QuoteThe European Commission has labeled nuclear and gas as sustainable. Critics are calling the step "greenwashing" and say it could threaten the bloc's bid to become climate-neutral by 2050.
https://www.dw.com/en/european-commission-declares-nuclear-and-gas-to-be-green/a-60614990
From my perspective, calling natural gas green when facing the impending crisis of global warming is a bit... delusional? I mean, it's greener than coal, so I guess that's the motive? To help phase out coal?
I'm fine with nuclear energy being labelled green. Yes, nuclear waste is an issue and not green, but in the context of slowing down the climate crisis it's great, and I think that's the crux of the matter right now.
Quote from: Jacob on February 02, 2022, 12:20:41 PM
Yes, nuclear waste is an issue and not green, but in the context of slowing down the climate crisis it's great, and I think that's the crux of the matter right now.
I don't understand what calling nuclear waste "not green" in this context means. It's less carbon-intensive than wind and solar. How is that "not green"?
Braine can expand on this, but nuclear waste is not necessarily a problem. Swedish waste can be fed into a new generation reactor and there's enough energy in them for a few hundred years and then there's a lot of less dangerous waste.
Quote from: Habbaku on February 02, 2022, 12:35:23 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 02, 2022, 12:20:41 PM
Yes, nuclear waste is an issue and not green, but in the context of slowing down the climate crisis it's great, and I think that's the crux of the matter right now.
I don't understand what calling nuclear waste "not green" in this context means. It's less carbon-intensive than wind and solar. How is that "not green"?
We agree, I think.
Nuclear waste is potentially an environmental disaster if it contaminates the environment - and in that context it is not green, because environmental disasters are not green. The Union Carbide disaster in Bhopal in 1984 was, as I understand it, carbon neutral. But hundreds of thousands of people were exposed to toxins, thousands died, and the local environment was devastated. Thus it was not green, in spite of not having much impact on global warming.
But - as I believe I said - in the context of reducing our carbon footprint, nuclear energy is absolutely green and the EU label is -IMO justified (moreso than natural gas).
My understanding is this is relevant for what private sector investors can class as green for what qualifies as "ESG" so it will have a big impact on what the fund and asset managers sitting on trillions of dollars of wealth (like all the big pension funds) invest in. My view is there is a far stronger case for allowing investment in nuclear than new fossil fuels production or use.
I am happy about nuclear but it does feel like labelling gas as green is a cop-out. Will be pretty easy to make nice "look how green we are already, problem solved!" graphs thanks to it.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Threviel on February 02, 2022, 12:37:28 PM
Braine can expand on this, but nuclear waste is not necessarily a problem. Swedish waste can be fed into a new generation reactor and there's enough energy in them for a few hundred years and then there's a lot of less dangerous waste.
That's excellent - and I didn't realize. That makes the pro-nuclear power proposition even stronger, IMO.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 02, 2022, 12:51:35 PM
My understanding is this is relevant for what private sector investors can class as green for what qualifies as "ESG" so it will have a big impact on what the fund and asset managers sitting on trillions of dollars of wealth (like all the big pension funds) invest in. My view is there is a far stronger case for allowing investment in nuclear than new fossil fuels production or use.
Yup, it's just for the purposes of investment eligibility. There are still some caveats and strings attached, though, and legal challenges from some members are expected, so it's not as if it is a clear cut issue now.
The way I see it if a politician is not trying to force nuclear power down the throats of the ignorant masses, they are not serious about fighting climate change. I don't think we have any other possible short term (in civilisational terms) solution that doesn't involve killing 6 billion people and going back to pre-industrial times. Which I know are the dreams of many European greens, but they should be ignored.
Quote from: Tamas on February 02, 2022, 01:28:55 PM
The way I see it if a politician is not trying to force nuclear power down the throats of the ignorant masses, they are not serious about fighting climate change. I don't think we have any other possible short term (in civilisational terms) solution that doesn't involve killing 6 billion people and going back to pre-industrial times. Which I know are the dreams of many European greens, but they should be ignored.
