Non solo le emissioni operative, ma anche i materiali, le spedizioni, l’uso del territorio e le costruzioni hanno comportato costi elevati. Mi spiace ammetterlo, ma dopo tutto i francesi potrebbero aver ragione
https://www.reddit.com/gallery/1fv0zam
di lit_readit
18 Comments
200 cubic metre, that’s a cube of about 6m by 6m by 6m (~(6^3) cb.m. per YEAR). France metropolitan has an land area of 551,695 sq. km (1sqkm is 1000^2 sq. m). So with deep underground storage tunnels that are only 6m in height, in a MILLION years (first civilisations appeared ~7,000yrs ago) you will fill up only ~0.0062% of metropolitan France’s land area (assume absolutely no overlap in burying, which is stupid).
calculation:
(200^(2/3) (sq.m/yr))(1000000yr)/(551695(sq.km)(1000^2 (sq.km/sq.m)))
Why is battery storage listed as an energy source? It does not produce any electricity and should be added to the sources that need batteries as an additional material.
Nuclear clearly beats the rest in safety, material usage, energy production, and overall emissions… a shame that Big Coal/Oil duped the eco-people into hating it so much. We could have had solved this 30-40 years ago…
Problem is costs for nuclear energy without subsidies from government. If companies have to pay for insurance and building back old reactors, the energy prices cant compete with solar or wind farms.
Yeah, but France closed more installed capacity of nuclear power than Germany
Nuclear waste is stored underground as there is a lot of energy, which was not used and which might be used in future. This is made pretty clear that we still do not have technology yet to suck the energy out of such material and this is reason why it is stored this way for future use, so there might be still some discussion around that, because it is just not “dead” waste. But for sure interesting charts.
I need to say that I am supporter of nuclear power plant, but the chart strike me a bit … the wind material used really surprised me. I need to say that I am really surprised comparing the sources, because when I think about transportation, even the whole building of nuclear powerplant with all the materials, manpower, electricity to just only keep it working, that the material there is so low. The facility is about 500-1000 workers, which often need to come by car … there is so many variables tho.
Remember, nuclear waste may be radioactive for 100k years, but cadmium (CdTe is the only thin film PVs better than Si) is toxic forever, so we’ll need storage/processing anyway.
Why do you hate to admit it?
>Hate to admit but the French might have a point here after all
Pros of nuclear have been known for decades. Why do you need to “admit” it now?
Big thank you to all German “environmentalists” that pushed hard to shut down nuclear. As of today 40+% of electricity is produced using gas and coal.
(/s)
Thank you for confirming that nuclear is the safest and most ecological!
Nuclear remains the best option, given that there’s high standards of safety around it and the environment where the reactor is placed has a low chance of natural disasters. I also wouldn’t place a nuclear plant in a country that’s constantly at war though.
Another day another nuclear chill
I blame Germany’s greens (w/ support from Russia). Bunch of corrupted populists.
Where Can you read about the 96% of nuclear waste that can be recycled and reused? It seems incredibly high! And that slide is the only one without a source.
Your WHOLE lifetime waste from electricity needs would fit inside of a soda can if your all your needs could be fulfilled with just nuclear energy.
These calculations were made with older reactors, so the new models can probably do much better.
Geez. This clearly shows how lobbying exists to influence the population. In this case, manipulating the opinion AGAINST green energy.
Yeah but German greens.
You know what’s funny ? The countries that handle the best on nuclear are China and Russia.