Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[Valmy]

From what I hear about the depopulation of the Spanish countryside there should be plenty of space to put windmills.

Wind has been such a huge success story with such rapid development I really interested to see where that train takes us and what that technology looks like decades from now when it matures into its final form. Still lots of issues to work out and aesthetics and impacts on nature are certainly up there with energy storage. Also: keeping ice from forming on the blades.

[HVC]

One problem I see with windmills inland in Spain is that I believe southern Spain is an important bird migration zone and windmills and birds don't mix.

[Sheilbh]

Unless you ask fishermen... 

Over here inland wind farms are starting to get controversial due to saturation, but for decades tons of them were built with very few issues.

It's all getting very big off-shore here.

The experiments with tidal power in Orkney are also exciting. When I was a kid I lived just south of Orkney on the mainland and they had an experimental wave power turbine installed on the Pentland Firth on the theory that if it can survive there, it can survive anywhere. It sunk within three April days - and then everyone in the region was doing day trips to see it slowly collapsing into the sea

[Valmy]

One problem I see with windmills inland in Spain is that I believe southern Spain is an important bird migration zone and windmills and birds don't mix.

That's hardly a permanent truth. The industry can solve it if made to.

[The Brain]

That's why I said that it would need a massive public intervention, given that nuclear can't cut it in the open market.

Talking of the open market when nuclear is required to do things that other power sources can just ignore is misleading. Other sources are not required to have multi-barrier safety but are allowed single point failures (hello hydro!), they are not required to collect and properly dispose of their waste (hello fossil fuels!), they are not required to deposit money for greenfielding sites after use, they are not required to use safe methods of fuel transportation, etc*. Accepting the same risk (combination of probability and consequence) for other sources that you don't accept for nuclear is just one of the methods that anti-nuclear people use to claim that nuclear isn't viable.

*Disclaimer: AFAIK it's possible that some non-nuclear power sources in some countries might be required to do something on this list.

In any case nuclear doesn't make you energy independent, you still need to source uranium from possibly unsavoury places.

Unsavory places like Canada, Australia, Sweden (not currently mining uranium but sits on huge deposits)? If anything uranium is blessed with pretty stable sources. And since the cost of fuel is only a small part of the cost of nuclear lower-than-maximum grade ores can be chosen without too much extra cost.

I doubt nuclear is that essential long term, given all its issues.

Which issues do you think are the most important here?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

That's why I said that it would need a massive public intervention, given that nuclear can't cut it in the open market.

The renewables have seen a massive public intervention too (subsidies and what not), probably even more than nuclear, for far less actual gain.
If the money used to build wind and solar capacity nuclear had been built (even if the cost was double that of planned) we'd likely have ended up with more electricity at a lower cost, less CO2, less unsavoury mining practices, less landscape pollution than with the renewables.

the opposition to nuclear is ideology, stupid ideology at that, and has nothing to do with ecologism.

[Valmy]

Which issues do you think are the most important here?

Costs, safety concerns, and waste storage.

But really the commissioning and decommissioning costs are a pretty big obstacle here in Texas with the way we have our power sector structured.

[Zanza]

Extending the lifetime of existing nuclear plants is the logical thing to do, by far the easiest and cheapest solution in the short term

It's actually not as easy as it sounds: You need parts and skill to maintain 30 or 40 year old very exotic technology that was probably purpose-built and rare even in its day. It's possible, but not easy or cheap...

[The Brain]

Which issues do you think are the most important here?

Costs, safety concerns, and waste storage.

But really the commissioning and decommissioning costs are a pretty big obstacle here in Texas with the way we have our power sector structured.

Costs are artificially increased for nuclear today, but there is nothing inherent about nuclear that means this must be so forever.

Nuclear is proven to be extremely safe.

The small amount of easily contained waste created by nuclear is one of the big advantages of nuclear compared to other fuel-using power production. On top of that its danger decays naturally over time, unlike many other forms of waste. Only anti-science people claim that nuclear waste storage is somehow dangerous or special.

[Josquius]

The trouble is it's proven factually that nuclear power is safe but getting the public at large to accept this proof seems to be further away than ever.

[Zanza]

Nuclear is safe, but commercially unattractive because of the expensive measures being taken. Might also explain why it is still attractive in China.

[Eddie Teach]

Only anti-science people claim that nuclear waste storage is somehow dangerous or special.

So easy, even Homer Simpson can do it.

[Sheilbh]

Nuclear is safe, but commercially unattractive because of the expensive measures being taken. Might also explain why it is still attractive in China.

This is fair.

But I don't think there's a path to net zero that relies on commercial attractiveness alone or even primarily (at least in the short-term). To an extent I think a lot of climate politics is going to be about choosing which commercially unattractive options the state backs.

I think nuclear has a role but it's not dogmatic and every country's going to find its own route. Having said that I don't support shutting down nuclear if the alternative is coal (I'm a bit more relaxed about gas ) because I think there may be a big cost difference but the carbon difference is just so vast. And that's why I think the Chinese and possibly Indian transition to nuclear could be really positive.

[Berkut]

One problem I see with windmills inland in Spain is that I believe southern Spain is an important bird migration zone and windmills and birds don't mix.

Such a perfect example of emotional bullshit that lacks data to support it. But will and does effectively mobilize popular opinion to stifle actual progress.

Windmills kill a fraction of the birds each year that housecats kill.

It is a problem, but a minor one.

[HVC]

And fires rarely kill people, so let's set kindergartens on fire. You'll note I didn't say to get rid of all windmills, just noted that setting them up in areas of bird migration wouldn't be wise.

Also, i think people should keep cats inside, both for wildlife and the cats safety itself.