:jaron:
Some European Greens are great (although sllightly alarmed by, I think, the Slovenian Greens who were taken over by a green energy billionaire and renamed the Freedom Party and turned into a bit of a personal vehicle :ph34r:). But I think Tamas is being fair to British Greens at least <_<
German Greens are scum. :)
Quote from: Habbaku on February 02, 2022, 01:48:15 PM
German Greens are scum. :)
No! I love the German Greens (except on energy) :blush:
Quote from: Tamas on February 02, 2022, 01:28:55 PM
The way I see it if a politician is not trying to force nuclear power down the throats of the ignorant masses, they are not serious about fighting climate change. I don't think we have any other possible short term (in civilisational terms) solution that doesn't involve killing 6 billion people and going back to pre-industrial times. Which I know are the dreams of many European greens, but they should be ignored.
As per my other thread, depopulation looks like it's coming anyhow.
Quote from: Jacob on February 02, 2022, 01:54:02 PM
Quote from: Tamas on February 02, 2022, 01:28:55 PM
The way I see it if a politician is not trying to force nuclear power down the throats of the ignorant masses, they are not serious about fighting climate change. I don't think we have any other possible short term (in civilisational terms) solution that doesn't involve killing 6 billion people and going back to pre-industrial times. Which I know are the dreams of many European greens, but they should be ignored.
As per my other thread, depopulation looks like it's coming anyhow.
:yes:
We have many challenges, but foremost amongst them is climate change, de-carbonizing, and figuring out how we keep our societies functioning amidst an extreme amount of greying in some countries. Our (meaning, broadly, "The West") welfare systems simply aren't set up to easily fund the explosion in elderly population.
Quote from: Jacob on February 02, 2022, 01:54:02 PM
Quote from: Tamas on February 02, 2022, 01:28:55 PM
The way I see it if a politician is not trying to force nuclear power down the throats of the ignorant masses, they are not serious about fighting climate change. I don't think we have any other possible short term (in civilisational terms) solution that doesn't involve killing 6 billion people and going back to pre-industrial times. Which I know are the dreams of many European greens, but they should be ignored.
As per my other thread, depopulation looks like it's coming anyhow.
You think the pillow fights are going to get that out of hand? :o
Quote from: Habbaku on February 02, 2022, 01:58:02 PM
:yes:
We have many challenges, but foremost amongst them is climate change, de-carbonizing, and figuring out how we keep our societies functioning amidst an extreme amount of greying in some countries. Our (meaning, broadly, "The West") welfare systems simply aren't set up to easily fund the explosion in elderly population.
It's not just us in the West. China and India will have similar issues, I think.
According to the modelling I posted in the other thread (http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,16509.0.html), the only regions that will have higher populations in 2100 compared to 2017 are Africa (North & Sub-Saharan) and the Middle East.
Quote from: HVC on February 02, 2022, 01:58:04 PM
You think the pillow fights are going to get that out of hand? :o
Yes, obviously. People will be too busy practicing their pillow fights and forget to have sex! The implications are devastating :ph34r:
There's also this modelling of population growth that suggests we'll reach peak populations mid this century, with 23 countries seeing their populations shrink by 50+% by 2100: http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,16509.0.html
Just read the original article and it provides a pretty good context for the issue. Take a look at it if you can as I feel that it can frame the debate in much more realistic terms.
Quote from: The Larch on February 02, 2022, 02:21:47 PM
Just read the original article and it provides a pretty good context for the issue. Take a look at it if you can as I feel that it can frame the debate in much more realistic terms.
Yeah definitely.
QuoteIn a proposal presented this Wednesday, the EU Commission stated that certain strings remained attached. For example, gas plants could only be considered green if the facility switched to low-carbon or renewable gases, such as biomass or hydrogen produced with renewable energy, by 2035.
Nuclear power plants would be deemed green if the sites can manage to safely dispose of radioactive waste. So far, worldwide, no permanent disposal site, has gone into operation though.
... seems pretty reasonable to me, to be honest.
That makes me a bit more concerned actually at least on reading.
You can invest in burning gas for the next 15 years but nuclear is on condition of a type of disposal that, practically speaking, doesn't exist yet.
This sounds detrimental to building acceptance of nuclear, tying it to gas so stupidly
Well to be fair, hydrogen and biomass gas are pretty decent I think?
Quote from: Jacob on February 02, 2022, 02:40:22 PM
Well to be fair, hydrogen and biomass gas are pretty decent I think?
