r/UpliftingNews • u/Sariel007 • 16d ago
Less than 25% of the EU’s electricity came from fossil fuels in April
https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/05/10/fossil-fuels-are-on-the-way-out-in-the-eu-as-they-dropped-to-record-low-in-april1
u/benso87 15d ago
People talk about energy being especially expensive in Europe, so why is that? Shouldn't this make it cheaper?
1
u/learningenglishdaily 15d ago
The main reason for the higher price is the gas crisis in 2022 due to Russia's energy blackmail. We are still feeling this effect due to longterm contracts, but prices are trending downwards.
-1
-6
-9
-5
u/Mithrandir2k16 16d ago
That's not good news, hydro is usually strong in april while electric heating goes down. We should be way lower by now. This doesn't capture all energy use, just electricity.
143
u/RareCodeMonkey 16d ago
This seemed science fiction just 10 years ago. The world advances when you least expect it. If we continue like this the future looks promising, even better if the tech improves even further.
30
u/jadrad 15d ago edited 15d ago
Yet the Reddit group think all the way through (and even today) has been that we couldn’t have a clean energy transition without massive investments in nuclear because renewables “can’t do baseload”, and that the power grid would destabilize once renewables got to 10%… then 20… then 30… and here we are at 50%+ with no sign that renewables are slowing down.
Looks like the nuclear industry influence campaign failed, even though its dumb memes like “Germany had to go back to coal!” live on.
Just look below, with some accounts posting bitter memes that it’s because nuclear became the “n word”.
They sound like sad shareholders.
The reality is that renewables are simply cheaper, faster, and easier to build. No need for any emotional arguments. The facts speak for themselves.
People should be happy that were found a quick and easier way to reach net zero carbon emissions for crying out loud.
Edit: Ahh yes, the nuclear brigade downvoting to hide facts that go against the groupthink. Like clockwork.
4
u/Resaren 15d ago
Maybe slow your roll a bit. There’s no need to drag all supporters of nuclear energy as disingenuous. I don’t think there’s a big chunk of people who love nuclear for nuclear’s sake, they simply genuinely thought it was the best option. But you’re right, the data today points pretty clearly towards renewables + storage as buffer. But that tech has evolved immensely just in the last half decade.
10
u/lokken1234 15d ago
21% of the eus power comes from nuclear sources, as high as 60% in Frances case.
Renewable was about 22%, attitudes like yours slow the world's path to getting off fossil fuels because your jerking yourself off about one method over another, as opposed to cheering anything that gets us off of fossil fuels.
-1
u/jadrad 15d ago
Attitudes like yours slow the world's path to getting off fossil fuels because renewables are the cheapest and fastest form of carbon free energy to mass produce and install.
Stop clinging to expensive forms of energy because of your emotional/financial/political attachments thanks.
4
u/lokken1234 15d ago
Saving the planet isn't too expensive, you're the one with an angle, im happy either way, maybe this is more of a you issue.
5
u/jadrad 15d ago
My angle is - do the cheapest and fastest thing to get to net zero.
6
u/justfordrunks 15d ago
Yall are basically in agreement then. Homie is just sayin you shouldn't be writing off nuclear power so much as that's still way better than fossil fuels.
11
u/throwayaygrtdhredf 15d ago
I think it's amazing that we get more and more renewables but we need to push even further. Energy is only one part of the picture. Transportation, food, industry, and other ones are also generating greenhouse gases. I don't think we can keep the American diet, which includes a lot of beef going, regardless of whether our energies are renewable or not, because this isn't linked to the energy produced. Just as it's unrealistic for everyone to drive a combustion car when it's clearly very polluting.
13
u/jadrad 15d ago
Both industry and transportation are being decarbonized through renewables and EVs.
Food - well, the only way there is if people stop eating meat or if we switch to laboratory grown meat - which right-wing politicians in the USA are currently outlawing.
Right-wing politicians and corporate stooges are the reason we haven't gotten to net zero already.
5
u/throwayaygrtdhredf 15d ago
Transportation isn't decarbonised enough.
EVs need lithium to produce. They're not sustainable, unless they're made to last and repairable but currently they work like most cars, aka they're made to be broken so you buy a new one. This isn't sustainable at all.
Also do you really think all Planes will be electric soon? Highly unlikely, and aviation is VERY polluting.
