• 3 Posts
  • 205 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 16th, 2023

help-circle

  • If we play “I would rather”, I would rather have a nuclear waste facility than a copper, lithium or cobalt mine in my garden.

    The transition to renewables energy will requires A LOT of mining and mines are awful for the environment.

    At least with nuclear waste we can try to contain it, mining waste is just left in the open and pollute the land and water with heavy metals.

    We don’t talk much about the environmental impact of mining because it mostly impact low income country and there is no clean mining, so the only way to reduce the impact of mining is to reduce our consumption, but no one wants to hear about that. Globally we prefer pretending that we can transform our consumption to be sustainable

    The only clean energy is the one that we don’t use, after that there is just a list of less worse alternatives, nuclear, solar and wind are on the “less worse” category but they still have a terrible impact on the environment.




















  • Nuclear does not have the same function than biomass.

    A biomass power station is (relatively) cheap to build but the fuel is expensive. So it make sense to have it as a backup and only use it when necessary.

    On the other hand nuclear is expensive to build but the fuel is cheap. So building a nuclear power station as a backup does not make sense, it needs to run all the time.

    This is the basic ideas, but in practice nuclear is actually beneficial to renewables. The electricity network operator did several scenarios for the French electrical production in 2050. In their scenarios, having around 13% of nuclear in the mix divided by almost two the amount of solar, wind turbines and batteries needed.