Climate change and the environment
#TheFutureIsYours Leading the way for a more sustainable future
Make nuclear power the focus of the green transformation
The only way we can power the future of EU sustainably is to displace fossil fuels (including controversial natural gas) with more ecological alternatives. The science (which recent JRC report affirmed) is in agreement that the only viable answer is nuclear power. It's safe, it's been around for decades and it's the only technology that can provide enough power for a fighting chance against climate change.
It's not enough to include nuclear in "green" technologies. It should be actively promoted. We need to start building a hundred nuclear power plants in Europe yesterday. And then hope that by the time they're operational, the other renewables (ITER, solar, wind, geo, hydro, tidal...) advance enough to make up for the rest of our energy consumption. Time is of the essence and nuclear power plants take a while to build due to strict regulation. Once they're up and running they'll provide energy for decades. And then we can transition to Gen IV reactors which should reduce the amount of nuclear waste we need to dispose of.
Time is critical. Fossil fuels are killing us and our future. We can't eradicate them everywhere, but power generation is one area where we have the tech and ability to do it now. So do it.
Related Events
Inondations et tempêtes. Que fait l'Europe ? Quelles conséquences pour notre portefeuille ?
Conférence-débat organisée par le Mouvement des Citoyens pour le Changement (MCC) dans le cadre de la conférence sur l'avenir de l'Europe. L'objet de cette conférence sera de débattre des mesures du pacte vert pour l'Europe, dont l'objectif est de lutter contre les changements climatiques susceptibles d'engendrer de plus en plus d'inondations et de tempêtes. Il s'agit également d'évoquer le coût de ces mesures pour le citoyen.
Cette conférence en ligne sera accessible via Zoom pour les invités et animateurs du MCC et diffusée en ligne sur la page Facebook du MCC.
Programme :
- Introduction par Madame Marie-Christine MARGHEM, présidente du MCC, députée fédérale ;
- Monsieur Jean-Pascal van YPERSELE, professeur à l’UCL et ancien vice-président du GIEC. Aspects scientifiques du changement climatique et conséquences attendues ;
- Monsieur Marc-Antoine EYL-MAZZEGA, directeur du Centre Energie et Climat de l’IFRI (Institut Français des Relations Internationales). Mesures « énergie-climat » de l’UE pour atteindre 55% de réduction de gaz à effet de serre en 2030 ;
- Monsieur Benoît QUITTRE, PDG de CO2Logic Impacts de ces mesures sur les entreprises et les communes belges ;
- Débat avec l’assistance et conclusion ;
- Modérateur : Monsieur Domenico ROSSETTI, secrétaire politique du MCC.
Endorsed by
and 27 more people (see more) (see less)
and 28 more people (see more) (see less)
Fingerprint
The piece of text below is a shortened, hashed representation of this content. It's useful to ensure the content hasn't been tampered with, as a single modification would result in a totally different value.
Value:
3537e918ab37e08206014d273c647d54fdd3ae804eda516efeeef8377c1489d7
Source:
{"body":{"en":"The only way we can power the future of EU sustainably is to displace fossil fuels (including controversial natural gas) with more ecological alternatives. The science (which recent JRC report affirmed) is in agreement that the only viable answer is nuclear power. It's safe, it's been around for decades and it's the only technology that can provide enough power for a fighting chance against climate change.\nIt's not enough to include nuclear in \"green\" technologies. It should be actively promoted. We need to start building a hundred nuclear power plants in Europe yesterday. And then hope that by the time they're operational, the other renewables (ITER, solar, wind, geo, hydro, tidal...) advance enough to make up for the rest of our energy consumption. Time is of the essence and nuclear power plants take a while to build due to strict regulation. Once they're up and running they'll provide energy for decades. And then we can transition to Gen IV reactors which should reduce the amount of nuclear waste we need to dispose of.\n\nTime is critical. Fossil fuels are killing us and our future. We can't eradicate them everywhere, but power generation is one area where we have the tech and ability to do it now. So do it.","machine_translations":{"bg":"Единственият начин, по който можем да дадем тласък на бъдещето на ЕС по устойчив начин, е да изместим изкопаемите горива (включително спорния природен газ) с по-екологични алтернативи. Науката (която неотдавнашен доклад на JRC потвърждава) е съгласен, че единственият надежден отговор е ядрената енергия. Това е безопасно, то е около десетилетия и е единствената технология, която може да осигури достатъчно мощ за борба с изменението на климата. Не е достатъчно ядрената енергия да се включи в „зелените“ технологии. Той следва да бъде активно насърчаван. Вчера трябва да започнем изграждането на сто атомни електроцентрали в Европа. И след това се надяваме, че към момента на въвеждането им в експлоатация другите възобновяеми енергийни източници (ITER, слънчева енергия, вятърна енергия, гео, хидро-, приливи и отливи...) напредват достатъчно, за да компенсират останалата част от нашето потребление на енергия. Времето е от съществено