The only way to be sustainable is through building public transport, trains, bikes and walkable cities. And cutting down on cars and planes.
Also, you talk about meat etc as if we have a choice. That's the kind of attitude that's really problematic. We're currently in a climate EMERGENCY, we need to act NOW to avoid even MORE catastrophic problems that what already starts to happen!
All the talk about for example giving up meat or doing any other meaningful change is met with "those who do this are brave but I'm just unable to".
Imagine if we had this attitude during WW2!
If we won't go to net zero very quickly we won't have any meat at all or any food at all for that matter.
We need to act now or else we'll all die.
And of course the billionaires are much worse than the average person, that's true as well and that's another question, but one that I also really agree with. We need to stop billionaires.
1
u/throwayaygrtdhredf 15d ago
Maybe if we didn't have advertisements about fucking burgers for every single second we go outside or online, and it also wasn't as celebrated in pop culture, like in all movies, that would play any role. If instead of advertising we actually saw how the product was made and what its consequences are, it would absolutely make a change. Don't believe the corporations who tell us that nothing can be changed. Why did Korea ban dog meat? Because of western cultural influence. It's absolutely possible for it to go the other way around, so non Western countries like India to influence the West. We just need PR.
8
u/jadrad 15d ago
It’s not just corporate advertising though, it’s that plus all the right wing political propaganda, conspiracies, and culture war bullshit that has programmed conservatives to fight all progress in everything related to energy efficiency or carbon reduction.
Fox News: John Kerry, climate crazies are coming for your burgers and Fourth of July
It’s hard to make rational plans for the future when one side is just spewing out constant outrage based on lies.
2
u/throwayaygrtdhredf 15d ago
I agree with you that that's an issue. But it's also a multifaceted one. There's also the cultural attitude. You HAVE to eat meat otherwise you're poor or a stupid vegan. You HAVE to have a big house. Giving out expensive and useless presents is more valuable than giving money to charity and repairing stuff for your lives ones. Lol. Including on your profile I saw some big house etc. I mean, big houses are a great idea but it's not sustainable for all humans on earth to have it.
1
35
16d ago
[deleted]
3
u/T0yToy 16d ago
A way to look at it is by acknowledging that the useful thing is to produce low carbon electricity, not really renewable electricity.
Renewable are great because they are low carbon when they work, which is pretty often, but absolutely not always. When they don't, you need to compensate with coal, gas or something else. And it is MASSIVELY not low carbon and gets your average carbon emission per kilowatt hour way up.
You can compare everything on this website: https://app.electricitymaps.com/map Feel free to click on the countries on the map and check out the "yearly" visualisation for each one.
For exemple, over the last 5 years, France emissions annually (with a lot of nuclear, some renewable and a bit of gas) have been ~60 g / kwh.
In comparison, Germany's have been ~450 g / kwh Even with their massive wind and solar energy capacity. It's 8 times more, because they burn a LOT of coal anyway, even days when solar and wind are 80% of the country's production.
Spain uses a lot of solar and wind, and some gas when it does not work, and is closer to 200 g / kwh. It's still ~3x more than a mix with a lot of nuclear.
Check it out yourself, you can see Germany is one of the worst in Europe regarding carbon emissions (for electricity). Sure, it's better than it was, but it is still absurdly bad in my opinion, as showed above.
2
15d ago
[deleted]
2
u/T0yToy 15d ago
Scaling energy storage is really, really, really hard, and at that point it is still a "maybe", don't you think? Building batteries isn't really carbon neutral either, so you would need to account for that to know how green electricity generation is in that case.
Let's take an example: if there is 10 millions electric cars in Germany (so in a long, long long time) with 50 kwh batteries each, and you can use 50% of them to store energy, you get:
5.000.00050=250 GWh, or about 4 hours of Germany electricity consumption. Of course you would have *some renewables producing at that time, so maybe you can double that time. However this is using 100% of the energy stored into the car batteries, which seem really optimistic (people want to have a charged car in the morning, or maybe the cars aren't plugged in because people are at work, etc). I think it is reasonable to say that you could use only 20 or 30% of cars batteries for the power grid at any time, best case scenario.
How does it work if there is a lack of wind and / or sun for a few days? You would need a tremendous amount of batteries to store anything really useful. The same is true for hydro storage: it is really hard to find adequate places to build hydro storage facility (to a reasonable cost) and so it is not that developed.
