The last coal-fired power station in the UK will close down on Sept 30.
-
Natasha Nox πΊπ¦π΅πΈreplied to Cabbidges last edited by
@TheDailyBurble @kottke Why? Done correctly it can work well as part of a broad greenm strategy, you just have to take care of safety and cooling.
-
Cabbidgesreplied to Natasha Nox πΊπ¦π΅πΈ last edited by
-
Natasha Nox πΊπ¦π΅πΈreplied to Cabbidges last edited by
@TheDailyBurble @kottke Nuclear doesn't pollute for decades when recycled correctly, as is possible. France recycles all of its used cores with minimal waste.
The vulnerability argument is a good one, I'd argue though it not being a unique problem of nuclear but water dam's and storages as well (as seen in Ukraine). Depending on the type of battery used used, big battery energy storage facilities also a phenomenal hazard in war. These risks can be reduced with more modern tech.
-
Point N' Clickreplied to Natasha Nox πΊπ¦π΅πΈ last edited by
@Natanox @TheDailyBurble @kottke Lol, when done correctly.... Yeah, that's the problem, isn't it. When it's not (or threatened) it can be an astronomically large problem. I still find it wild how the nuclear lobby successfully co-opted a portion of the green movement.
-
Natasha Nox πΊπ¦π΅πΈreplied to Natasha Nox πΊπ¦π΅πΈ last edited by
@TheDailyBurble @kottke Problem being our need of a stable power grid, with basically every renewable energy source being inherently unstable (except for a few exceptions, often based on the geography and hydro power). Of course we can build a phenomenal shit ton of batteries, however this would also be phenomenally damaging to the environment.
-
Natasha Nox πΊπ¦π΅πΈreplied to Point N' Click last edited by
@PointNClick @TheDailyBurble @kottke More often than not the nuclear lobby uses stupid arguments indeed. There are some very fair points to use a few nuclear plants to facilitate stable power grids without the really big polluters. They will be on the costly side given all the necessary safeties, materials etc., deliver a shit ton of power with zero inherent instability though. Even Sodium-Ion batteries do have an environmental impact after all, and we'd need *a lot* of them without nuclear.
-
@PointNClick @Natanox @kottke
Sorry for late reply but absolutely.
Every time I see nuclear accepted as "green" or "sustainable" or "renewable" my whole brain does a wibble. Apparently it qualifies as all of these, but then covid doesn't exist, and DT might be president so we're in the oooo lala land of politician desires or something. -
Natasha Nox πΊπ¦π΅πΈreplied to Cabbidges last edited by
@TheDailyBurble @PointNClick @kottke It's indeed neither green nor renewable (although one can make the argument of it having a very, very low COΒ² & wildlife impact as well as its low space requiremente). Regarding sustainability, it is only insofar that using batteries for our needs would be an even worse option as of now.
It ain't excellent, but arguably better than "natural gas" which as of now was chosen as grid stabilizer and got a way worse impact in every aspect.
-
Cabbidgesreplied to Natasha Nox πΊπ¦π΅πΈ last edited by
@Natanox @PointNClick @kottke
In terms of pollution it's terminal. Toxicity as much a concern as headline Co2 emissions. I think we probably poison ourselves before we boil as it is (that's just my view though) but in terms of toxicity nuclear is definitely not green, not sustainable and not whatever else it's promising.
Mainly governments are terrified that microgrids might spring up and keen for energy to always be centralised. Can't have people with windmills powering their cookers. -
Natasha Nox πΊπ¦π΅πΈreplied to Cabbidges last edited by
@TheDailyBurble @PointNClick @kottke Not sure about that. I mean, there definitely are many incompetent and corrupt politicians who hate seeing power going to the people, however even for those in favour of such a trend there are huge challenges, both in terms of policies but mostly safety. With every building and garage potentially storing & producing power it takes one hell of an algorithm to prevent jumps in frequency and therefore fire hazards or even cascading grid failures.
-
Natasha Nox πΊπ¦π΅πΈreplied to Natasha Nox πΊπ¦π΅πΈ last edited by
@TheDailyBurble @PointNClick @kottke Of course all of that is doable and I'd very much love to see it. Just mentioning the problem.
On top of that we also got to have sufficient supply even during winter when wind is low and no other source (hydro etc.) in sight. That's where nuclear could come in - right now most governments are planing to use gas, which I am sure is way worse.
One more thing; please remember that this is a systemic issue. It has to be solved by our systems, not individuals.