←back to thread

1041 points mpweiher | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
m101 ◴[] No.45230060[source]
I think a good exercise for the reader is to reflect on why they were ever against nuclear power in the first place. Nuclear power was always the greenest, most climate friendly, safest, cheapest (save for what we do to ourselves), most energy dense, most long lasting, option.
replies(25): >>45230185 #>>45230223 #>>45230479 #>>45230658 #>>45230757 #>>45231144 #>>45231518 #>>45231738 #>>45232518 #>>45232615 #>>45232756 #>>45232757 #>>45232937 #>>45233169 #>>45233513 #>>45233762 #>>45233817 #>>45233825 #>>45234181 #>>45234637 #>>45234828 #>>45235394 #>>45238856 #>>45240108 #>>45243016 #
AndyPa32 ◴[] No.45230223[source]
I disagree with cheapest. If you factor in twenty years build time and nuclear waste disposal, the whole thing is not economically viable.

Then there's a problem with nuclear fuel. The sources are mostly countries you don't want to depend on.

You are of course right with your assessment that nuclear is green, safe and eco-friendly. That's a hard one to swallow for a lot of eco activists.

replies(8): >>45230243 #>>45230248 #>>45230488 #>>45230765 #>>45231116 #>>45232229 #>>45232710 #>>45233448 #
pzo ◴[] No.45230765[source]
but comparing to solar / wind there you also have to factor batteries production, battery replacement, wind turbine replacement and recycling (they are not easily recyclable), cleaning solar panels etc.
replies(2): >>45230914 #>>45233664 #
gnatolf ◴[] No.45230914[source]
'recyclable' is such a vague term. E.g. radiation-affected typically easily recycled materials are very hard to deal with (think e.g. pipe steel from power plants) and are effectively non-recyclable, instead of close to 100% recyclable, as their non-contaminated counterparts.

Opposed to that, battery recycling is mostly hard to deal with in terms of economics, and admittedly the chemistry involved is complex, but at least from a technical point of view, plenty of solutions are available - and the tech is coming in relatively quickly now that the demand is there (remember, first generation EVs are just now getting closer to EOL).

It's slightly amusing that recycling of a wind turbine is treated as if it was a big deal - yes the laminated rotor parts can't be part of circular economies, but the total material amount of this laughably small. All the metal components are very easily recycled.

replies(2): >>45231526 #>>45232176 #
1. pzo ◴[] No.45231526[source]
I'm talking about wind turbine wings. A lot of stuff is fiberglass and have to be buried.
replies(2): >>45231675 #>>45232689 #
2. gnatolf ◴[] No.45231675[source]
Yea, I know. Their volume may look impressive, the actual amount of material is quite small and 'burying' that absolutely non-toxic stuff isn't any problem.
3. natmaka ◴[] No.45232689[source]
In many Western nations bury them is now forbidden. Most are burnt in cement kilns (producing useful heat).

In France, 95% of the mass of a wind turbine must be recycled (legal obligation), the concrete base is not spared and the law requires wind farm operators to lock (upfront) a financial guarantee (deposit).

Recyclable blades are appearing (RecyclableBlade, ZEBRA, PECAN...) and even existing ones are being considered: https://www.offshorewind.biz/2023/02/08/newly-discovered-che...

According to EDF (multinational electric utility company owned by the government of France, the giant in France, owning and operating all nuke plants) 94% of a solar panel is recyclable. In France most of it is already recycled.