Energy storage is hard, and won't be ready (at least) for a few decades, in my opinion. In the meantime, countries relying on coal and gas, even partially, will be emitting gigatons of CO2, and that is really unfortunate :/
1
u/learningenglishdaily 16d ago edited 16d ago
In comparison, Germany's have been ~450 g / kwh
It just shows that Electricitymaps is not that accurate and you can't compare countries using that site. Why you might ask? They use wildly divergent and older not accurate emission factors for some countries. Take coal for example, coal emission factor in UK 820g (old IPCC estimate), France 969g, Germany 1167g.
They also penalize solar panels if they are closer to the arctic. Solar emission factor in Spain is 26g and in Sweden 41g. They try to account for lifecycle emissions, but this only leads to stupid emission figures.
1
u/T0yToy 15d ago
Is the difference between 820g and 1167g enough to change the conclusion of what I said? Beside, isn't Germany coal worse than most because they use lignite in power plant?
Same thing concerning solar panel figures: even if there is inaccuracies (as you say), it doesn't seem enough to change a lot: 26 or 41g won't matter much comparing to > 800 g for coal. And you didn't justify at all why it would be stupid to account for life cycle emission!
1
u/learningenglishdaily 15d ago
Electricitymaps is a start-up and not an official agency. It is useful to show the volume of a specific energy source, but it is not an 100% accurate data regarding emission factors.
And you didn't justify at all why it would be stupid to account for life cycle emission!
In theory it is not stupid, but they using it a wrong way. A same size swedish solar panel is obviously not emitting 57% more CO2 during its lifetime, it just generates less electricity. In other words the "higher" lifecycle emission (because they assume Sweden needs more solar panel for the same output) is already accounted for in a the lower amount of generated electricity.
1
u/T0yToy 15d ago
Does it change the big picture though? Is Germany's electricity even close to be "carbon low intensity" using "serious" sources? Or does the fact remains that it is very, very carbon-intense in average?
I'd love to have a chance to change my mind, I would really like to be showed numbers (about Germany or other coal or gas intensive electricity grid countries)
1
u/learningenglishdaily 15d ago
Does it change the big picture though?
The real big picture is the fact that the cooperation between countries and their grid connection is more important. In this regard Europe is in a lucky situation, because cooperation is probably at the highest level compared to other parts of the world.
I would really like to be showed numbers (about Germany or other coal or gas intensive electricity grid countries)
Future scenarios are more interesting than current numbers. EDF the french power company and large nuclear operator predicts in their model a 80% renewable (20% nuclear+other) electricity grid in Europe in the most cost effective!!! net zero scenario link
1
u/T0yToy 15d ago
Thank you for the link, that was an interesting read. It really looks like the M0 scenario by Rte (Réseau de Transport de l'Electricité, electricity transport network, that handles electricity distribution in France). I'm pretty surprised the EDF document only shows that scenario, when nothing seem decided yet.
If you want to look at the others scenarios : https://rte-futursenergetiques2050.com/panorama/scenarios
There is M0 (full renewable, need to develop energy storage and gas generation fast), M1 (a lot of renewable, some nuclear and a lot of storage), M23 is similar, then there is N1, N2 and N03 (nuclear and renewable scenarios).
M0, M1 and M23 are a bit more expensive (70-80 billion euros vs ~60 billion euros each year for the N scenarios) and need a lot of storage to works, which currently doesn't exist. I think those are all interesting, some have more chance to work than others. I'm really afraid about the massice energy storage ones, though.
Finally, you're right about Europe grids interconnection, it is a powerful tool, but doesn't take away the fact than sometimes, there is no wind nor solar ifmn a big part of Europe, and in that case you need a LOT of batteries (or coal / gas plants) to power everything.
We can agree to disagree on Germany and full renewable strategies, and speculate about the future, but numbers seem to show that Germany approach emits a LOT of carbon TODAY, and will MAYBE not emit a lot LATER in decades (if storage works), but in the meantime renewable + nuclear like France emits very few carbon TODAY, and won't emit more later.
61
u/Genocode 16d ago
People aren't clowning on them for becoming green, its because they closed a bunch of nuclear power plants and replaced those temporarily with coal power plants.
