EPTThe larger European discussion about "what is actually green" is interesting, if beset by great dysfunction and a ridiculous contingency of misguided green purists. But coal should be the easy target - it pollutes the most, it's not really viable in a first-world economy, and the alternatives are many. The failure to address the easy target, because the most viable alternatives are most strongly vilified, is a sign of how much of a farce this entire effort has been so far.
European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 1308
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The larger European discussion about "what is actually green" is interesting, if beset by great dysfunction and a ridiculous contingency of misguided green purists. But coal should be the easy target - it pollutes the most, it's not really viable in a first-world economy, and the alternatives are many. The failure to address the easy target, because the most viable alternatives are most strongly vilified, is a sign of how much of a farce this entire effort has been so far. | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
Of course, the problems of nuclear being local and the problems of global warming being global (even if the global south will suffer first and harder) means there's bound to be a certain international NIMBY-ness to nuclear as a solution. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11505 Posts
It takes a long time from the start of planning of a nuclear power plant to the point where it is completely built and produces energy. If you had started building nuclear power plants 10 years ago, you might have a point. But if you start planning new nuclear now, that will not have any impact before 2030 at the earliest. It would probably take a few years longer. Also, what are these viable solutions to long-term storage that you speak of? Because i don't know of a single long-term storage facility in existence or planning. As far as i know, they are mostly in the state of "maybe if we find the perfect place, we could do it like this". | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5551 Posts
| ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6208 Posts
On January 08 2022 03:28 maybenexttime wrote: You need a substantial baseline power supply which is also flexible in terms of output. Can this actually be achieved by renewables in most countries? No it can't. You either need batteries to store the energy or use it to make something like hydrogen which could be used later (I don't know if this is viable). Connecting energy grids should also help. Nuclear power is practically a necessity at this point in time. On January 08 2022 03:11 Simberto wrote: Building nuclear now won't help with the climate crisis anyways. It takes a long time from the start of planning of a nuclear power plant to the point where it is completely built and produces energy. If you had started building nuclear power plants 10 years ago, you might have a point. But if you start planning new nuclear now, that will not have any impact before 2030 at the earliest. It would probably take a few years longer. Also, what are these viable solutions to long-term storage that you speak of? Because i don't know of a single long-term storage facility in existence or planning. As far as i know, they are mostly in the state of "maybe if we find the perfect place, we could do it like this". Considering most developed countries are aiming for net zero in the 2050s and developing countries even later I don't agree with your argument. Even with a 10-15 year build time it will help a lot. Besides that a big problem with the anti nuclear folks is that they want to shut down reactors which are already built and don't have a viable alternative except for coal and gas. And that's not even considering the opportunity cost which will extend the time it takes untill we're rid of coal & gas. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 08 2022 03:28 maybenexttime wrote: You need a substantial baseline power supply which is also flexible in terms of output. Can this actually be achieved by renewables in most countries? Not at all. Best among the renewables for consistency is hydroelectric, which is both geographically constrained and on the green team's shit list for some really banal reasons. Every other renewable is just about the definition of unreliable. On January 08 2022 03:39 RvB wrote: You either need batteries to store the energy or use it to make something like hydrogen which could be used later (I don't know if this is viable). It is kind of viable, but vastly inferior to just using natural gas instead. Maybe in a few decades or so. | ||
|
Mafe
Germany5966 Posts
Also while I never bothered to look up any actual numbers about it, I've got my doubts that nuclear energy makes sense economically if you to full consequence apply the principles of economics valuations that guide decision making in other parts of life/politics. Like for example while it makes for superficially cheap energy, I was always under the impression that this was due to some favorable laws, for example nuclear reactors being exempt from having to buy insurance (I wonder why.....) in the same manner as other power station have to. So while this might lead to cheaper power bills, it might be that I just pay more taxes instead. And of course, the price of having to safely dispose of the waste is not paid by the generation of people who benefit from it now. Sure all of this depends on the exact numbers, but to me it always felt like a deal of "I gain 100 € per year now, but the next 10000 generation of my children have to pay 1€ a year". Which is a deal I wouldnt want to make. If anyone has some links where to read more about such calculations, feel free to tell me. So in some way saving climate through nuclear energy for me has the logic of "we solve a problem for future generations through creating a different problem for future generations, hoping that it is a smaller problem". And about ways to store nuclear waste safely: I'm worried about the practice being very different from the theory. Because these storage locations will be very expensive, there will people who try to cut down on costs even at the cost of safety. It already happened here in germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
