Can Any Country Achieve Net Zero Without Nuclear?

[sbrothy]

As I said. I asked for it. :)

What *is* pretty weird though is that Swedes use Km/h on their speedometers but still use those miles. It's a big country after all.

And just for the record I'm not from Sweden. :P
Although we have a history of some pretty weird measurement units here too. But that's a long time ago

 

[sbrothy]

I think that should be stated as 40 m/s, if you don't want to sound dumb. Lol.

Wait... 140 Km/h isn't 40 m/s is it? I'm pretty tired, about to go to bed.

Nvm.

 

[gmax137]

So one Swedish mile is just over 6 us miles? That is confusing.

 

[russ_watters]

What caught my eye was:
[...]more than twice as tall as the Statue of Liberty[...]

What makes it even more fun is that the Statue of Liberty is a lot shorter than most people think, since it is mounted on a Statue of Libery-sized base.

 

[bhobba]

The whole discussion is hypocritical, IMHO.

And the children shall show us the way:



Thanks
Bill

 

[gmax137]

The interviewee, Will Shackel isn't here to defend himself, so here's a couple of thoughts.

Somebody taught their kid a bunch of talking points. That isn't going to convince anyone of anything.

Well, most of us got our talking points from somewhere. But you're right, a four-minute interview is not going to convince anyone to change their mind. So what?

Show him the Chernobyl movie and see what he thinks.

Who is advocating for the RBMK design? No one. Who is advocating for Soviet-era culture? No one. He is advocating for nuclear power in Australia.

And why does he think he speaks for "all young people" and knows what they all think?

Well, he refers to a survey of 10 to 19 year olds. Maybe it is a bad survey, but maybe not.

I liked his "talking point" that the kids have not been exposed to the misinformation that previous generations experienced.

 

[Astronuc]

notably Germany and probably France too - both countries with copious amounts of nuclear power plants.

France certainly does - they have the largest suite of NPPs of any EU nation - Germany does not anymore. The shutdown all of their NPPs and started decommissioning all and demolishing the oldest. I don't know to what extent the newer plants were mothballed, such that they could bring them back online relatively quickly. The German decision was rather poor, and they became heavily dependent on native coal and Russian oil and gas.

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed temporarily for Moderation...

 

[bhobba]

The thread has now been reopened. A post containing misinformation has been deleted. The post by Gmax referring to the deleted post was left because it is a quality post about the video.

Just to let you know, the video was not meant to give an expert opinion on nuclear energy but to indicate that the younger generation is more realistic about the dangers. Even a conventional power station has dangers, e.g. the Callide explosion.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Flyboy]

So one Swedish mile is just over 6 us miles? That is confusing.

Bit late but yes. Something to the tune of 6.2 miles.

It was a headache getting used to that when I started flying the Viggen in DCS, as that's one of the distance measurements it can output (mainly so they can show longer distances on the same analog output display while still keeping more precision at shorter distances), but it got easy pretty quick.

It's still funny to call out over voice chat that I'm still 5 miles out and they start looking for me visually, only to find out that I'm closer to 30 nautical miles away.

 

[PeroK]

Wait... 140 Km/h isn't 40 m/s is it? I'm pretty tired, about to go to bed.

Nvm.

It is, approximately. To convert from m/s to km/h, just multiply by 3.6.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Apparently, Iceland is the example of net-zero without nuclear, and without fossil, at least as far as electricity and heating is concerned.

So, Worldometer says something very different - Iceland is #20 in CO2 per capita, and emits more than any European country except Luxembourg and Estonia. How to reconcile these two?

• Net zero electricity is not the same as net zero energy.
• Fraction of net-zero energy is not the same as total amount of energy
• Refining aluminum (a major export) is very, very energy intensive.

That last is important. You can feel good about how little gasoline your hybrid uses, but it took a lot to refine the aluminum parts.

 

[Astronuc]

Refining aluminum (a major export) is very, very energy intensive.

Aluminum or is processed chemically, and aluminum is refined electrically, and the electrical source is not necessarily fossil plants - if there is abundant hydro and geothermal. Apparently, aluminum is the top export of Iceland, slightly ahead of Seafood, which are well ahead of the others, including Iron and Steel.

Fuel for transportation: cars, buses, trucks, ships (fishing trawlers, as well as cargo ships and ferries) and aircraft (e.g., Icelandair).

https://globaledge.msu.edu/countries/iceland/tradestats

 

[sbrothy]

France certainly does - they have the largest suite of NPPs of any EU nation - Germany does not anymore. The shutdown all of their NPPs and started decommissioning all and demolishing the oldest. I don't know to what extent the newer plants were mothballed, such that they could bring them back online relatively quickly. The German decision was rather poor, and they became heavily dependent on native coal and Russian oil and gas.

Yeah that's right. I remember they were in the process of dismantling them. One wonders what alternatives they have up thier sleave? Windmills? :P

 

[Vanadium 50]

One wonders what alternatives they have up thier sleave? Windmills? :P

The answer is "Russia".

In retrospect, this might not have been as well thought-out as it might have been.