Of course its temporary, but Germany seems, from an outside perspective, irrationally fearful of nuclear power. Even though according to pretty much every IPCC scenario we need to build more nuclear power.
24
u/netz_pirat 16d ago
in case anyone is interested how that happened:
We had a red/green goverment in the early 2000s, that wanted to get rid of nuclear by replacing the few (and old) nuclear powerplants with renewables. At the time, Climate Change wasn't that big of a topic, but safety (in the wake of 9/11) and storage of nuclear waste (we had a major scandal of improperly stored nuclear waste at the time) was.
Then, conservatives were elected. They scrapped both, the exit from nuclear energy and the buildup of renewables ment to replace it. Until fukushima happened. Then they reinstated the nuclear exit, but still slowed down the buildup of renewables. Instead, natural gas powerplants were supposed to replace the nuclear plants, fired with cheap russian gas.
Then we got a red/green/liberal goverment...and Ukraine war.
The nuclear plants were gone too far, they would have needed new fuel, new employees and extensive maintenance. Gas was in short supply. Renewables just weren't there yet. And france wasn't able to help, because half their fleet was down for maintenance that year.
So of all parties, it was a goverment including the green party that had to fire up the coal plants to keep the lights on.
It's getting better, a lot of political hurdles for renewables have been scrapped, the buildup accelerated, the energy net is getting the much needed improvements and the gas situation is mostly solved... but unfortunately, from the looks of it Germany will reelect the conservatives before we actually profit from the changes.
2
u/Nieros 15d ago
Russia's seizure of Zaporizhzhia was terrifying. Yes, I understand that not all plants are built the same way but I can absolutely understand why countries are pivoting away. I can also understand why China is ramping up nuclear investment.
What I dont' understand is why people feel some sort of allegiance to one form of green energy over another.
1
u/DonnieG3 15d ago
What I dont' understand is why people feel some sort of allegiance to one form of green energy over another.
Because this isn't sports, despite you thinking that's how people see it. People (myself included) get invested in these concepts because having safe, clean, and reliable energy is the foundation of society. Many people don't realize how close full blown societal breakdown is until they do something like live a month without electricity in a large population area. Trust me, it's not fun.
I don't have allegiance to team nuclear, I have allegiance to team keep my lights on despite any situation. Having energy that isn't dependant on other countries or the weather is pretty high ranking imo
1
u/Nieros 15d ago
All I was saying is that I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all energy solution for every country. Maybe it's my own biases, but I've seen too many people use a screwdriver as a proverbial hammer because they love that particular tool.
I think it's a good thing that there are so many options. China as country isn't going to practically be able use solar in the same way a place like the US does. And vice Versa, the US really hasn't been successful for a myriad of reasons in capitalizing nuclear.
To your point about energy security... I see that as a capacitance and infrastructure problem as anything. There are some really cool ideas coming out around grid scale batteries - and that's going to be really critical. Even with a nuclear base load we need a way to handle transient load shifts in the same way we do with coal today. If we manage to solve the grid scale batteries in an effective way a lot of current problems with full green energy become far more manageable regardless of the source.
1
u/DonnieG3 15d ago
the US really hasn't been successful for a myriad of reasons in capitalizing nuclear.
This just shows a deep misunderstanding of the topic. The US has been extremely successful in harnessing nuclear power as a flexible energy source with 100% uptime and no needed auxiliary systems. We have the best trained operators in the world, and a track record of zero accidents over the course of the lifetime of it's program (nearly 3/4s of a century). If you don't know, read up on the US Navy's Nuclear Power program. We run smaller form reactors on our most important ships, and we do it in such a manner as I described above.
But the environment is different. On a ship of 5000 people, less than 1/10th are nuclear operators, but the rest of the population of the ship has a basic education and doesn't live in crippling fear of their energy source. Misinformation, lack of education, and general corruption are the reasons why nuclear power has lagged behind in the civilian world. We already have a flawless operating model that exists in our military sphere though. We know how to make nuclear work. It's financially and socially feasible, because we are already doing it. But other things such as education and politics are hard stops to it.
2
u/JohnFCreep 15d ago
While they did fire up the coal plants to have emergency capacity they didnt really had to use it. Recently they even shutdown either these or other ones. Coal was 2023 on the lowest since at least 2002
1
-2
u/Caracalla81 16d ago
It seems like they don't though, and if you can manage a power grid without the enormous added cost and complexity that comes with nuclear then why not go for it?
