Comment by Luker88
5 months ago
I am not sure people understand the implications of this.
First, it's not just nuclear, it's also Natural gas.
Second, lots of nations have incentives for "clean" energy. And now magically, all those incentives apply to nuclear and gas.
It's a money grab from nuclear and gas manufacturers. It's not that the courts were involved for nothing.
Still, we should use more nuclear. If only it was less expensive to build...
Nuclear + gas is the climate friendly solution.
What is climate friendly about natural gas?
It's cleaner than coal and oil. If you upgrade a coal plant to a gas plant, that's a step forward against climate change.
Yes, we'd be much better off with wind farms, solar plants, and nuclear reactors, but a step forward is a step forward.
Countries like Poland, running mostly on coal, would get cleaner air and contribute less to global warming if they were to upgrade their power plants to anything non-coal.
Replace them with nuclear generators and they'd also significantly reduce the amount of radiation people would be exposed to.
It's not that gas is that good, it's more that coal is that bad.
3 replies →
A methane molecule is one carbon atom bound to four hydrogen atoms. More than half of the energy released by burning it (53% according to [1]) comes from oxidizing the hydrogen to water. So it's roughly half as bad as coal in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, and does not have the additional problems of sulfur (acid rain) and soot.
[1] https://people.wou.edu/~courtna/GS361/Energy_From_Fossil_Fue...
5 replies →
Is it less climate unfriendly than the alternatives. Every form of energy generation releases CO2. Gas also has the benefit that it doesn't need all sorts of extras to make it dispatachable when needed (which also require CO2).
I forgot to say hydro is also great where possible.
2 replies →
Much better to have CO2 than methane in the atmosphere
5 replies →
Nuclear produces constant amount of energy (while consumption is not stable), Solar and Wind are highly unstable, with peaks not matching consumption. Adding gas (which is fast to adjust/turn on/turn off) for maneuvers makes whole system cheaper and more stable
Except, most regions don't need constant supply, it's actually even harmful for the grid. German grid for example seems to have become significant better since the last nuclear plants were removed.
1 reply →
Wasn't gas what killed nuclear in the 80s (in addition to the moral panic)?
Gas isn’t climate friendly just because of its debatable attractiveness vs coal. And nuclear comes with catastrophic risks that require large costs to mitigate. Let’s not pretend it’s some panacea. Renewables are better than both.
Fun fact: The US achieved more for the climate with fracking gas than Germany did with its "Energiewende".
55 replies →
> And nuclear comes with catastrophic risks that require large costs to mitigate
Those are still very low compared to fossil fuels. I mean in hindsight if that was something people cared about 40-50 years ago we'd be in a much better place climate change wise.
The article doesn't really explain what the lawsuit was over. It's about rules for private sector investment fund reporting. What the court ruled on is whether nuclear (and gas) can be classified as "sustainable investments" under the "EU taxonomy" rules[0].
This may mean that more private investment capital will end up in nuclear power, although my guess is that the impact of the EU taxonomy in driving investment decisions on this type of thing is likely quite small (I suspect the few funds which are out there which have hard requirements around EU taxonomy likely wouldn't invest in nuclear anyway).
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_taxonomy_for_sustainable_ac...
Not just build, it is expensive to maintain, and insanely expensive and time consuming to dismantle. Still necessary to complement other green energies in the grid
> it's not just nuclear, it's also Natural gas
No, it can be a continental renewable mix + storage, with a "backup" made of green hydrogen turbines.
Well, nuclear energy will also serve a dual-purpose for Europe. Especially when discussing France and its nuclear deterrent.