EU Nuclear power without perspective

ENVIRONMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

Nuclear power without perspective​

Although shutting down the last nuclear power plant in Germany sounds illogical at first glance, it is nevertheless justified
Column / Rudolf Skarics
May 19, 2023, 15:31

Germany is in the process of shutting down its last nuclear reactors. This doesn't really sound all that logical in view of the increasing demand for electrical power, on the one hand to supply the rapidly growing electromobility with energy, and on the other hand to replace natural gas. At the same time, coal-fired power plants continue to operate.

Not economical
It would be logical to continue using nuclear power, which is largely CO2-free, to save the climate. However, most nuclear power plants in Europe are approaching the end of their planned useful life or are already beyond it. That makes them dangerous. At the same time, safety upgrades are extremely costly.

But from a free-market point of view alone, nuclear power has no future: It is the most expensive way of providing energy, affordable only with extremely large amounts of tax money. There is little interest from private investors. No insurance company wants to insure it.

No success story
If you take the money and put it into the further development of other forms of energy and energy-saving measures, it is possible to reduce CO2 emissions much faster than by upgrading old nuclear power plants and building new ones.

And nuclear power is not a success story anyway: Despite huge lobbies in the background, its share of global energy supply is only five percent. The only thing that has any radiance here is the nuclear waste we are leaving behind for millennia. Besides, as drought increases, it becomes more and more difficult to cool nuclear power plants. (Rudolf Skarics, 5/19/2023)

Source (derstandard.at) | Archive

 

[DumbDude43]

the amount of mental gymnastics and cope these morons do to justify their environmentalism larp while adamantly insisting on getting 40% of their electricity from fucking lignite instead of nuclear is really something to behold

 

[Tomato flowers]

Once oil is gone (if it ever is) they’ll change their tune. The one thing we can’t do is live without power, not now that we are used to it. We’ve gone soft. We will kill our selves with nuclear waste before we go without our handheld devices for a day.

 

[Rommelbutt]

Once oil is gone (if it ever is) they’ll change their tune.

Until then the lobbyists and the CEOs have to stuff their pockets and satisfy their greed with money.

 

[Capsaicin Addict]

Once oil is gone (if it ever is) they’ll change their tune. The one thing we can’t do is live without power, not now that we are used to it. We’ve gone soft. We will kill our selves with nuclear waste before we go without our handheld devices for a day.

This. I don't know where these retards get their delusions, but you can't run an energy-intensive economy and society off windmills, solar panels, and dreams.

And when push comes to shove it'll be interesting if they can keep up their proud 'we don't need no nukes' when they're a half step from freezing to death.

 

[DumbDude43]

Once oil is gone (if it ever is) they’ll change their tune. The one thing we can’t do is live without power, not now that we are used to it. We’ve gone soft. We will kill our selves with nuclear waste before we go without our handheld devices for a day.

This. I don't know where these retards get their delusions, but you can't run an energy-intensive economy and society off windmills, solar panels, and dreams.

And when push comes to shove it'll be interesting if they can keep up their proud 'we don't need no nukes' when they're a half step from freezing to death.

>implying the people who make these decisions are the ones who suffer the consequences
big optimism lol

 

[Matt Damon]

If you take the money and put it into the further development of other forms of energy and energy-saving measures, it is possible to reduce CO2 emissions much faster than by upgrading old nuclear power plants and building new ones

True - you do reduce CO2 emissions very quickly when you plunge your society into a no-energy dark age that kills half the population.

If Germans are big enough cucks that they let themselves be de-industrialized, they deserve to die.

 

[FiddleAFox]

Once oil is gone (if it ever is) they’ll change their tune.

Oil? Maybe. Natural gas? Where do you think it comes from? It comes from plants, CNG/Propane is a renewable resource according to people working in the oil fields.

 

[Lord of the Large Pants]

>Massively subsidize and propagandize snake oil renewables
>Scaremonger and regulate nuclear out of existence

"Heh, guess nuclear power just couldn't survive in the free market. "

 

[Quindoll]

the amount of mental gymnastics and cope these morons do to justify their environmentalism larp while adamantly insisting on getting 40% of their electricity from fucking lignite instead of nuclear is really something to behold

I assume you think about Germany. It's below 30 % for 2023 and around 33 % in 2022. There a good chunk was used to mitigate natural gas use and Germany had to supply it's French neighbour.
I'd be a bit more reluctant to insult people if one fails at just looking at some numbers. And do not get me started on how coal is, I think, one of the only largely available energy resource they have.