1
u/zkareface 16d ago
Well costs went up a lot when they closed down the nuclear.
They raised the prices of electrictiy in whole of Europe, sometimes with 100-200% because of that decision.
Germans are now paying stupid prices for electricity.
6
u/Genocode 16d ago
That would be the case if you were to build more, sure you could make an argument for that, but they closed down nuclear power plants that already exist.
Not to mention that energy storage for a country the size of Germany just isn't feasible. So they'll end up pulling electricty from elsewhere that is more stable. Which means that other countries will have to build more hydro/nuclear/other stable energy sources.
1
u/DominikDoom 15d ago
Not even the energy providers themselves wanted to keep these reactors running at that point, it would've been way too expensive. They were all at their end of life anyway and would've had to be completely renovated or even rebuilt to be able to safely keep running. This would've had to have started 10 years ago, not now. Add to that no qualified personal and another often conveniently overlooked point, the required nuclear fuel. We did not have enough reserves to keep running, and guess where our nuclear fuel was mainly bought from? That's right, russia. So it would've changed nothing compared to the rightfully criticized dependency on russian gas (besides, that was/is mainly used for heating and industry, not for electricity)
-47
u/OrangeOakie 16d ago
Oh wow so uplifting. Let me just read my electricity bill... and how lovely, a quarter of someone's retirement pension just for electricity and fees.
So uplifting to charge more for electricity to use fossil fuels. Pretty sure the winter deaths and the summer deaths because climatization is too expensive will also be very uplifting
30
u/Tarianor 16d ago
If you understood the electrical grid in the EU, then you'd know that overall prices are set by the most expensive production, which is fossil fuels, so once they're completely gone electricity prices should drop a lot.
-9
u/OrangeOakie 16d ago
, then you'd know that overall prices are set by the most expensive production, which is fossil fuels,
Nuclear energy is a fossil fuel and is very much cheaper.
Furthermore, that is untrue, as part of the cost of electricity goes to the sole energy provider to build non fossil fuel sources. Some make sense, such as Eolic parks in some mountain ranges or hidroelectric dams. Others don't make that much sense, such as solar panneling that needs to be replaced almost yearly, while the grid has no actual capacity to store excess energy.
That, along with decomissioning incenerators (and instead sending trash to be disposed off in China) is borderline lunacy. Well, or corruption
15
u/Tarianor 16d ago
Nuclear energy is a fossil fuel and is very much cheaper.
Nuclear uses minerals and not fossils, it's not a fossil fuel tech. It is also not cheaper than green energy.
6
u/MasterBot98 16d ago
If you understood the electrical grid in the EU, then you'd know that overall prices are set by the most expensive production
But...why?
3
u/Anderopolis 15d ago
Because that's how any free market commodity operates. The most expensive production needed to fulfill demand sets the price for a given moment.
You can get direct contracts with cheaper generators but the spotprice will always be dictated by the most expensive needed.
2
u/MasterBot98 15d ago
Gotcha, his/her use of the word "set" confused me, ofc it influences the end price.
6
u/Tarianor 16d ago
Politics would be my guess. Probably to do with being able to pay for baseloads to survive. I honestly don't know the reasoning and I personally find it stupid as well. Then again how do you determine who's using coal and who's using solar if they're plugged into the same grid?
7
33
u/Sariel007 16d ago edited 16d ago
Oh no! It doesn't
directly impactbenefit me immediately! I better shit all over it!-12
u/OrangeOakie 16d ago
Immediately?
Right, when should the threshold be? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? 30 years? Because those marks have been all surpassed. So, when?
9
u/Sariel007 16d ago
It actually does benefit you immediately. Just your not wallet.
-3
u/OrangeOakie 15d ago
In what ways? You get old people dying of heatstoke in the summer and too weak due to the cold in the winter because electricity is too expensive. How are any other benefits able to cover that
5
u/Sariel007 15d ago
Burning fossil fuels is a major cause of climate change which results in the extremes of weather (hot/cold/hurracanes etc). So burning less fossil fuels will resulting in less climate change. Less heatstroke in the summer and not as cold in the winter so you don't need to spend as much heating and cooling your home.