On January 08 2022 03:11 Simberto wrote: Also, what are these viable solutions to long-term storage that you speak of? Because i don't know of a single long-term storage facility in existence or planning. As far as i know, they are mostly in the state of "maybe if we find the perfect place, we could do it like this". I recall a short youtube documentary on this, though I don't recall what channel it was on. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2021/05/31/finland-breaks-ground-on-its-deep-geologic-nuclear-waste-repository/?sh=24e4f4536103 | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
On January 08 2022 03:51 Mafe wrote: So in some way saving climate through nuclear energy for me has the logic of "we solve a problem for future generations through creating a different problem for future generations, hoping that it is a smaller problem". I see these as problems of different magnitudes and different certainties. Global warming is a much more guaranteed problem, one that can't be dealt with later, and goes much beyond the borders of polluting countries. There's no good solution to accumulated co2, the solution is to put less of it out there. Accumulated nuclear waste is not an immediate problem and we can afford the time to research and solve | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5551 Posts
That was my understanding as well, which is why I'm confused by people saying that nuclear power plants take too long to build to help with climate change. If we intend to phase out coal and gas, we'll need another reliable power source. Nuclear energy seems like the only alternative to me, until we can develop efficient storage methods. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Given the relative timing of the phasing out of the two, I will consider Germany's anti-nuclear sentiment to be an implicit endorsement of coal as the alternative, and the discussion of nuclear's issues to be arguing that "this is why we should use coal instead." | ||
|
justanothertownie
16318 Posts
And yes, to achieve the climate goals Germany has set building nuclear plants is too slow. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5551 Posts
On January 08 2022 17:08 justanothertownie wrote: There is still no viable way to store the waste of nuclear energy (especially not on the needed scale and that is even if you trust energy companies to do a responsible job) I'd say the solutions we have right now have worked just fine. If you're talking about a long-term storage, progress is being made on those, and it's not an urgent matter, from what I know. There's also research on technologies that will allow new generation reactors to recycle what was previously considered nuclear waste. and once the plants are done have fun with tearing them down. Because the whole building and everything inside it is basically also nuclear waste. Different class of nuclear waste. For example, cobalt-60 has a half-life of about 5 years, not tens of thousands or millions. It will take several decades to tear down the plants in Germany and who knows how much Co2 that will generate not to speak of the financial costs. Which of course will largely be paid by the tax payers. So I very much doubt the supposed greenness of nuclear energy if you consider all the costs that will accumulate. And yes, to achieve the climate goals Germany has set building nuclear plants is too slow. And when you eventually phase out coal and gas, what do you replace it with? | ||
|
Dav1oN
Ukraine3164 Posts
We cannot support the energy need of the whole planet using green methods only with our current tech. We're not efficient enough with storing the power as well. There is no Solar power during the night, efficiency differs depending on location, weather patters also affects it. We don't have strong wind currents everywhere to use Turbines, Geothermal energy is also very limited and depends on location (that's great if you're living on Iceland, but if you're flatlander - there is no way you can get an access to the source), Tidal energy is a great invention, but it's capacity/efficiency also depends on a few factors (location, plus sun/moon/jupiter positions relative to Earth). For some reason it's hard to consider Hydroelectric plants as a green solution, because the way it works, simply by blocking the river (which affects local biosphere), and for the nature it's like a bloodstream. So we have a bunch of issues with "green methods", some of those might be not as green as you may think, the others does not provide you with the stable level of energy. And since we cannot burn fossil fuels in a long run, since we don't have a cold fusion yet - the nuclear energy is the only reliable and powerful source of energy, no matter day or night - we will get a required output. Yes, we will have a long term issue with the nuclear waste, but it not that urgent in comparison to global warming. Tech is advancing and we have time to work it out. The best way IMO to go with a bunch of green methods + nuclear combined (especially in the places where you don't have much green power sources). There is no better alternative to Nuclear at the moment all things considered. | ||
KwarK
United States42636 Posts
