HomeEuropeNot only operational emission, but materials, shipping, land use, and construction all have come with heavy costs. Hate to admit but the French might have a point here after all
Not only operational emission, but materials, shipping, land use, and construction all have come with heavy costs. Hate to admit but the French might have a point here after all
October 3, 2024
Not only operational emission, but materials, shipping, land use, and construction all have come with heavy costs. Hate to admit but the French might have a point here after all
https://www.reddit.com/gallery/1fv0zam
by lit_readit
30 comments
200 cubic metre, that’s a cube of about 6m by 6m by 6m (~(6^3) cb.m. per YEAR). France metropolitan has an land area of 551,695 sq. km (1sqkm is 1000^2 sq. m). So with deep underground storage tunnels that are only 6m in height, in a MILLION years (first civilisations appeared ~7,000yrs ago) you will fill up only ~0.0062% of metropolitan France’s land area (assume absolutely no overlap in burying, which is stupid).
Why is battery storage listed as an energy source? It does not produce any electricity and should be added to the sources that need batteries as an additional material.
Nuclear clearly beats the rest in safety, material usage, energy production, and overall emissions… a shame that Big Coal/Oil duped the eco-people into hating it so much. We could have had solved this 30-40 years ago…
Problem is costs for nuclear energy without subsidies from government. If companies have to pay for insurance and building back old reactors, the energy prices cant compete with solar or wind farms.
Yeah, but France closed more installed capacity of nuclear power than Germany
Nuclear waste is stored underground as there is a lot of energy, which was not used and which might be used in future. This is made pretty clear that we still do not have technology yet to suck the energy out of such material and this is reason why it is stored this way for future use, so there might be still some discussion around that, because it is just not “dead” waste. But for sure interesting charts.
I need to say that I am supporter of nuclear power plant, but the chart strike me a bit … the wind material used really surprised me. I need to say that I am really surprised comparing the sources, because when I think about transportation, even the whole building of nuclear powerplant with all the materials, manpower, electricity to just only keep it working, that the material there is so low. The facility is about 500-1000 workers, which often need to come by car … there is so many variables tho.
Why do you hate to admit it?
>Hate to admit but the French might have a point here after all
Pros of nuclear have been known for decades. Why do you need to “admit” it now?
Big thank you to all German “environmentalists” that pushed hard to shut down nuclear. As of today 40+% of electricity is produced using gas and coal.
(/s)
Nuclear remains the best option, given that there’s high standards of safety around it and the environment where the reactor is placed has a low chance of natural disasters. I also wouldn’t place a nuclear plant in a country that’s constantly at war though.
Another day another nuclear chill
Where Can you read about the 96% of nuclear waste that can be recycled and reused? It seems incredibly high! And that slide is the only one without a source.
Your WHOLE lifetime waste from electricity needs would fit inside of a soda can if your all your needs could be fulfilled with just nuclear energy.
These calculations were made with older reactors, so the new models can probably do much better.
Geez. This clearly shows how lobbying exists to influence the population. In this case, manipulating the opinion AGAINST green energy.
1. Intelligent people learn from other people’s mistakes
2. Most people learn from their own mistakes
3. Idiots can’t acknowledge their own mistakes.
Nuclear ist a Problematik technology in the Future. Because of the climate Change the rivers will Heat Up which will cause Problems in cooling the Power plants
Nuclear is the way to go. Countries like France, Slovakia and Ukraine produce more than half of all electricity at nuclear power plants.
Total Bullshit. Nuclear never takes into account the waste from decommissioning nuclear reactors at end of life.
All of it needs to be disposed of safely along with nuclear waste. Of which no one wants anywhere.
It’s not even safe to transport, because even cargo trains and trucks crash carrying normal hazardous materials.
There are no reprocessing plants – that is a lie.
There are no fast breeder plants – that is a lie.
All of it is hypothetical.
France is simply stock piling it’s waste on site.
Basically what everyone agrees with anyway, Coal, Gas and Oil are the biggest problem by far and it does not really matter by what they are replaced as long as they are replaced. And Wind, PV, Hydro or Nuclear will vary simply on the possibility of the regions and each region should use the one suited for them (like Austria does not need to build nuclear power plants as long as we haven’t maxed out on hydro power) also including building time yes it takes a while to build a nuclear power plant, but when at the same time it takes 10 years to get the bureaucracy for a windpark done (and not being allowed to build it anyway because the turbines in the documents no longer exist and newer models need new documents) this is not really an argument either
Just some people in need to defend stupid decisions (end nuclear earlier than needed and extended coal/gas to compensate) are the outliner
they forgot the nuclear waste, the years and years and costs of deconstruction of a plant, how much an insurance would cost if even available, the costs for society in the future for keeping the waste safe.
…. and all these folks wanting nuclear until you factor in extraction costs and waste handling. Then, the pollution and potential risks soar.