Sure my point might just be how I read that to be honest. But I read those two paragraphs together as conditions and it doesn't seem to me to be the same thing. One is you can invest in gas and in 15 years time you need to transition. Similarly you can invest in nuclear but need to be able to dispose of the waste - in a way that currently doesn't operationally exist. That feels like gas is a far, far more plausible investment - and I'm not sure that's the right decision given that it's still reliant on extracting and burning fossil fuels.
It's a bit like hydrogen and capturing carbon from the atmosphere - I think they're really good and we absolutely need to invest in them - but from my understanding the technology isn't there for it to be used at scale to the extent countries are planning to rely on it. Which means at this point the key still needs to be reducing carbon consumption and fossil fuel usage.
But I think renewables has moved faster than anyone imagined technologically so I'm optimistic if we put the money into it.
That's a very fair point.
Quote from: Jacob on February 02, 2022, 12:53:51 PM
Quote from: Threviel on February 02, 2022, 12:37:28 PM
Braine can expand on this, but nuclear waste is not necessarily a problem. Swedish waste can be fed into a new generation reactor and there's enough energy in them for a few hundred years and then there's a lot of less dangerous waste.
That's excellent - and I didn't realize. That makes the pro-nuclear power proposition even stronger, IMO.
Reprocessing is very expensive (I seem to recall that the best estimates were that a kWh produced by reprocessing was twice the cost of one produced by single-use uranium, including the extraction and disposal costs). The French do a lot of reprocessing, though, so it may be that it can be cost-effective in a very efficient nuclear power program such as the one the French have.
Quote from: Threviel on February 02, 2022, 12:37:28 PM
Braine can expand on this, but nuclear waste is not necessarily a problem. Swedish waste can be fed into a new generation reactor and there's enough energy in them for a few hundred years and then there's a lot of less dangerous waste.
Even if you just do one-use of uranium, one of the advantages of nuclear power is that it produces very little waste, and the waste is easily stored and contained. From an environmental or safety perspective there is no waste problem with nuclear power. The final deposit for spent nuclear fuel using the method of Sweden and Finland is much safer than a rational risk assessment would result in. The design requirements were drawn up by people on the intellectual level of a child, and are much stricter than necessary. Among other things they don't account for the difference between risks now and risks a thousand or ten thousands years from now.
If, which is unlikely, a leak would apppear after some thousands of years, the result would be higher levels of radioactivity in the local groundwater. There is no known mechanism by which the waste would explode and significantly contaminate an area. There is no risk of an environmental disaster.
The timescale of 100,000 years is MUCH shorter than many other final deposits, for instance for mercury, which "has to"* be safe on a timescale of a billion years or more (mercury doesn't decay).
*The same way spent nuclear fuel "has to" be safe for 100,000 years.
Reprocessing is always an option, but in addition to economical aspects it does mean accepting extra risks today in an effort to reduce risks 1,000 years from now. From a rational perspective this is often unsound for risks that don't scale with society.
The main problem with nuclear has always been financial risk, and dealing with regulatory hurdles. Building gigantic infrastructure projects means that you have to guess correctly about the cost and supply needs of electricity for years into the future, which is very risky.
The new generation of small modular reactors looks to ameliorate some of the financial risk problems, by allowing smaller increments.
The waste issue has always been very overblown. The real problem there is that NIMBYism is taken to truly absurd extremes when it comes to nuclear waste ...
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 02, 2022, 12:51:35 PM
My understanding is this is relevant for what private sector investors can class as green for what qualifies as "ESG" so it will have a big impact on what the fund and asset managers sitting on trillions of dollars of wealth (like all the big pension funds) invest in. My view is there is a far stronger case for allowing investment in nuclear than new fossil fuels production or use.
Is there actually private sector investment into nuclear power anywhere? Most nuclear power plants seem to be direct state investment (see EdF) or heavily subsidized by the state (e.g. socializing insurance for nuclear power plants, fixed pricing for produced electricity above market rates).
Quote from: Zanza on February 03, 2022, 05:01:27 PMIs there actually private sector investment into nuclear power anywhere? Most nuclear power plants seem to be direct state investment (see EdF) or heavily subsidized by the state (e.g. socializing insurance for nuclear power plants).
I think that's still right for plants that have been built - but the new small modular reactors might change that. I think there's a few around the world being built or planned that are private sector.
But there's definitely private sector appetite to invest - chances are it would be in partnership with public corporation or the state. I think India has recently opened its nuclear market to private (and foreign) investment which was seen as a big deal. Which makes sense because most of the deals commercially involve a guaranteed price for energy supplied over its life - which, if you can face the huge up-front costs, is attractive.