On January 08 2022 21:53 Dav1oN wrote: That is strange to see how much people are afraid of Nuclear energy, seems like we're able to learn something after Chernobyl disaster, and Fukusima is not a good example of the nuclear disaster since no one died from radiation, it was about tsunami mostly. We cannot support the energy need of the whole planet using green methods only with our current tech. We're not efficient enough with storing the power as well. There is no Solar power during the night, efficiency differs depending on location, weather patters also affects it. We don't have strong wind currents everywhere to use Turbines, Geothermal energy is also very limited and depends on location (that's great if you're living on Iceland, but if you're flatlander - there is no way you can get an access to the source), Tidal energy is a great invention, but it's capacity/efficiency also depends on a few factors (location, plus sun/moon/jupiter positions relative to Earth). For some reason it's hard to consider Hydroelectric plants as a green solution, because the way it works, simply by blocking the river (which affects local biosphere), and for the nature it's like a bloodstream. So we have a bunch of issues with "green methods", some of those might be not as green as you may think, the others does not provide you with the stable level of energy. And since we cannot burn fossil fuels in a long run, since we don't have a cold fusion yet - the nuclear energy is the only reliable and powerful source of energy, no matter day or night - we will get a required output. Yes, we will have a long term issue with the nuclear waste, but it not that urgent in comparison to global warming. Tech is advancing and we have time to work it out. The best way IMO to go with a bunch of green methods + nuclear combined (especially in the places where you don't have much green power sources). There is no better alternative to Nuclear at the moment all things considered. How would Jupiter’s relative position affect tidal energy output. Even at its closest we are well outside it’s meaningful gravity. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17979 Posts
You might as well complain that wind energy is not green because the generators kill birds and disrupt migration. It makes about as much sense (ergo none at all). | ||
|
Dav1oN
Ukraine3164 Posts
On January 08 2022 23:05 KwarK wrote: How would Jupiter’s relative position affect tidal energy output. Even at its closest we are well outside it’s meaningful gravity. AFAIK it's not completely outside, Jupiter's influence should not be that surprising, this is the only planet of our solar system that has a barycenter outside of the sun. It has 3rd strongest gravity influence on Earth (on personal scale the influence it's miniscule since Jupiter pulls you 34 million times less than Earth in comparison in average, but on planetary scale it's a bit different), obviously it works in cycles and you won't get much gravitational influence on Earth if Jupiter is on the other side of the solar system in it's orbit, but when the planets are close - there will be some influence. As a result we have a difference of the tidal magnitude and longetivity, sometimes the tides are low, but sometimes you'll get a super tide. The good news is that such cycles are easily predicted. At least this is how I understand the topic with Tidal energy. But their biggest problem is that the tides gradually differs from your position on the seashore, this solution won't work for every location. Also, seen an interesting concepts of the combined water based wind/water turbine, to harvest the energy of the wind/tides, wonder where it goes On January 08 2022 23:08 Acrofales wrote: What is this nonsense? Sure, hydro causes local problems (mainly when creating the reservoir). But after that? The river keeps flowing, just at a controlled rate. Hydroelectric power plants don't use up water, they just take kinetic energy from it, and convert that into electricity. There's some problems for fish and other river life, but it usually recovers. You might as well complain that wind energy is not green because the generators kill birds and disrupt migration. It makes about as much sense (ergo none at all). Why this looks as nonsense to you? Hydroelectric plants affects not only local biosphere, I can agree that we may ignore that minor influence to some degree (unless the dam collapses, which happened more frequently in comparison to nuclear disasters), but I also see one more problem - it directly affects everybody down the stream, especially if the river is flowing through a number of countries, and it's not only about fishing, but it's also about farming/agriculture/production and having an access to the fresh water. Yeah, might as well complain about wild birds migration patterns, and some people are, it depends on their point of view. I have hard time accepting the term green energy. So no matter how this technology affects humans and biospere, if it's capable of harvesting energy w/o CO2 emissions - we will call it as a green energy? Should we ignore downsides like noise pollution during energy production as well? | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17979 Posts
