When do we get the next one?

  • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    You don’t need to plan “1000’s of years into the future.” Why does Nuclear require a multi-generational plan on a scale that no civilization has ever attained, but burning fossil fuels which will kill most of us within a few generations doesn’t? It’s a distraction, the solution to nuclear waste was solved in the 50’s and the reality is that dangerous nuclear waste is useful and should be recycled, and the low-order nuclear waste isn’t dangerous for anymore then a century at most, and even then it’s only if you consume it.

    • ⚡⚡⚡@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well, other people have different opinions.

      It’s not me who brought up the question. There is an interesting article about it: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200731-how-to-build-a-nuclear-warning-for-10000-years-time

      And also a wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_nuclear_waste_warning_messages


      the solution to nuclear waste was solved in the 50’s and the reality is that dangerous nuclear waste is useful and should be recycled

      We in Germany expect to have 10.500 tons of highly radioactive waste until 2080. And you are telling me that there is a solution already? Then why don’t the people with the solution just take the radioactive waste of Germany and recycle it?

      Conclusion: There is no “ready-for-production”, permanent solution for this problem yet.

      • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        10.500 tons of highly radioactive waste until 2080

        Ok, but in 2022 alone Germany emitted 746 000 000 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. I’ll take the 10.500 of easily containable waste over 60 years, please. In fact, let’s do 5x that. Or even 10x.

        • ⚡⚡⚡@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, cool that you want to maximize the nuclear waste, but Germany decided not to do that.

          As much nuclear as necessary, as much renewavles as possible… That’s the way…

          • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t want maximise nuclear waste, I want to minimise carbon emissions.

            Germany decided to minimise nuclear waste, and while doing that they’re having to fire up fossil fuel powerplants. Does that sound right to you?

            • ebikefolder@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              https://strom-report.com/strom/

              The amount of electricity generated from fossil and conventional energy sources fell by 12.2% in the first half of 2023 compared to the same period of the previous year. The largest decline, at 22%, was measured in power generation from coal. Coal-fired power plants fed in a total of 17.3 billion kWh less than in the previous year. Nuclear power generation has also declined due to the shutdown of the last 3 nuclear power plants. Nuclear power plants still fed 6.7 billion kWh of electricity into the grid in the first half of 2023 and thus contributed 3% to the electricity mix. Electricity generation from natural gas fell by 4.1% compared to the same period last year

              Kind of says the opposite, doesn’t it?

              • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                No, it really does not. That compares power generation mix, not total capacity, over the same periods of different years, which you can’t interpret in a vacuum. Look at the neighbouring countries’ data so you can normalise the data and analyse it properly. It may very well be that total power generation in the period they’re comparing is down overall due to a warmer winter. So it stands to reason that so would fossil fuels.

                If you want to interpret it properly, we can go over it, but it won’t tell you much about what we’re talking about. The matter is that while we’re in a fullblown climate crisis, and what we’re doing is insufficient, they reopened coal plants:

                https://www.dw.com/en/germany-reactivates-coal-fired-power-plant-to-save-gas/a-62893497

                And are planning to expand gas generation capacity: https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/germany-plans-build-25-gw-new-gas-fired-capacity-2030.html

                And none of it would be necessary had they not closed their very well performing NPPs.

                We need to be doing everything we can to decarbonise, and I honestly don’t understand why we keep having this 60 year old discussion, the same as the previous generations that have led us to this point. It really only serves so that fossil fuel magnates can keep lining their pockets as the world burns. Somehow they’ve convinced people that nuclear is competition for renewables instead of complementary, it’s really incredible to me.

                • ebikefolder@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Your first link is almost one year old. They did indeed prepare for a worst case, which didn’t occur after all. Coal and gas consumption (total, not just percentage wise) did not go up, but down instead.

                  Yes, a mild winter helped. Unfortunately, winters are getting warmer and warmer, and the last one was no exception there.

                  • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    So why is your country’s emissions per capita more than 50% higher than France’s (from here), despite a much higher renewables percentage in the power mix? Might it have something to do with how much more nuclear they have?

                    Looking through your post history, we seem to be aligned in advocating for decarbonisation. If you really want to reach zero emissions as soon as possible, don’t you think we should be exploring every carbon free avenue, and shutting down every single fossil fuel power plant?

                    Don’t fall for your government’s justifications, or fearmongering around nuclear. If we want to decarbonise the grid, we need it to complement renewables and fill the roles that renewables can’t by themselves. The longer we take to realise that, the longer we’ll keep burning greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

      • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s called nuclear reprocessing and it was banned as a compromise between the USSR and the USA because it can also be used to make weapons. The USSR is gone now, and any country that wants to do it is more then welcome to withdraw from the nuclear reprocessing treaty. They can do it unilaterally without any risk at all and that takes care of their existing and future high-order nuclear waste in one fell-swoop.