Edit: And it varies but in the UK the fixed energy price/contract for difference model is available for all low carbon energy - the theory is it will support investment in production rather than worrying about energy prices needing to reach a certain point for x investment in low carbon energy to be profitable which I think would be counter-productive in the energy transition.
I feel like these small, modular reactors have been in discussion for years already. Is there actual progress to building them anywhere?
Considering the timelines for new reactors at least in the Western world, they don't seem to help with quick decarbonisation anyway. If you start a new reactor now, it's unlikely to be operational before 2035 or so when you look at Flamanville or that Finnish place I can't spell.
Let's see if there really is a nuclear renaissance. Not in my country anyway. The ridiculous policy to phase out already paid nuclear plants while keeping lignite fired plants will sadly not be reversed, this year will be the end of nuclear power in Germany. I guess building new plants was out of question here, but we should have kept the ones we had. Oh well.
Yeah there's ones that are I think approved for building in Canada. China is obviously going ahead with them. The UK government has part funded on plans to construct about 15 here. I think Poland and India are pretty advanced in looking at them too - especially as a bridge/transition out of coal.
I agree on the Western world - but I suspect nuclear will be a huge part of India and China meeting their plans to phase out coal which obviously globally will have a big impact. I'm not sure if the EU's ESG investing rules will apply to investments everywhere but that could be an avenue for those funds - especially India. Although some countries that are more comfortable with nuclear - like Finland and France are doing a lot.
I think there's about 60 plants under construction right now across the world - primarily in Asia with China, South Korea and India leading the way - which is, I think, the highest figure in years. I suppose like the real renaissance it is happening but not everywhere at once :lol:
Quote from: Zanza on February 03, 2022, 05:01:27 PM
Is there actually private sector investment into nuclear power anywhere? Most nuclear power plants seem to be direct state investment (see EdF) or heavily subsidized by the state (e.g. socializing insurance for nuclear power plants, fixed pricing for produced electricity above market rates).
In the US, every currently-operating private sector power plant is run by a different company than the one that built it. Every company that built a plant found the debt burden unsustainable and went broke. The new owners didn't take on all the debt. And the company that built the reactors also went bankrupt.
So, no, the lesson seems to be clear that it is suicidal for a private firm to build a reactor. However, France's EdF reactor program has even been profitable over time, as I understand it. Net assets > net liabilities, and they've returned money to the treasury.
France having their own nuclear renaissance - Macron had already announced a re-launch of their civilian nuclear program. And now :mmm: :w00t:
QuoteAFP News Agency
@AFP
#BREAKING Macron says France to build up to 14 new nuclear reactors
#UPDATE President Emmanuel Macron called Thursday for a "renaissance" for the French nuclear industry, saying he wanted up to 14 new reactors to power the country's transition away from fossil fuels
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FLPvMJ5VEAAP19M?format=jpg&name=small)
Good news.
Sensible.
:wub: :frog:
Meanwhile, a couple of days ago I came across the 2020 figures for annual coal production ....
Russia, USA and Australia are in the 400-500 million tonnes range, which isn't good.
India is at 750 million,
But what surprised me was Indonesia at 563 million, didn't even know they had that much domestic coal and shows how much their economy has grown in recent decades on the back of 'cheap' energy.
And then there's China, 3,900 million tonnes of coal ....
'We're' ****ed. :(
Quote from: grumbler on February 03, 2022, 06:44:47 PM
So, no, the lesson seems to be clear that it is suicidal for a private firm to build a reactor. However, France's EdF reactor program has even been profitable over time, as I understand it. Net assets > net liabilities, and they've returned money to the treasury.
Hmm, not sure. I don't have a source right now, but I remember reading that EdF has gigantic debt and if you consider the costs of eventually clearing their sites again also gigantic unfunded liabilities. They tried to restructure it, but could not find a way to do it within EU competition law yet.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 10, 2022, 11:09:10 AM
France having their own nuclear renaissance - Macron had already announced a re-launch of their civilian nuclear program. And now :mmm: :w00t:
QuoteAFP News Agency
@AFP
#BREAKING Macron says France to build up to 14 new nuclear reactors
#UPDATE President Emmanuel Macron called Thursday for a "renaissance" for the French nuclear industry, saying he wanted up to 14 new reactors to power the country's transition away from fossil fuels
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FLPvMJ5VEAAP19M?format=jpg&name=small)
Will be interesting whether they are actually able to do this. The experience with Flamanville suggests not.
