this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024
136 points (95.9% liked)

Asklemmy

43890 readers
1505 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DrunkenPirate@feddit.org 50 points 2 weeks ago (29 children)

Germany: We moved our power creation from 60% coal and atom-driven to 60% wind and solar-driven in the last 6 years. This change is fundamental and can’t be reversed. We stopped our atom plants and have a plan out of coal. Even though our geography isn’t in favor for renewables, our country is dedicated in becoming carbon neutral. This is supported by most of the population and industry. (Yes renewables are cheaper than coal, gas, and atom)

Still open is the transition of heat and cars to electricity. Rather an emotional debate - Germans are car-crazy. The car discussion is similar to the gun debate in the US.

[–] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 7 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

Why lump atom in with coal? Atom is great, coal stinks. You're confusing the stats.

[–] DrunkenPirate@feddit.org 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Try to dismantle a nuclear plant. It costs tons of money and time. Ask the people at Nagasaki or Tschernobyl.

Dismantle a coal power plant takes time, but one can reuse the iron and such. All the open mining fields and mining tunnels are the problem. In Western Germany, there are areas where house crack or cars fall down sudden openings caused by old mining tunnels.

Try to dismantle at wind mill or solar fields. It’s a quest of days and some bucks.

I prefer the easy way of living. So, my favorite are renewables.

[–] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You dismantled your plants because dismantling your plants is hard? πŸ€” That seems backwards. Why not upgrade? Then you never have to dismantle. Keep it alive forever.

[–] AgentRocket@feddit.org 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Upgrading would have cost way more. one of the reasons atom power is so expensive (without government subsidies) is the cost of the plants which needs to be recouped as well as the price of the uranium. not to mention that we haven't found a suitable place to store the waste for those thousands of years until it's harmless.

[–] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Who cares about cost. We should be willing to pay whatever it takes to end fossil fuel use.

[–] AgentRocket@feddit.org 5 points 2 weeks ago

That's why we invest in renewables.

[–] drq@mastodon.ml 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

@DrunkenPirate

> I prefer the easy way of living.

There is no such thing as "easy way of living".

Renewables suck at energy density, predictability and control.

Nuclear gives you all three.

Also, look into the solar panel manufacturing costs to the environment.

Of course, renewables are a must. But by dismantling nuclear you kneecapped yourselves, guys, big time.

@dragonfucker

[–] DrunkenPirate@feddit.org 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Just stumpled upon this BBC article https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/oct/23/sellafield-cleanup-cost-136bn-national-audit-office Cleaning up Sellafield, Europes biggest nuclear dump costs now up to 136.000.000.000 Β£ That’s the cost of nuclear. The dangerous rests of the power creation.

[–] drq@mastodon.ml 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

@DrunkenPirate I'd accept this argument if it were still 1950s.

The year is 2024. Now we know better what to do with nuclear waste.

First, it's actually crazy recyclable. You can separate plutonium and unreacted uranium from fission products and use it again, making your fuel cycle way more efficient.

Second, you don't actually need to store the leftover fission products in an on-ground dump, that's actually mighty dumb. Instead, the borehole disposal can be used. Basically, drill a hole several kilometers deep - that's easy enough when you take the drilling equipment from all those oil barons - put your fission products in there (they're quite compact by volume, if you separate it out) and then seal the hole with concrete. Nobody's going to dig this up ever again. It's a solved problem.

Cleaning up sites like Sellafield is just dealing with the wartime legacy, when nuclear research was less about energy production, and more about bombs. It doesn't have to be this way.

[–] DrunkenPirate@feddit.org 1 points 1 week ago

Still, we have to manage the waste of former years. Needs money for ages.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (25 replies)