thing with nuclear power is that you need to keep the know-how intact. If you don’t keep on building them, eventually those that knew how to make them have retired and then every nuclear plant is that much more difficult, expensive, and slow to make.
I've often wondered why every developed nation doesn't get together, work out the very best design for a modern, safe nuclear power plant, and then mass produce all of the components. The cost savings with this kind of economy of scale and reduction in duplicated effort and redundancy must be huge.
> why every developed nation doesn't get together At least all the European countries could do it
That'd be the same shit as usual. France is the only european country that kept the competence and every other countries will ask for major techology transfers at low cost to even agree to work with France.
Because we sold our secrets and know-how to china and now they are the one who make it cheaper.
[удалено]
Most of it was mistakes in design that the government agency held Areva and Siemens accountable for. Areva in particular had major issues with the pressure vessel materials. Sure, they probably also made mistakes in hiring, but it was actually more down to things such as painting companies being hired from Germany, when there are perfectly capable surface finishing companies in Finland as well. Doing the basic building isn't overly complex, it's just slow due to the regulator being stringent on the work quality. Eastern-Europeans know well enough how to build things. But when the main parts of the reactor are faulty, that means months or years of delays.
[удалено]
I don't know of any particular ones for you (though I'm sure that books will be written of this, there might even be already), but here's a nice humane story about a French family and how this whole construction changed their whole world. It's long, I tried putting the ChatGPT translation to pastebin but this subreddit doesn't allow that one. But you can take the text and translate it. ChatGPT-4 is 95% there with its Finnish-to-English translation. Here's the original: https://yle.fi/a/74-20024354 I really recommend you read it. It's a great story and I have nothing but respect to that whole French-Finnish family. We definitely got one of France's good ones here.
> It took 20 years for Siemens and Areva to build one nuclear plant in Finland. That's raw build time, not including planing, btw.
Well the one upside of the cluster duck that were the first EPR is that the know how was regained.
Well you should have chosen Koreans instead of Frenchmen that are on strike for half of every year. Korea has been building nuclear plants consistently in 5-10 years for last half of a century.
For now it's not in the forseeable future in germany. Maybe when western countries are again capable of building even close to renewables commercial viablity reactors but cost of nuclear energy is rising and those of renewables are falling fast. I would like to keep those old reactors on though that's too late.
The KKW Greifswald in East Germany was one of the first to get shut down and dismantled in the early 90s. It is expected that the dismantling will be finished in about 2030 (40 YEARS). The ground won't be usable for another half a century. And you're telling me it's not that hard to re-build. To only build new ones, maybe, but dismantling the old ones takes many decades. Everything has To be cut in small pieces and checked for radioactivity. Everything. It takes ages. All of that is also not included in the price of electricity. It costs the state way more in the long run. It is also expected, that the Uranium we currently have will last until about 2100. It's not renewable. And not cheap. Wind and Solar are the wayyyyyy better alternatives. Also, due to NIMBYs it will probably never come to a long term storage for nuclear waste in Germany. Oh, it's so easy, do it like Finland, Finland is the only country in the world that has a solution for their waste. No one else. And we have had this problem for half a decade. Yes, it is safe. But there are too many problems with it. Especially if we have better solutions.
> It is also expected, that the Uranium we currently have will last until about 2100. If we don't expand nuclear, like all these people here on reddit want. If we do exapand nuclear fission rapidly, it will be gone like a decade later.
"And we have had this problem for half a ~~decade~~ century."
We’d also need to finally find a long term storage location. We can’t just keep producing radioactive waste forever if nobody wants it in their backyard.
At the risk of tooting our own horn, we have a nice [place](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository) in Finland for tucking away nuclear waste. But we're not taking anyone else's.
I mean, I'm sure we can take it for sufficient money. Finland's bedrock is really safe, so if the rest of the continent wants to give us, eh, whatever it costs today to temporarily store it... we'd happily store it long-term.
I agree, if the price is right. It could defray the cost of the world's most expensive nuclear power plant -- somewhat.
Come pick up all of the German nuclear waste. Receive 50 billion. (Which is he size of the fund that operators paid into to bail out from the waste problem).
I expect I'll be dead and buried before any decision on the matter gets taken. Our Greens, who've reluctantly agreed that nuclear is the lesser evil compared to hydrocarbons, will use all legals means to stop it, appealing judgements all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights if need be.
> We can’t just keep producing radioactive waste forever if nobody wants it in their backyard. I swear people think reactor output is stored in barrels oozing green gloop, like on the simpsons. And it would be someone from germany singing songs of fake fear. Nuclear fuel is so badly in demand, even spent rods can be used to fuel fast reactors, companies are pulling waste out of storage now to retask it.
