Germany, Poland, Italy and Czechia account for 70% of EU CO2 emissions from the energy sector.

@kravietz
interesting, but a more complete analysis should also report about the other types of energy plant byproducts (e.g. italy choose not to have nuclear power plants)

@felippo

Climate cares about CO2, not about some political or philosophical choices.

@kravietz @felippo but the survival of nature cares about the existence of hazardous garbage that cannot be stored safely.
Trying to solve the climate crisis by using nuclear power will eradicate humanity in another way.

@laufi

Nuclear waste loses toxicity over time and 100 years it's down to just 3%. Also it's stored in such tiny amounts that it can be safely stored without any problem. So it's a completely imaginary problem, that unfortunately results in irrational replacing of low-carbon nuclear power by high-carbon fossil gas in countries like Germany.

@felippo

@kravietz @felippo The decaying of nuclear waste highly depends on the material used. There are many materials that are decaying way slower than you mentioned and i know of no power plant that uses materials that are decaying this fast. Also you have to think about the problem that the nuclear radiation is usually more dangerous, the faster it decays. (1/2)

@kravietz @felippo However, this does not mean, weak radiation is not dangerous. The non radioactive materials (concrete etc.) used in nuclear power plants also pose a threat because they start to radiate themselves after being exposed to nuclear radiation over a time. They will indeed be less dangerous in a few hundred years but until then they still pose a threat. Germany will have about 600.000 cubic meters of such waste until 2080. That is a lot, and we have no place to store them. (2/2)

@laufi @kravietz @felippo In addition to the problem of both kinds of radiation waste products during a few hundred years after a nuclear power plant is closed, it is even now dangerous to live near one (mutations during pregnancy, rivers get too hot etc), and in case of an accident, earth quake, plane crash or terrorist attack even more.

@blueplanetslittlehelper

Sorry, but this is anti-scientific nonsense. A nuclear power plant releases close to zero radiation. A single coal-powered plant releases 100x more radioactive elements in fly ash. Rare earth element mines used to make PV release radioactive elements, just as oil and gas drilling does. And the most intense sources of radiation in our lives is... space and soil, which obviously also contain radioactive elements.

@laufi @felippo

@kravietz @laufi @felippo Nonsens, huh?
French npps, f.i. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricastin_Nuclear_Power_Plant use rivers and canals to cool, resulting in over 27°C warm water in the summer and thus algae pests and dying fish. Children living near nuclear plants have significantly more often (double!) leukemia https://www.bfs.de/DE/bfs/wissenschaft-forschung/ergebnisse/kikk/kikk-studie.html
German npps are old and sport cracks etc., but are used nevertheless, f.i. https://www.bund-bawue.de/themen/mensch-umwelt/atomkraft/neckarwestheim/, making little accidents the rule instead of the exception and increase the risk of a GAU.

@blueplanetslittlehelper @kravietz @felippo I have a split opinion on that. On the one hand, statistical correlation is no evidence by itself. On the other hand it is a strong indicator that there could be a connection. But still it is also very hard to actually measure radiation leaks in very small quantities. The cooling water could be an explanation, but i do not know of any evidence for it. There have been many small "accidents" in German NPPs, but they did not release radioactive materials.

@blueplanetslittlehelper @kravietz @felippo Source for claim unfortunately only in German:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_meldepflichtiger_Ereignisse_in_deutschen_kerntechnischen_Anlagen
There have been 0 INES3 errors or higher in the recent years.

@blueplanetslittlehelper @kravietz @felippo However, i think there is really no point in arguing about the safety of German NPPs. They are really taking huge efforts to prevent accidents but in the end, there is no absolute safety and there will always be a limited budget for this. Because of the high risk scenario if something goes wrong, this is a problem of political, personal and ethical choice. And i think, nobody should be forced to accept that risk.

@blueplanetslittlehelper @kravietz @felippo Still, i would probably be okay with nuclear power, if it had been safer in the recent decades if it wasn't for the garbage problem.

There is no way of properly taking care of nuclear wast right now, and as long as we do not have a strong global concept for this, we should absolutely keep our hands of supporting big energy companies in earning a lot of money by taking high risks for public safety.

@blueplanetslittlehelper @kravietz @felippo which brings me to the next thing that i dislike: nuclear power is used because it is cheap, not because it is carbon neutral. Mining and transport of nuclear materials is pretty shitty in terms of pollution and emission of greenhouse gases. Way less greenhouse-heavy than coal, but no plant is actually carbon neutral (not even renewables, allthough their contribution is not worth mentioning). But still if it wasn't for profit, we would use renewables.

@laufi

Nuclear is used because it has large surface energy density, high capacity factor and low carbon footprint.

This means it delivers the largest amount of energy from least amount of fuel and least use of land surface and least CO2.

@blueplanetslittlehelper @felippo

@kravietz @blueplanetslittlehelper @felippo it is a very effective energy source, but this is not the main reason why it is still used. It is used, because it is profitable for the same reasons. A less profitable solution would not have convinced energy companies to still hold onto it, while having the public opinion against them.

@laufi @kravietz @felippo Yesterday during a talk in #rc3 on possible energy sources was stated, that nuclear plants are far from the most profitable solution, see screenshot. I can't remember if this numbers are only for new plants or not, but even then it is obvious we can't solve the climate catastrophe with nuclear plants

@blueplanetslittlehelper

Also in case of nuclear what makes 70% of the cost is not construction but interest on funding so there's an easy way to make it cheap: just use low-interest public funding as China and Russia do.

@laufi @felippo

@kravietz @laufi @felippo That is not true. Interests are on an all time low, and you need funding for every kind of investment, even in renewable power plants.
There are many more reason not to rely on nuclear power plants than radiation, see:
https://www.100-gute-gruende.de/

@blueplanetslittlehelper @laufi

@felippo

Regarding the "100 good reasons" sorry but this is anti-scientific propaganda of the worst kind, not different from what anti-vaxxers, anti-5G and anti-GMO invent.

Some arguments (mining, evictions, dependency) apply even more to wind and solar.

Some are simply false (no radiation protection for workers, no protection from plane crash, increased cancer risk).

Some are complete nonsense ("fracking-type uranium mining")