>Massively subsidize and propagandize snake oil renewables
>Scaremonger and regulate nuclear out of existence

"Heh, guess nuclear power just couldn't survive in the free market. "

What killed nuclear were economics and DEregulation. On paper it looks fine until you run into construction issues and the budget overruns.

Then in the US you had the 1978 PURPA act, which started the deregulation. Then only one construction of a reactor happened in 1978 and then nothing till 2013. Before Three Mile Island, before Chernobyl. Capital for the capital intensive construction was hard and expensive to obtain and fossil fuels where cheap. Furthermore the huge forecasts of increases in electricity consumption did not realize.



What could have saved nuclear would be a hefty price on carbon emission. Something environmentalists demanded and still demand and something a good chunk of this forums readers are very much opposed towards.

 

[Administrator Flotsam]

Hasn't nuclear energy been buried purely because of alarmism? All it uses are radioactive elements heated to just the temperatures required to boil water for the turbines. It doesn't use weapons-grade enriched forms of those elements and could've been much cheaper today if it got proper investment. Is there really any reason to shun it beyond bad PR encouraged by hipsters and oil companies? Could another Chernobyl ever happen?

 

[Whoopsie Daisy]

If they build lots of Nuclear reactors, it will create too much electricity, causing the price to tumble and the profits to drop.

They'll only build nuclear when it only just meets demand, meaning that they can keep prices artificially high.

 

[Grotesquependulum]

Germany becoming less self sufficient means someone that they depend on benefits. I think it's the US keeping a vassal in line. After the whole situation with buying Russian oil against US interests. I would imagine that the hegemon would be tightening the yolk in the coming years not stopping at energy it will likely expand to food and other essential industries.

 

[Otterly]

It’s too expensive to produce semiconductors in Europe apparently. Until suddenly it isn’t when china looks like it’s ready to have a go at Taiwan.

But from a free-market point of view alone, nuclear power has no future: It is the most expensive way of providing energy, affordable only with extremely large amounts of tax money. There is little interest from private investors.

This simply isn’t true. EDF amd Vattenfall are both state involved and seem to be doing it just fine. We can’t run all those electric cars off Windmills. Renewables have a place and should be part of the grid, in the places where it makes sense - Iceland’s geothermal for example. Offshore wind in the north west of Europe. But the base load needs to be reliable and that has to be coal, oil or nuclear.

 

[WelperHelper99]

It’s too expensive to produce semiconductors in Europe apparently. Until suddenly it isn’t when china looks like it’s ready to have a go at Taiwan.

That's always been a lie. The cheap labor pill is just a cash grab. The corpos make less but in turn the country prospers.

This simply isn’t true. EDF amd Vattenfall are both state involved and seem to be doing it just fine. We can’t run all those electric cars off Windmills. Renewables have a place and should be part of the grid, in the places where it makes sense - Iceland’s geothermal for example. Offshore wind in the north west of Europe. But the base load needs to be reliable and that has to be coal, oil or nuclear.

Exactly. There's plenty of coal to go around, same with uranium. They don't do it because it solves the issue. You can't grift off near infinite energy once it's set up. That's why they want them dead.

 

[Synthetic Smug]

I see German nature mysticism is trying to murder Europe again.

 

[Breadbassket]

I see German nature mysticism is trying to murder Europe again.

Instead of blood and soil this time it's stupidity and soil.

 

[mlanguishi]

Could another Chernobyl ever happen?

It's possible, but Gen 3 and above reactors which have been designed since the late 90s or so are pretty immune. The Soviet RBMK reactor used in Chernobyl was plain bad. It had a positive 'void-coefficient' which means if the coolant gets low, the chain reactions increase out of control. More modern designs have a negative one, which means they lose power without water available. The next Gen 4 reactors should be completely passively safe.

It's insane that more research and effort hasn't gone into just Uranium fission. Thorium will open even more possibilities if anyone ever bothers. Thorium would put the need for fusion off hundreds of years.

 

[Snekposter]

If they build lots of Nuclear reactors, it will create too much electricity, causing the price to tumble and the profits to drop.

They'll only build nuclear when it only just meets demand, meaning that they can keep prices artificially high.

In the 1950's in the USA there was talk of it being too cheap to meter thanks to nuclear power plants everywhere. Once you get past the absurd start-up costs since you absolutely cannot cut corners there, the actual operating costs are horrifically low since a reactor lasts for decades on its initial fuel and you can recycle a lot of the steam back into feedwater via preheaters and economizer systems.

 

[King George III]

Instead of building a few large nuclear power plants, why don't they just build a bunch of smaller ones? Would that be more economically feasible?
Pre-Edit Edit: Well shit, it looks like that's where things may be heading.

https://archive.ph/bGMjd