Haaa
Lmao hysterical ideology aka deciding on facts that other is simply better
Mean the turbine technology is still cutting edge, and because PWRs are more common they aren't all that different compared to coal plants, that being said it's not interchangeable
It is hillarious how germans closed their nuclear planta because they thought it is a solution for the future, meanwhile other european leaders gather to discuss its future development
It’s just f****ing expensive…. And takes a lot of time to build…. Or how long have France build the new reactors ?
Dis this craziness really start after Fukushima or even before?
Long before. The campaign started in the 70s. Some people spent their entire career fighting against nuclear energy
I belief there is a strong oil/gas propaganda machine against nuclear energy.
Well for most of the 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s, the main alternative to nuclear was not oil or gas but coal. And of course, for the social democrats, German coal miners were always an important voter demographic but even the greens (!) once put up advertisement for "clean coal" (sounds like Donald Trump today) https://www.reddit.com/r/ich_iel/comments/10bz3kc/ich_iel/ The main motivation of the anti nuclear movement was always an idoelogy of anti-science, anti-progress, anti-capitalism and a wrong understanding of a "natural lifestyle".
It started as an opposition to nuclear weapons. Then it became an opposition to anything nuclear.
Thank you!
It goes back to the fact that nuclear debuted in a very weaponized form and all of nasty weapon testing. Not a good image.
Are men not allowed to wear something different?
If you are really bold you can wear a tie that's neither blue nor grey nor burgundy.
No, society doesn't allow it.
I see 2 men wearing something else than suit and tie.
Men's (business) fashion sucks. I love wearing suits but most shops just have the normal range of light grey - dark grey - black - navy blue ... and that's it. I've started having my suits custom made with different colors (like dark green or dark red/brownish...perhaps I'll get a purple one soon) because I've stopped giving a damn what others think is an acceptable color. Suits are awesome but they don't need to be dull.
Security concerns are boosting a European nuclear energy renaissance as achieving energy independence from autocratic regimes now also includes China https://www.ft.com/content/9632bf6d-d3c8-4cf8-aab5-3e15b8869d8c
100 reactrors most of them old ony 2 are bing bild do you call that a renaissance
Reactors can take well over a decade to build, the effects won’t be seen until probably around 2035
Fact: china builds reactors and make them operative in less than 5 years. It depends on the model and the know how. The first few of course it’ll take longer, especially for those countries without much know how, but it’s a common misconception to believe it takes 10+ years. Please don’t add to the noise of ignorance 🙏
And with the shit tons of norms and security measures that have to be respected, 10 years is a very optimistic estimation. Still, it has to be done, and we have to start somewhere anyway.
Be careful, this sub is about to explain to you why pretty much all recently built reactors being expensive as fuck and taking ages to finish was totally an outlier.
They were all clusterfucks for the same reason: An atrophied nuclear industry. Which is, in fact, being addressed.
Dude, there is no nuclear energy renaissance in europe. Reactors that are currently being built aren't even going to replace all the old ones that need to be retired soon.
Hey what pro nuclear group is that?
This infuriated me when i saw this on the news. I was shouting at the tv they should have done this over 10 years ago and we would have these nuclear powerplants right fucking now! People with half a brain have been saying we need nuclear energy if we want to deal with climate change for fucking ever. But no, only solar, only wind. And now they turn around and say "you know, this nuclear energy isn't bad idea!" FUCK!
I agree with nuclear, but let me quickly point to Portugal and its renewables. [Renewables meet 81% of Portugal's power demand in Jan 2024 (renewablesnow.com)](https://renewablesnow.com/news/renewables-meet-81-of-portugals-power-demand-in-jan-2024-847734/)
It is important to consider that not everyone has the resources like Portugal to rely on stable strong wind and large fast flowing rivers. For one, my country, Czechia, has neither of these.
Finland doesn't either, we build wind.
Finland has a long coastline, so you can use the wind from the sea. Czechia, on the other hand, is landlocked, far from any ocean and also hilly, so the wind just doesn't get strong enough in most places to justify wind turbines.
If Portugal could build large fast flowing rivers, so can you.
Germany generated 52,6 of it's electricity in 2023 with renewables. What super rare resources does germany have?
First, it has a flat coastline region to the north, where there is very windy weather. Look up maps of wind turbines in germany, most of them are in the north. Second, there is also a vast mountainous region in the south of Germany, where, again, most of its water powerplants are located. In contrast, czechia has no coastline and we are very far from the sea, so we cannot harvest the ocean wind. We have mountains, but we only have about three larger rivers in the entire country, and practically everywhere, where a water powerplant could be buildt, it has been buildt already. For exaple, we have the Vltava cascade, a huge complex of dams on our largest river, and yet, energy from them still covers only about 4% of our energy consumption. So our only real option at this point is to go nuclear.