 

[gmax137]

Search "energiewende"

Maybe our @fresh_42 can chime in on the German program.

 

[fresh_42]

Search "energiewende"

Maybe our @fresh_42 can chime in on the German program.

I better don't. That IS politics and I'm not sure I agree on what is done here. I mean, we decided to go out of nuclear energy after Fukushima because of the possible accidents, and nobody in our densely populated country wants the waste dumped anywhere near their home. But there is always someone living near any place! And which sense does it make to stop using nuclear energy and buy it from France instead? Or how safe is it to deconstruct nuclear power plants while literally, all neighbors do the exact opposite? There is far too much fanatism and ideology and too few facts involved.

I am also under the impression that any energy calculation in which country ever always ignores transportation. Maybe you can run your TV with a windmill in the backyard, but not the container ships on the oceans, the trucks on the road, or the globally recovering airline industry.

 

[glappkaeft]

So one Swedish mile is just over 6 us miles? That is confusing.

Not confusing at all or at least not more confusing than any other countries history of weights and measures. ;)

A mile in Sweden (well from 1665, also called a uniform mile (enhetsmil) based on the older Uppsala mile, since before that the different regions of Sweden used their own regional miles, from about 5-15 km long).

After that 1 Swedish mile = 3 600 rods = 6 000 fathoms = 18 000 eln = 36 000 feet (in Sweden at 0.2969 m slightly shorter than the English foot) = 10 688,4 meter. Other Nordic countries used the same definition but slightly different lengths of feet. In Sweden this mile was kept after introducing SI but rounded to 10 km (a.k.a. new mile - nymil).

SI was invented for a reason...

 

[russ_watters]

The German decision was rather poor, and they became heavily dependent on native coal and Russian oil and gas.

Yeah that's right. I remember they were in the process of dismantling them. One wonders what alternatives they have up thier sleave? Windmills? :P

The answer is "Russia".

In retrospect, this might not have been as well thought-out as it might have been.

I disagree that they didn't think it through. They worked hard for decades on it, both in the logic and implementation. My understanding from talking to a bunch (and what's mentioned by Fresh implies this as well) is that they reconcile the apparent contradiction by considering them completely separate/stand-alone decisions. They aren't, of course, but if you think of them that way it is easier to hold both in your head at the same time without throwing an error.

 

[Rive]

I disagree that they didn't think it through.

Many did. But they went on anyway. That's politics for you.
I had some pips about the thing way back below the Insight of @anorlunda, if you are interested.
The whole thing is a just as a big mess as an artificially orchestrated market-distorting politically driven theory can make.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Yes, wind power was the standard for centuries for shipping. Before that, for even longer, we had slave galleys. Should we return to that as well?

Older does not universally mean better.

 

[Bystander]

Yes, wind power was the standard for centuries for shipping. Before that, for even longer, we had slave galleys. Should we return to that as well?

Older does not universally mean better.

Compare "trade winds" to modern/great circle routes.

 

[Astronuc]

My understanding from talking to a bunch (and what's mentioned by Fresh implies this as well) is that they reconcile the apparent contradiction by considering them completely separate/stand-alone decisions. They aren't, of course, but if you think of them that way it is easier to hold both in your head at the same time without throwing an error.

As I said, their decisions were rather poor.

I worked with the German utilities and the folks with whom I worked were certainly frustrated. Several colleagues got discouraged and left the industry, or in one case, a colleague quit nuclear power and joined an energy trading operation - probably job security more than the salary.

Certainly, some plants had issues, and it probably made sense to close some of the older plants, e.g., Stade and Obrigheim, as they were small plants based on older technology. Some of the BWRs were problematic, but I won't name them. The modern plants, particularly the PWRs, were among the most thermodynamically efficient of NPPs.

Instead, the German government decided to become highly dependent on Russian oil and gas, and Gerhardt Schroeder worked for Rosneft (took a position on the board) and Gazprom (Russia's large oil and gas companies), and Nord Stream; it seems like a conflict of interest.

Some PWRs did have some peculiar technical issues, but those were resolved satisfactorily. They ran the Konvoi plants: Emsland, Isar-2 and Neckarwestheim-2 until 15 April 2023. Ostensibly, they could be brought back online.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/germany.aspx

The German nuclear industry faced headwinds when Siemens (the KWU part) essentially left nuclear and let Framatome takeover. The French then drove the industry, and Vattenfall, started to buy German NPPs, or parts thereof.

Now the emphasis is on renewables.

 

[fresh_42]

As I said, their decisions were rather poor.

This is a perspective that ignores many, many aspects.

Nuclear energy has been a controversial subject in Germany since the seventies, i.e. for over five decades. This has many reasons that would lead too far to elaborate here. It has a lot to do with nuclear weapons, US weapons!, the cold war, ecological awareness, the unsolved question of how to deal with the waste, and probably more that I would find if I'd began to write that book. Good old capitalism would also be an aspect. Nuclear energy capitalized over its entire life circle is quite expensive and not as cheap as it looks like if you only view the balance sheet while it runs. And I only speak of life circles that do not involve hazardous accidents!

