I am genuinely curious to see how this will turn out.
I understand and sympathise with both points of view, I could see myself arguing for both points of view.
But the fundamental truth is that to "save the planet" we need to pay for the long term cost rather than short term cost of everything we make.
Perhaps we don't need to use more power, we actually need to use less, substantially so say 10x or 100x less. Only then can we reduce carbon emissions.
Making electricity expensive could be the first necessary step - though it is not clear if it is the right step.
> Perhaps we don't need to use more power, we actually need to use less, substantially so say 10x or 100x less.
The bad news is that we are on a path to replace gasoline and diesel cars with electric ones. I'm really interested how the electric grid will look like in 10 years.
Yeah thanks to this logic and eu diktats we have less powerful lightbulbs accross europe. So turning the lights on at night means you can barely see, and instead you have to … uy more lightbulbs. The soviets also thought that the solution to its financial problems was to consume less.
So the answer is really to make energy more available, cheaper, and cleaner by mass investments in solar in the south, wind in the north, and clean and safe nuclear everywhere in between.
Just because one country, germany, doesnt mind spending nights in the dark or having workers sleep early to be able to slave away in factories it doesnt mean all of europe should obey. Build safe nuclear and build it fast before russia drains our pockets with their expensive gas.
I think it's a fair and reasonable article, except the fact that it forgets to mention the one thing that is the most important about nuclear energy: it's waste. Nuclear energy is and will never be renewable, because it still - despite decades and millions of research - needs fuel and leaves waste.
Sure, you can easily look at the most important problem at hand and only look at the co2 cost, but unfortunately that short term thinking is exactly what proved to be the cause of climate change.
I am fairly certain that there are modern reactor designs that can use the waste products. Nuclear can be a great option these days, but the FUD against it seems to have won.
Newer reactor designs would also make it possible to use most of the waste as fuel:
"...What is more important today is why fast reactors are fuel-efficient: because fast neutrons can fission or "burn out" all the transuranic waste (TRU) waste components (actinides: reactor-grade plutonium and minor actinides) many of which last tens of thousands of years or longer and make conventional nuclear waste disposal so problematic. Most of the radioactive fission products (FPs) the reactor produces have much shorter half-lives: they are intensely radioactive in the short term but decay quickly. The IFR extracts and recycles 99.9% of the uranium and Transuranium elements on each cycle and uses them to produce power; so its waste is just the fission products; in 300 years their radioactivity will fall below that of the original uranium "
While there are issues with nuclear power, the worry some people have about nuclear waste is greatly overblown to say the least. The US government has been taxing power generated by nuclear power for decades and has collected billions of dollars to cover any costs in the future.
More expensive power sources mean more reliance on russia for winter heating and more expensive development costs for developing eu countries. Now, I am not sire if by design, but Germany appears to either play cozy with Russia or simply want to slow down the development of europe under various excuses. Most recently it refused suppling aid to ukraine until international uproar now it want an eu wide ban on nuclear at a time when energy costs in europe are skyrocketing. Last financial crisis it pushed european countries into austerity measures that to this day resonate and reek of bad fate.
So un less europe tames germany rather quickly we will see a lost issues than the uk leaving an already german dominated block.
Just pay attention to whats happening coming from that country and you will understand there is something afoul at play.
Look I wouldn't go as far back as Ribbentrop molotov or Gerhard Schroeder. Nor would i go as far back as inviting one million refugees in europe at a time the uk was voting in a referendum where immigration was a major concern, but i would go as far as into thinking that perhaps at a time when energy prices are skyrocketing in europe yet germany wants to ban nuclear, a time when ukraine is literally missing a chunk of its territory and russia wants more yet germany does nothing to step in while a high ranking german military commander sais we should show russian some respect…
I would dare say that german leadership is either dumb or playing into russias favour. Perhaps war reparations and a quieter Germany wouldn't be that bad? After all their cars pollute europe more than nuclear and are still in business. Just a thought.
Maybe the uk was right in leaving and perhaps a little bit of a restructuring of power in europe is overdue.
12 comments
[ 0.24 ms ] story [ 38.1 ms ] threadI understand and sympathise with both points of view, I could see myself arguing for both points of view.
But the fundamental truth is that to "save the planet" we need to pay for the long term cost rather than short term cost of everything we make.
Perhaps we don't need to use more power, we actually need to use less, substantially so say 10x or 100x less. Only then can we reduce carbon emissions.
Making electricity expensive could be the first necessary step - though it is not clear if it is the right step.
The bad news is that we are on a path to replace gasoline and diesel cars with electric ones. I'm really interested how the electric grid will look like in 10 years.
So the answer is really to make energy more available, cheaper, and cleaner by mass investments in solar in the south, wind in the north, and clean and safe nuclear everywhere in between.
Just because one country, germany, doesnt mind spending nights in the dark or having workers sleep early to be able to slave away in factories it doesnt mean all of europe should obey. Build safe nuclear and build it fast before russia drains our pockets with their expensive gas.
Philips LED E27 2000 Lumen for 20 Euros: https://www.lampe.de/philips-led-e27-120-watt-2700-kelvin-20...
If you need something more powerful you should look for photography equipment.
Sure, you can easily look at the most important problem at hand and only look at the co2 cost, but unfortunately that short term thinking is exactly what proved to be the cause of climate change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste
Newer reactor designs would also make it possible to use most of the waste as fuel:
"...What is more important today is why fast reactors are fuel-efficient: because fast neutrons can fission or "burn out" all the transuranic waste (TRU) waste components (actinides: reactor-grade plutonium and minor actinides) many of which last tens of thousands of years or longer and make conventional nuclear waste disposal so problematic. Most of the radioactive fission products (FPs) the reactor produces have much shorter half-lives: they are intensely radioactive in the short term but decay quickly. The IFR extracts and recycles 99.9% of the uranium and Transuranium elements on each cycle and uses them to produce power; so its waste is just the fission products; in 300 years their radioactivity will fall below that of the original uranium "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor
While there are issues with nuclear power, the worry some people have about nuclear waste is greatly overblown to say the least. The US government has been taxing power generated by nuclear power for decades and has collected billions of dollars to cover any costs in the future.
So un less europe tames germany rather quickly we will see a lost issues than the uk leaving an already german dominated block.
Just pay attention to whats happening coming from that country and you will understand there is something afoul at play.
You heard it here first.
That's all the fuel they need.
I would dare say that german leadership is either dumb or playing into russias favour. Perhaps war reparations and a quieter Germany wouldn't be that bad? After all their cars pollute europe more than nuclear and are still in business. Just a thought.
Maybe the uk was right in leaving and perhaps a little bit of a restructuring of power in europe is overdue.