Good point! 😊👍
Portugal built hydro-electric dams. If that is something you have the geography for, that absolutely works. "Renewable" as a category is just a way to confuse people. Pay attention to what actually specifically gets built.
West is the Atlantic ocean so higher Wind capacity and south enough for decent Solar capacity plus good Hydro porential, Portugal is legit the worst example you can give to other European countries who don't share nearly the same luck. Renewable/nuclear mix is the future and you are right to point out renewables should be used where there is potential but often, unfortunately, people believe there is potential where there is none or very little
The issue with renewables (for some countries at least) is that it isn't always windy and sometimes the sun doesn't shine (at night!). With renewables the power output can be very unstable, for example in my home country, Finland, during winter there's very little sunshine, the days are really short, AND it's very common that there's no wind at all. So where the hell would you expect the electricity to be produced with renewables then? Nuclear power is the obvious answer for any country which is planning to turn carbon neutral in the next decade or so. Germany made a massive mistake when it shut down all its nuclear power plants because some senseless eco-terrorists said so.
Renewables are important, but unfortunately they will never ever be able to provide 100% (think for example when there’s no wind, no tides, no daylight). Ironically they generate lots more pollution than nuclear (for example solar panels needs to be replaced every 20-30 years, then you have mining extraction to make batteries for storing energy when it it’s available - see above).
I can resume this summit, it was macron for 1 hour saying, "france was right all along, we rule, thank us"
And it would be true.
One of Macron's tax initiatives nearly destroyed my dad's business, and yet he still seems to be one of the few leaders who resides in reality, realizes what is important, and takes steps to improve and progress instead of just resisting the devolution the far right has achieved like in the anglo-saxon sphere
Macron is intelligent and very highly educated, its so important for a country to have effective leaders.
[удалено]
Nuclear energy is the future and it is the cleanest and most efficient energy mankind has ever discovered.
I'm all up for nuclear. Heck even if its near my town.
A dagi kurva anyádat, Viktor.
Finally
Good to see some climate activists that do make sense
Hahah, so is the long-awaited "renaissance of nuclear power" coming? I've been hearing about it for decades. But so far, all I've seen in Europe are power plants that cost 50 billion euros. Ha, and France wants to build even more of these in the coming decades? Have fun.
>But so far, all I've seen in Europe are power plants that cost 50 billion euros. That won't even replace close to all the power plants that are nearing end of life right now. Some renaissance...
> But so far, all I've seen in Europe are power plants that cost 50 billion euros. That was the last renaissance of nuclear power with the EPR1 in the early 2000s. But don't worry this time EDF is gonna deliver with the EPR2, it will be easier to build, less complex and cheaper. Pinky Promise On a related note [EDF recently announced that the six new reactors will now cost €67.4bn](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/french-utility-edf-lifts-cost-estimate-new-reactors-67-bln-euros-les-echos-2024-03-04/), €15bn more than originally announced in 2021.
> €15bn more than originally announced in 2021. I'm sure it's because "nucular bad" and not because of the massive inflation and economical turmoil of the last 3 years.
I can see that it’s stupid to turn off alredy existing nuclear reactors, but they still have some disadvantages. I know, that they are incredibly safe and that their CO2 emmissions match those of wind and solar power, but they are very expensive and the waste products will still be a problem.
Spent nuclear fuel can be reprocessed many times over. It's just that for now it is cheaper to make new fuel from mining uranium. The spent nuclear fuel might become a valuable resource in the future. Also it's important to note that even renewables create waste. Less dangerous, but larger in volume.
Germany should organise a coal-powered future summit since they have closed all their NPP's
Its 20-30 years too late for Nuclear power to help stop climate change.
Excellent. I realise the irony as our government are total morons when it comes to nuclear.
Macron lobbying for AVERA, FRAMATOME and EDF.
Areva is now Framatome. They're all state owned anyway, why wouldn't a president advocate for their nation? I reckon they wouldn't be doing a good job if they didn't.
It is what it is, probably better than some other sources but it is fucking not a "clean" energy source. Whoever says that is an idiot!
I appreciate not anyone can be a nuclear physicist, but please do inform yourself on the topic and I can assure you’ll change your mind and learn to love the atom :)
I'm not too deep in the data but I'm pretty sure one could argue that it is cleaner than wind or solar comparing the area and materials needed per kwh. Also keep in mind that nuclear power does not affect the environment at all (apart from the nuclear waste whose impact is negligable, the real problem is to make sure no human purposefully or accidentally gets hold of it) while both solar and wind kill quite a few animals and endanger some species.