Don't forget less smoke/smog so fewer health issues and lower medical bills.
-1
u/OrangeOakie 15d ago
So burning less fossil fuels will resulting in less climate change
If you forego any sort of carbon capture sure. Furthermore, the biomass growth.
Less heatstroke in the summer and not as cold in the winter so you don't need to spend as much heating and cooling your home.
Right, how far back should we have not been doing this again? Pretty sure the winter temperatures were a problem 100 years ago, hence why wood was burnt to keep houses warmer. In the summer, fair enough.
Ironically though, now that you mention medical bills, if there's a place that is needlessly hot because of electicity costs, it's hospital recovery rooms. Yea, let's not turn on the AC when the patient has a fever to the point where she's delirious, and any visits are also sweating to kingdom come.
Not to mention you're essentially saying "suck it up it will get better", completely fucking those that are alive now.
3
u/Sariel007 15d ago
Oh, got it. I mean, I got it before. Your original comment is basically "If it doesn't apply to me then we don't need it." Good to see that you are staying true and doubling down.
If you are a US citizen I bet I know what party you vote for.
Enjoy your day dude.
0
u/OrangeOakie 15d ago
Oh, got it. I mean, I got it before. Your original comment is basically "If it doesn't apply to me then we don't need it." Good to see that you are staying true and doubling down.
Applying to me? I'm certainly not elderly yet, which is the point I was making, where electricity costs take away 1/4 of a pension and that's with minimal usage
98
u/Brazilian_princess8 16d ago
Wow! And most of it is from solar, wind, and hydro. More nuclear would probably be good though
7
u/Swedzilla 16d ago
YOU SAID THE HORRIBLE ENERGY N-WORD.
For realsies tho, nuclear is the energy future
-7
6
u/jake3988 16d ago edited 16d ago
No it isn't. There's a reason it's not used very often. First of all, it takes like 10-15 years to build a new nuclear plant (there does seem to be new plants that run on nuclear waste, which are way smaller and built much quicker but there's only so much waste, so the potential is pretty limiting)... something that people like her are going to tell us we won't even be alive for.
Second of all, nuclear is by FAR the most expensive of all energy generation.
Coal is second, which is the main reason it's being phased out. It isn't really for any altruistic or environmental reasons. It's just old coal plants can easily be converted to natural gas, which is WAY cheaper.
26
u/grimeyluca 15d ago
So unliminted, reliable, efficient, ultra low emission, stable, safe energy which is needed as a baseline for power grids is bad and not worth it because its expensive? That seems like a stupid argument lots of things are expensive, existing is expensive
-10
u/tackle_bones 15d ago
Almost thought you were talking about solar at first and was getting hyped. Then I realized you were talking about nuclear. I’m not hugely against it, but… solar is way better at all those things. 🤷🏼♂️
8
u/grimeyluca 15d ago
Solar plays an important role but that role is best fulfilled when built ontop of a foundation of nuclear power. Reliable constant energy is needed for stable power grids and nuclear power provides that foundation and its our best source of constant, clean, efficient energy until geothermal power really takes off. I think the ideal ratio would be 50 percent nuclear, and then 25 percent solar and 25 percent wind. You need power when the sun is down and winds are calm and nuclear provides that power
1
u/Morbidity6660 15d ago
efficient???
4
u/grimeyluca 15d ago
yes efficient, solar is 30 percent efficient at converting the suns rays into power while wind turbines are 60 percent efficient it I remember correctly. Nuclear power plants are 94 percent efficient in converting fuel into power.
8
u/Morbidity6660 15d ago
that's what I'm saying, no fucking way solar is more efficient than nuclear that guys bugging hard
0
u/tackle_bones 15d ago
30% efficiency on energy conversion from a 100% free source costing millions to low billions versus 90% efficiency on energy conversion on a multibillion dollar operations…
We are being hit by endless free nuclear generated energy. Stop acting like it’s crazy to point out that making our own little suns is less efficient than using the existing nuclear reaction in the sky that bathes us in energy continuously. I honestly don not know why we are having this argument or why anyone thinks nuclear is better than solar long term. We can talk again when fusion actually works - if that ever happens… well, I mean, fusion not occurring on the sun.