It gets even clearer when you account for capacity factor. With nuclear, you don’t need to build in a lot of redundancy, but solar and wind produce about a third of the time, so either you have an inordinate array of batteries that can store a country’s amount of electricity consumption for multiple weeks on end (which means tons of extra electronics materials and pollution) or you build multiple systems and still keep coal, gas or nuclear around as a backup (except all the pollution of renewables is in building the plants rather than operating them, so you pay the full price carbon-wise).
The EPR needs 50% more concrete than the AP1000? I would like to see a source on that one.
Weird how they totally by accident left out the disposal and storage of spent fuel as a consideration.
> But the CO2 from coal feeds the trees!
My friend’s arguments for why coal is good.
Does anyone know how deaths at nuclear power plants are calculated?
Quite simply, you took the average radiation exposure of all radiation sources released by nuclear power and divided it by the number of people on the planet. Then the personal exposure calculated in this way was determined using the morbidity scale according to the “linear no-threshold” model.
The deaths caused by Tchernobyl, for example, are simply eliminated.
In the end, however, this is pointless, as the theory or statistics cannot capture the reality of a nuclear reactor accident. This is extreme relativization.
It is window-dressing by the nuclear lobby and is intended to divert attention from the problems of costs and low flexibility of nuclear power.
And as for the apparently small amount of nuclear waste, 1kg of this material can kill everyone within a radius of 10km if it is detonated as a dirty bomb in the air.
So there are 1000 tons of radioactive waste per year.
Le nucléaire est la source d’énergie du futur, il serait temps de l’admettre et de l’utiliser.
There are huge huge bias in such graphs that present nuclear as quasi perfect. People don’t realise that nuclear waste is potentially dangerous for 100 000 years, a number that our brain cannot grasp. The nuclear waste landfill needs to be properly ventilated to avoid any fire, and because it is cased in concrete it’s highly susceptible to movements in the ground. Pretending that you can guarantee its proper management for 100 000 years is fallacious and criminal.
If you did a “cycle of life” analysis of nuclear (cost/benefits for its entire life) it would fall right down at the bottom. Managing the waste is not only costly, it’s extremely unsafe.
And that’s not even taking into account the cost of refurbishing old plants nor the risk of a natural catastrophe (earthquakes, soil erosion, floods, hurricanes) nor even terrorist attacks.
The nuclear lobby is extremely strong and manages somehow to present itself as the side of “reason” and any opponent as delusional lunatics.
This was never in doubt if you had a working brain, and had seen a little bit of info on Nuclear.
30 comments
200 cubic metre, that’s a cube of about 6m by 6m by 6m (~(6^3) cb.m. per YEAR). France metropolitan has an land area of 551,695 sq. km (1sqkm is 1000^2 sq. m). So with deep underground storage tunnels that are only 6m in height, in a MILLION years (first civilisations appeared ~7,000yrs ago) you will fill up only ~0.0062% of metropolitan France’s land area (assume absolutely no overlap in burying, which is stupid).
calculation:
(200^(2/3) (sq.m/yr))(1000000yr)/(551695(sq.km)(1000^2 (sq.km/sq.m)))
Why is battery storage listed as an energy source? It does not produce any electricity and should be added to the sources that need batteries as an additional material.
Nuclear clearly beats the rest in safety, material usage, energy production, and overall emissions… a shame that Big Coal/Oil duped the eco-people into hating it so much. We could have had solved this 30-40 years ago…
Problem is costs for nuclear energy without subsidies from government. If companies have to pay for insurance and building back old reactors, the energy prices cant compete with solar or wind farms.
Yeah, but France closed more installed capacity of nuclear power than Germany
Nuclear waste is stored underground as there is a lot of energy, which was not used and which might be used in future. This is made pretty clear that we still do not have technology yet to suck the energy out of such material and this is reason why it is stored this way for future use, so there might be still some discussion around that, because it is just not “dead” waste. But for sure interesting charts.
I need to say that I am supporter of nuclear power plant, but the chart strike me a bit … the wind material used really surprised me. I need to say that I am really surprised comparing the sources, because when I think about transportation, even the whole building of nuclear powerplant with all the materials, manpower, electricity to just only keep it working, that the material there is so low. The facility is about 500-1000 workers, which often need to come by car … there is so many variables tho.
Why do you hate to admit it?
>Hate to admit but the French might have a point here after all
Pros of nuclear have been known for decades. Why do you need to “admit” it now?
Big thank you to all German “environmentalists” that pushed hard to shut down nuclear. As of today 40+% of electricity is produced using gas and coal.
(/s)
Nuclear remains the best option, given that there’s high standards of safety around it and the environment where the reactor is placed has a low chance of natural disasters. I also wouldn’t place a nuclear plant in a country that’s constantly at war though.