It is easy to summarize this thick book by rather poor. Is it justified? I have my doubts.

 

[PeterDonis]

the unsolved question of how to deal with the waste

This question is not unsolved in a technical sense: you just reprocess the waste. That is what France, for example, has been doing for decades.

In some countries, of which the US is one, political factors have prevented this obvious technical solution from being implemented.

 

[PeterDonis]

I only speak of life circles that do not involve hazardous accidents!

Even counting the hazardous accidents, nuclear energy is orders of magnitude safer per unit of energy produced than almost any other source (the only other comparable ones by this measure are wind and solar).

Here is a typical comparison:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/

 

[fresh_42]

This question is not unsolved in a technical sense: you just reprocess the waste. That is what France, for example, has been doing for decades.

In some countries, of which the US is one, political factors have prevented this obvious technical solution from being implemented.

If this were true, why doesn't France buy all the nuclear waste of others and resell it? These procedures still produce waste that has to be dumped somewhere.

(We send them our waste for reprocessing and receive it afterward to be dumped.)

Even counting the hazardous accidents, nuclear energy is orders of magnitude safer per unit of energy produced than almost any other source (the only other comparable ones by this measure are wind and solar).

Here is a typical comparison:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/

I spoke of cheaper, not safer. Safe always depends on the denominator, and on the risk preferences. Flying in an airplane is safe per mile, but that is of little help if you are sitting in one that crashes.

 

[russ_watters]

This question is not unsolved in a technical sense: you just reprocess the waste.

Well, that or just store it in a dry cask literally anywhere. I'd offer-up my backyard for a reasonable lease if I didn't need HOA permission.

Also, the chosen solution of deep geological storage is....fine.... it's just overkill. I'm not sure if they'll ever do it or not, but for now it's more fun to play football with it than do it.

 

[russ_watters]

Even counting the hazardous accidents, nuclear energy is orders of magnitude safer per unit of energy produced than almost any other source (the only other comparable ones by this measure are wind and solar).

Here is a typical comparison:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/

The one that gets me on that is hydro. People always seem to forget just how deadly/destructive hydro can be. Dams fail sometimes and lots of people can die.

 

[PeterDonis]

These procedures still produce waste that has to be dumped somewhere.

Yes, but for much shorter time (on the order of 100 years instead of 10,000 to 100,000 years), and also, as I understand it, the quantity of waste is significantly smaller, so the storage of it does not present a significant problem. Insisting on reliable storage for 10,000 to 100,000 years because no reprocessing was to be done was a key obstacle in the way of nuclear power in the US.

 

[PeterDonis]

The one that gets me on that is hydro. People always seem to forget just how deadly/destructive hydro can be. Dams fail sometimes and lots of people can die.

Occasional accidents (for all power sources, not just hydro) are already taken into account in the comparison I linked to (note that hydro is almost two orders of magnitude worse than wind, solar, and nuclear, and the factor you cite is probably a large contributor to that difference).

 

[fresh_42]

Yes, but for much shorter time (on the order of 100 years instead of 10,000 to 100,000 years), and also, as I understand it, the quantity of waste is significantly smaller, so the storage of it does not present a significant problem. Insisting on reliable storage for 10,000 to 100,000 years because no reprocessing was to be done was a key obstacle in the way of nuclear power in the US.

I don't think it is as short. Considering the demonstrations here when such a delivery comes back from La Hague, and our search for final dumpsters, I cannot believe it is only about 100 years. Here is the reprocessing they had planned in Germany (Wikipedia)

That does not sound like 100 years.

 

[sbrothy]

Yes, wind power was the standard for centuries for shipping. Before that, for even longer, we had slave galleys. Should we return to that as well?

Older does not universally mean better.

No, but the "old methods" you allure to are proven and definitely do work.

I wonder about the ecological impact though...

EDIT: I'm thinking manual matrix. :P

 

[PeterDonis]

I don't think it is as short. Considering the demonstrations here when such a delivery comes back from La Hague, and our search for final dumpsters, I cannot believe it is only about 100 years. Here is the reprocessing they had planned in Germany (Wikipedia)

View attachment 340961

That does not sound like 100 years.

Uranium and plutonium oxides coming from reprocessing, which is what your chart shows, are not stored for long term, they are used as fuel. That's actually the primary purpose of reprocessing from a nuclear fuel cycle standpoint--"spent" fuel from a reactor actually has a good deal of still usable fissile isotopes in it.

The only things that have to be stored long-term are the remaining wastes after the U and Pu oxides are removed to be re-used as fuel. The remaining wastes all have short half-lives and only remain high-level waste requiring special storage for times, as I said, on the order of 100 years.

 

[fresh_42]

Anyway, this is all politics. I tried to tell you the differences between the US and Germany, but you preferred not to believe me. Instead, you find it acceptable to claim that Angela Merkel made a, quote: "rather poor" decision based on your ignorance of the German history and specific situation.

If such a comment had been made about any decision Trump has made, it would had been immediately deleted. But to call out Merkel based on ignorance is alright?