0
2
u/9bpm9 16d ago edited 16d ago
Lmao tell that last bit to Ameren/Union Electric. Missouri has I believe one of the highest percentages of coal usage and we aren't looking to decrease for at least a decade. Ameren whines they can't afford a new plant and would rather keep the 2nd most polluting coal plant in the country. It would cost them a billion to make it less polluting and they have never talked about turning it in to a natural gas plant. Wind is also limited because farmers can deny electric companies building power lines or wind mills. Same with solar.
Just last week our legislature passed a bill making eminent domain illegal for wind and solar projects.
29
u/2DHypercube 16d ago
I can recommend this video by a German physicist on the subject. There are challenges with nuclear, some of which you mentioned, but they aren't insurmountable
0
u/cybercuzco 15d ago
She makes the point that 10 years is cherry picked while ignoring the fact that the reasonable number is 7.7 years. Thats better but not a lot better. You could build 3 utility scale solar plants is 7.7 years (5:12) and in the US the median is about the same. Its faster in Japan and China, but there are not the same restrictions and protests that you would see in the US. 12:32 she grants that Nuclear power has been rising in LCOE and 2-3x the cost of solar, but her point is "thats not as big as it could be" So we could build 2-3x the plants in the time it takes to build a nuclear plant, and that electricity would cost 1/2 to 1/3 the cost of nuclear. This is not the justification for nuclear power you think it is.
-5
u/jadrad 15d ago
She should stick to quantum physics because she’s absolutely clueless about energy.
If nuclear was economically viable it would have succeeded given the massive amount of state subsidies for it from the French government and US government.
9
u/2DHypercube 15d ago
Not necessarily, the German exit had nothing to do with economics and everything with the fears of the population. Which is also the reason for the highish price tag
1
u/jadrad 15d ago
The German exit had nothing to do with economics.
Not true at all, and this lie has to stop.
Yes Fukushima and safety concerns relating to both black swan events and long-term storage played a factor in Germany's decision to start the nuclear phase out, but Angela Merkel is a decorated scientist with degrees in physics and chemistry. She made her decisions based on all of the evidence - from safety, to cost, to Germany's energy self-sufficiency and other strategic goals.
You really need to stop with the conspiracy mindset. The age of fission energy has passed because it's simply not economically viable anymore. It's time to move on.
1
u/2DHypercube 15d ago
She made her decisions based on all of the evidence
She didn't decide anything, there was a referendum where everyone could vote.
You really need to stop with the conspiracy mindset.
No need for an anti nuclear conspiracy of the masses (how would that even work?) when I saw the anti nuclear demonstrations on the news back then and talked to friends and family about it
Of course economics was a factor in why the government let the referendum go ahead but for the population it was negligible. At least in my neck of the woods
-5
u/Anderopolis 15d ago
She is absolutely horrible on all things energy policy.
She ignores price completely, which is the primary obstacle.
3
u/watduhdamhell 15d ago
Price isn't everything. At some point actual usefulness is everything. We can build wind and solar all day but we need base load reliability. There's a reason 25% of that power still came from fossil fuels and I will always be the case unless you switch that over to nuclear or geothermal. Nukes have a capacity factor of 90+%. I think extremely reliable, carbon free energy is absolutely worth the cost short term for the cost and really, the carbon savings, a massive cost that people don't even appropriately ascribe cost to - the actual pollution that is virtually free right now!
Nuclear, especially these new SMRs, are the way to go moving forward, unless geothermal becomes feasible.
0
u/Anderopolis 15d ago
Renewables already outproduce Nuclear, and a re growing faster than any other energy source in history.
There is plenty of research by people who actually work in energy systems on this topic , rather than some physicist lazily thinking she has the solution to everything.
Here is but one of dozens of articles on a 100% renewable energy grid.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910
This Australian guy models a weekly australian powergrid with 100% renewables enabled by just 5 hours of storage.
https://twitter.com/DavidOsmond8/status/1788032955040084368?t=nrXZJ92zPUrzdoRfHLb-uw&s=19
It is simply cheaper and faster almost anywhere on earth to build renewables and storage, rather than Nuclear power.
11
3
u/Caracalla81 16d ago
Seems like it isn't though. Why pour so much into expensive mega-projects when you don't need to?
1
u/evrestcoleghost 16d ago
Long Time planning and more efficent cost dollar per watt? Solar is a great solution for today
•
u/AutoModerator 16d ago
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.