Another day another nuclear chill
Where Can you read about the 96% of nuclear waste that can be recycled and reused? It seems incredibly high! And that slide is the only one without a source.
Your WHOLE lifetime waste from electricity needs would fit inside of a soda can if your all your needs could be fulfilled with just nuclear energy.
These calculations were made with older reactors, so the new models can probably do much better.
Geez. This clearly shows how lobbying exists to influence the population. In this case, manipulating the opinion AGAINST green energy.
1. Intelligent people learn from other people’s mistakes
2. Most people learn from their own mistakes
3. Idiots can’t acknowledge their own mistakes.
Nuclear ist a Problematik technology in the Future. Because of the climate Change the rivers will Heat Up which will cause Problems in cooling the Power plants
Nuclear is the way to go. Countries like France, Slovakia and Ukraine produce more than half of all electricity at nuclear power plants.
Total Bullshit. Nuclear never takes into account the waste from decommissioning nuclear reactors at end of life.
All of it needs to be disposed of safely along with nuclear waste. Of which no one wants anywhere.
It’s not even safe to transport, because even cargo trains and trucks crash carrying normal hazardous materials.
There are no reprocessing plants – that is a lie.
There are no fast breeder plants – that is a lie.
All of it is hypothetical.
France is simply stock piling it’s waste on site.
Basically what everyone agrees with anyway, Coal, Gas and Oil are the biggest problem by far and it does not really matter by what they are replaced as long as they are replaced.
And Wind, PV, Hydro or Nuclear will vary simply on the possibility of the regions and each region should use the one suited for them (like Austria does not need to build nuclear power plants as long as we haven’t maxed out on hydro power) also including building time
yes it takes a while to build a nuclear power plant, but when at the same time it takes 10 years to get the bureaucracy for a windpark done (and not being allowed to build it anyway because the turbines in the documents no longer exist and newer models need new documents) this is not really an argument either
Just some people in need to defend stupid decisions (end nuclear earlier than needed and extended coal/gas to compensate) are the outliner
they forgot the nuclear waste, the years and years and costs of deconstruction of a plant, how much an insurance would cost if even available, the costs for society in the future for keeping the waste safe.
…. and all these folks wanting nuclear until you factor in extraction costs and waste handling. Then, the pollution and potential risks soar.
It gets even clearer when you account for capacity factor. With nuclear, you don’t need to build in a lot of redundancy, but solar and wind produce about a third of the time, so either you have an inordinate array of batteries that can store a country’s amount of electricity consumption for multiple weeks on end (which means tons of extra electronics materials and pollution) or you build multiple systems and still keep coal, gas or nuclear around as a backup (except all the pollution of renewables is in building the plants rather than operating them, so you pay the full price carbon-wise).
The EPR needs 50% more concrete than the AP1000? I would like to see a source on that one.
Weird how they totally by accident left out the disposal and storage of spent fuel as a consideration.
> But the CO2 from coal feeds the trees!
My friend’s arguments for why coal is good.
Does anyone know how deaths at nuclear power plants are calculated?
Quite simply, you took the average radiation exposure of all radiation sources released by nuclear power and divided it by the number of people on the planet. Then the personal exposure calculated in this way was determined using the morbidity scale according to the “linear no-threshold” model.
The deaths caused by Tchernobyl, for example, are simply eliminated.
In the end, however, this is pointless, as the theory or statistics cannot capture the reality of a nuclear reactor accident. This is extreme relativization.
It is window-dressing by the nuclear lobby and is intended to divert attention from the problems of costs and low flexibility of nuclear power.
And as for the apparently small amount of nuclear waste, 1kg of this material can kill everyone within a radius of 10km if it is detonated as a dirty bomb in the air.
So there are 1000 tons of radioactive waste per year.
Le nucléaire est la source d’énergie du futur, il serait temps de l’admettre et de l’utiliser.
There are huge huge bias in such graphs that present nuclear as quasi perfect. People don’t realise that nuclear waste is potentially dangerous for 100 000 years, a number that our brain cannot grasp. The nuclear waste landfill needs to be properly ventilated to avoid any fire, and because it is cased in concrete it’s highly susceptible to movements in the ground. Pretending that you can guarantee its proper management for 100 000 years is fallacious and criminal.
If you did a “cycle of life” analysis of nuclear (cost/benefits for its entire life) it would fall right down at the bottom. Managing the waste is not only costly, it’s extremely unsafe.
And that’s not even taking into account the cost of refurbishing old plants nor the risk of a natural catastrophe (earthquakes, soil erosion, floods, hurricanes) nor even terrorist attacks.
The nuclear lobby is extremely strong and manages somehow to present itself as the side of “reason” and any opponent as delusional lunatics.
This was never in doubt if you had a working brain, and had seen a little bit of info on Nuclear.