China uses so much energy it is insane. I mean they use more power than the US and most of the west combined. And for what? I know they have lots of manufacturing but that doesn't even come close to explaining it.
And they use tons of coal, so much they have to import massive amounts of it which seems to be one of the weak points in their whole system.
How.much of the world's stuff do they produce? I always assumed all the coal was to power manufacturing
ITER is due to be finished in 2025. Maybe Macron knows Fusion is imminent. Maybe I am a wild optimist but I think this decade might change everything.
Quote from: HVC on February 10, 2022, 02:30:26 PM
How.much of the world's stuff do they produce? I always assumed all the coal was to power manufacturing
Imean they produce more than the US...but not that much more. I don't know why they are so inefficient.
Quote from: Berkut on February 10, 2022, 11:47:17 AM
:wub: :frog:
I unironically love the way France absolutely embraces technology (especially big technology) as an aesthetic and representing the glory of France - like those massive gears behind him or this video which is just great:
https://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1447876788626108423?s=20&t=lSyLgPzIAkmj4B_KAuBMGg
It's even in the way they rejoice in selling expensive weapons to Indonesia:
QuoteEmmanuel Macron
@EmmanuelMacron
Officiel du gouvernement - France
42 Rafale ! L'Indonésie fait le choix de l'excellence industrielle française ! Le savoir-faire des plus de 400 entreprises françaises et des milliers de travailleurs qui conçoivent le Rafale est reconnu. En Indo-Pacifique, cette nouvelle étape renforce nos partenariats.
It's so alien. On arms - the UK and Germany sell a lot of weapons, my impression is it's done quietly and not celebrated as part of the business and technical innovation of those countries. But even the embrace of tech itself in quite that way is a little distinctively French from de Gaulle - concorde, TGV, the nuclear program etc. That tech is key to France continuing relevance and it reflects on France. It's great :wub:
Edit: It might be why I really like Wilson which is closest we came to something similar with the "white heat of technology" style
Quote from: Valmy on February 10, 2022, 02:29:12 PM
China uses so much energy it is insane. I mean they use more power than the US and most of the west combined. And for what? I know they have lots of manufacturing but that doesn't even come close to explaining it.
Lots of people with rapidly improving living standards. There is no society in the world where energy consumption hasn't been really closely linked to quality of life.
Manufacturing is important as well - I think China makes over half the world's steel.
QuoteAnd they use tons of coal, so much they have to import massive amounts of it which seems to be one of the weak points in their whole system.
Yes - it's why they're starting to transition away through massive expansion in nuclear, gas - and renewables.
There's no energy transition or move to net zero that doesn't run through or actually be made in China.
Quote from: Valmy on February 10, 2022, 02:36:55 PM
Quote from: HVC on February 10, 2022, 02:30:26 PM
How.much of the world's stuff do they produce? I always assumed all the coal was to power manufacturing
Imean they produce more than the US...but not that much more. I don't know why they are so inefficient.
Twice more. And almost all of the steel.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 10, 2022, 02:38:26 PM
I unironically love the way France absolutely embraces technology (especially big technology) as an aesthetic and representing the glory of France - like those massive gears behind him or this video which is just great:
Shelf, I think those are turbine blade assemblies from a large turbine or large turbofan engine.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 10, 2022, 02:43:32 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 10, 2022, 02:36:55 PM
Quote from: HVC on February 10, 2022, 02:30:26 PM
How.much of the world's stuff do they produce? I always assumed all the coal was to power manufacturing
Imean they produce more than the US...but not that much more. I don't know why they are so inefficient.
Twice more. And almost all of the steel.
Don't know about steal but aluminum takes a shitload of energy to make
Looking it up China produces over half of the world's aluminum 36,000 thousand tones out of the world 66) each tonne takes 15kwh per kilogram and produces 11.5 tonnes of co2 per tonne of aluminum produced
Quote from: Valmy on February 10, 2022, 02:32:51 PM
ITER is due to be finished in 2025. Maybe Macron knows Fusion is imminent. Maybe I am a wild optimist but I think this decade might change everything.
If fusion power exists on a significant scale before 2100 then I consider that a great success.