On January 08 2022 23:46 Dav1oN wrote: AFAIK it's not completely outside, Jupiter's influence should not be that surprising, this is the only planet of our solar system that has a barycenter outside of the sun. It has 3rd strongest gravity influence on Earth (on personal scale the influence it's miniscule since Jupiter pulls you 34 million times less than Earth in comparison in average, but on planetary scale it's a bit different), obviously it works in cycles and you won't get much gravitational influence on Earth if Jupiter is on the other side of the solar system in it's orbit, but when the planets are close - there will be some influence. As a result we have a difference of the tidal magnitude and longetivity, sometimes the tides are low, but sometimes you'll get a super tide. The good news is that such cycles are easily predicted. At least this is how I understand the topic with Tidal energy. But their biggest problem is that the tides gradually differs from your position on the seashore, this solution won't work for every location. Also, seen an interesting concepts of the combined water based wind/water turbine, to harvest the energy of the wind/tides, wonder where it goes Why this looks as nonsense to you? Hydroelectric plants affects not only local biosphere, I can agree that we may ignore that minor influence to some degree (unless the dam collapses, which happened more frequently in comparison to nuclear disasters), but I also see one more problem - it directly affects everybody down the stream, especially if the river is flowing through a number of countries, and it's not only about fishing, but it's also about farming/agriculture/production and having an access to the fresh water. Yeah, might as well complain about wild birds migration patterns, and some people are, it depends on their point of view. I have hard time accepting the term green energy. So no matter how this technology affects humans and biospere, if it's capable of harvesting energy w/o CO2 emissions - we will call it as a green energy? Should we ignore downsides like noise pollution during energy production as well? You seem to have heard the bell toll but not know where the clapper is, as we like to say in Dutch. Yes, Jupiter undoubtedly has some minor effects on tides. However by far the main reason for differences is how the moon and the sun line up. In a full moon, the sun and the moon "pull" on opposite sides, so tidal differences are relatively small. In a new moon, the forces line up and you get spring tides. Next up is the distance of the moon to where you are on earth, depending on Earth's "wobble". Jupiter's effect is such a distant third you can easily ignore it. W Either way, harvesting tidal, and wave, energy is obviously dependent on geography. The amount you can harvest does depend on the celestial (lunar) calendar, but by far the biggest factor is geography. Some places have tides of a few meters difference, others have barely any variation, depending mostly on the orography of the sea floor. Regarding hydro, I don't think you get it. If a river flows with N m3/s of water before you build a dam, those same N m3/s will flow downstream after the dam is full. Obviously while filling the dam, less water will reach downstream and that needs to be managed, but once it's full, the river will flow at "full" capacity. The main difference is that (1) seasonal differences get evened out, and (2) to a certain extent interanual differences can be alleviated. The main reason downstream gets screwed isn't hydroelectric power generation, it's because farmers use the reservoir as a handy source of water, as do nearby cities. Not to mention that if there are countries downstream, then this gives the upstream country a geopolitical tool in case of disagreement... So yes, the knock-on effects of building a dam for hydroelectric power generation can be negative downstream, but can also be positive (evening out of water supply helps against droughts). But the dam and power generation itself are neutral except for construction and filling. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
1. Small dams cause all of the same problems to the river while producing a very small fraction of the power output. 2. We shouldn't consider hydroelectric as green because power suppliers are willing to build them anyways, and if we give them credit for being green then that will reduce the amount of solar and wind they're forced to build. 3. They encourage vegetation which makes methane, and methane is bad. 4. They kill the fishies. I agree with (1) in the same sense that you shouldn't build solar panels in the arctic or wind power in places that aren't windy; renewables undeniably have strong levels of geographic preference. The argument of (2) is the kind of greenwashing manipulation that can fuck right off. And (3) and (4) are very solvable problems that are much less severe than, for example, the infrastructure and rare-metal issues that solar and wind face. On the other hand, a large dam can provide some of the largest power outputs of any type of power plant that you could construct, and does so while being renewable. It's generally a good idea. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42636 Posts
On January 09 2022 03:17 LegalLord wrote: I've consistently heard about four arguments against hydroelectric from the ostensibly green crowd: 1. Small dams cause all of the same problems to the river while producing a very small fraction of the power output. 2. We shouldn't consider hydroelectric as green because power suppliers are willing to build them anyways, and if we give them credit for being green then that will reduce the amount of solar and wind they're forced to build. 3. They encourage vegetation which makes methane, and methane is bad. 4. They kill the fishies. I agree with (1) in the same sense that you shouldn't build solar panels in the arctic or wind power in places that aren't windy; renewables undeniably have strong levels of geographic preference. The argument of (2) is the kind of greenwashing manipulation that can fuck right off. And (3) and (4) are very solvable problems that are much less severe than, for example, the infrastructure and rare-metal issues that solar and wind face. On the other hand, a large dam can provide some of the largest power outputs of any type of power plant that you could construct, and does so while being renewable. It's generally a good idea. Who says 3? All the carbon produced by vegetation was CO2 already. It’s the carbon cycle. | ||
| ||