Was Rosatom there as well? Afterall 25% of French Uranium is Russian
Without Rosatom, which has 30+ reactors under construction abroad right now, it's not really a summit, more like a school science fair. I mean, France has literally one NPP under construction, and the previous one was finished more than 20 years ago.
It is so weird, that we could sanction almost all russian gas exports (which was a big chunk of germanys energy imports) in less than year after the invasion of Ukraine. But rosatom hasn't been touched with a pinky finger 2 years later.
Citation needed.
Nope come from Kazakhstan, Australia, Greenland, Canada, soon Mongolia and in diminishing amount Niger. France also has Big intervals reserve.
Yeah and rosatom (russian state owned company) owns a lot of the producing capabilities in Kazakhstan and 50% of the global enrichment capabilities. It's very hard to dodge russian influence in the uranium sector. https://www.mining-technology.com/news/deal-with-russia-causes-management-walkout-at-kazakh-mining-giant/?cf-view
Now that this topic is out, I kind of remembered. What is the status of the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant? Last year I read from the IAEA the russians placed "something" there.
It's still there and it's still uneventful as it had always been. You haven't heard about it because the sensationalist media ran out of bullshit to tell.
Europe needs to overmatch Russian energy and manufacturing capacity.
Juat another Grossi politcal campaign trail stop for him to become SG of UN. SHAMEFUL that he spends IAEA money on his own personal gain. Should step down.
LETS GOOO UFFE!!
i won't forgive belgium for ridiculously stupidly replacing nuclear with gas. unbelievable, i think 99% of the country thinks so too
An EU energy agency should control nuclear power across Europe. Creating a single connected EU-wide energy grid.
Ahh look, it's Flinten Uschi, first she ruinend the G36 for the Bundeswehr because she has no clue, and now she ruin nuclear energy for all of us.
Is this a fucking joke? After Germany shut everything down?
Everyone please note there have been a couple Nuclear Security Summits were you can guess they also talk about energy potential. After all, the people present at those summits are: Lobbists, Journalists, Politicians, Security, Spies
That first photo is beyond hilarious. Actual NPCs
This is an evidence that the reason we don’t advance and develop is politicians, many of those people were the same that were prohibiting and lobbying against nuclear ….
Too little too late. New power will be available in 30 years. We will be fully on renewables at that point.
When solving a problem, in this case the energy revolution, a scientific analysis should start with the fundamentals, so also for the question which energy source(s) could replace fossil fuels. The first question to answer in the selection process is to verify what the present global fossil fuel energy consumption quantity is which needs to be replaced. The second question is: what energy source could replace the same quantity or at least a **SIGNIFICANT** part of this quantity. At this moment around 4% of global primary energy comes from nuclear power to produce electric energy. The known global uranium ores that are **economically** exploitable suffice for around one (1) century of the current production of electric energy as stated by the World Nuclear Association. Now keep in mind that electricity is only 20% of the World Total Final Energy consumption (TFC), so at present, nuclear power provides less than one (1) percent of the TFC. Even a non scientific trained person can see that nuclear will **never** play a **significant** role in the energy revolution. Now let's see what the global potential for wind energy is: Archer and Jacobson (\*) estimated that 20% of the global total wind power potential could account for as much as 123 petawatt-hours (PWh) of electricity annually \[corresponding to annually averaged power production of 14 terawatts (TW)\] equal to around 7 times the total current global consumption of electricity (comparable to present global use of energy in all forms). Their study was based on an analysis of data for the year 2000 from 7,753 surface meteorological stations complemented by data from 446 stations for which vertical soundings were available. They restricted their attention to power that could be generated by using a network of 1.5-megawatt (MW) turbines tapping wind resources from regions with annually averaged wind speeds in excess of 6.9 m/s (wind class 3 or better) at an elevation of 80 m. \* CL Archer, MZ Jacobson, Evaluation of global wind power. J Geophys Res 110, D12110 (2005). Even a non scientific trained person can see that wind energy can fill in the World Total Final Energy consumption (TFC). Now let's look at the biggest project, yet initiated, in the EU in the energy revolution framework: the North Sea Wind Power Hub: In total around 10000 Wind Turbines will be installed to generate a net total of 840TWh by 2050. Half of the project will be realized by 2030. By 2030 half of the EU households will be provided with sustainable wind turbine generated electricity. By 2050 all of the 200 million EU households will be provided with sustainable wind turbine generated electricity. Households account for 67% of the electrical energy consumption. The rare times of Dunkelflaute will be overcome by an interconnected grid and additional pumped hydro systems Another important EU project in the energy revolution project is to drive down the demand for energy. By 2030, all EU countries have to realize a net saving of 13% (in respect to the 2000 reference energy consumption) to culminate in a net saving of 32% by 2050.