значение и изграждането на атомните електроцентрали отнема време поради строго регулиране. След като започнат да работят, те ще осигуряват енергия в продължение на десетилетия. След това можем да преминем към реактори от поколение IV, които следва да намалят количеството на ядрените отпадъци, които трябва да обезвреждаме. Времето е от решаващо значение. Изкопаемите горива ни убиват и нашето бъдеще. Не можем да ги ликвидираме навсякъде, но производството на електроенергия е една от областите, в които разполагаме с технологиите и способността да го направим сега. Същото се прави.","cs":"Jediným způsobem, jak můžeme udržitelným způsobem ovlivnit budoucnost EU, je vytěsnit fosilní paliva (včetně kontroverzního zemního plynu) s ekologičtějšími alternativami. Věda (jež nedávno potvrdilo Společné výzkumné středisko) souhlasí s tím, že jedinou schůdnou odpovědí je jaderná energie. Je bezpečné, je to již několik desetiletí a je to jediná technologie, která může poskytnout dostatečnou sílu pro boj proti změně klimatu. Nestačí zahrnout jadernou energii do „zelených“ technologií. Měla by být aktivně podporována. Včera musíme začít budovat stovku jaderných elektráren v Evropě. A doufá, že v době jejich uvedení do provozu ostatní obnovitelné zdroje energie (ITER, solární, větrná, geo, vodní, přílivová...) pokročí dostatečně na to, aby vyrovnaly zbytek naší spotřeby energie. Čas je zásadní a jaderné elektrárny si kvůli přísné regulaci zaberou určitou dobu. Jakmile budou moci začít fungovat, budou poskytovat energii po desetiletí. A poté můžeme přejít na reaktory skupiny IV. generace, které by měly snížit množství jaderného odpadu, který musíme odstranit. Čas je rozhodující. Fosilní paliva nás i naši budoucnost zabíjejí. Nemůžeme je vymýtit všude, ale výroba energie je jednou z oblastí, kde máme technologie a schopnost tak učinit nyní. Tak tomu je.","da":"Den eneste måde, hvorpå vi kan styrke EU's fremtid på bæredygtig vis, er at erstatte fossile brændstoffer (herunder kontroversiel naturgas) med mere miljøvenlige alternativer. Videnskaben (som JRC's nylige rapport bekræftede) er enig i, at det eneste holdbare svar er atomkraft. Det er sikkert, det har været omkring årtier, og det er den eneste teknologi, der kan give tilstrækkelig magt til at bekæmpe klimaændringer. Det er ikke nok at inkludere kernekraft i \"grønne\" teknologier. Det bør fremmes aktivt. Vi er nødt til at begynde at bygge et hundrede atomkraftværker i Europa i går. Håber derefter, at de andre vedvarende energikilder (ITER, sol, vind, geo, vandkraft, tidevand...), når de er operationelle, går nok til at dække resten af vores energiforbrug. Tiden er af afgørende betydning, og det tager stadig tid at bygge kernekraftværker på grund af streng regulering. Når først de er sat i drift, vil de levere energi i årtier. Og derefter kan vi gå over til Gen IV-reaktorer, som skulle reducere den mængde nukleart affald, vi skal bortskaffe. Tiden er kritisk. Fossile brændstoffer dræber os og vores fremtid. Vi kan ikke udrydde dem overalt, men elproduktion er et område, hvor vi har teknologien og evnen til at gøre det nu. Det gør det.","de":"Die einzige Möglichkeit, die Zukunft der EU nachhaltig zu steuern, besteht darin, fossile Brennstoffe (einschließlich umstrittendes Erdgas) durch umweltfreundlichere Alternativen zu verdrängen. Die Wissenschaft (die vor kurzem im GFS-Bericht bestätigt wurde) ist übereinstimmend der Ansicht, dass die einzig gangbare Antwort die Kernenergie ist. Sie ist sicher, sie ist jahrzehntelang und die einzige Technologie, die genügend Macht für die Bekämpfung des Klimawandels bieten kann. Es reicht nicht aus, die Kernenergie in „grüne“ Technologien einzubeziehen. Sie sollte aktiv gefördert werden. Gestern müssen wir mit dem Bau hundert Kernkraftwerke in Europa beginnen. Und dann hoffen wir, dass die anderen erneuerbaren Energien (ITER, Sonne, Wind, Geo, Wasserkraft, Gedal usw.) bis zu dem Zeitpunkt, zu dem sie in Betrieb sind, genug vorankommen, um den Rest unseres Energieverbrauchs zu decken. Die Zeit ist von entscheidender Bedeutung, und Kernkraftwerke brauchen aufgrund strenger Regulierung eine Zeit bis zum Bau. Sobald sie wieder in Betrieb sind, werden sie jahrzehntelang Energie liefern. Und dann können wir zu Reaktoren des Typs Gen IV übergehen, wodurch die Menge an Nuklearabfällen verringert werden sollte, die wir entsorgen müssen. Die Zeit ist kritisch. Fossile Brennstoffe schmälern uns und unsere Zukunft. Wir können sie nicht überall beseitigen, aber die Stromerzeugung ist ein Bereich, in dem wir die Technologie und die Fähigkeit haben, dies jetzt zu tun. Das ist auch der Fall.","el":"Ο μόνος τρόπος με τον οποίο μπορούμε να ενδυναμώσουμε το μέλλον της ΕΕ με βιώσιμο τρόπο είναι η μετατόπιση των ορυκτών καυσίμων (συμπεριλαμβανομένου του αμφιλεγόμενου φυσικού αερίου) με πιο οικολογικές εναλλακτικές λύσεις. Η επιστήμη (την οποία επιβεβαίωσε πρόσφατα το ΚΚΕρ) συμφωνεί ότι η μόνη βιώσιμη απάντηση είναι η πυρηνική ενέργεια. Είναι ασφαλής, βρίσκεται εδώ και δεκαετίες και είναι η μόνη τεχνολογία που μπορεί να προσφέρει αρκετή ισχύ για την καταπολέμηση της κλιματικής αλλαγής. Δεν αρκεί να συμπεριληφθεί η πυρηνική ενέργεια στις «πράσινες» τεχνολογίες. Θα πρέπει να προωθηθεί ενεργά. Πρέπει να αρχίσουμε χθες την κατασκευή εκατό πυρηνικών σταθμών ηλεκτροπαραγωγής στην Ευρώπη. Στη συνέχεια ελπίζει ότι μέχρι την έναρξη λειτουργίας τους, οι άλλες ανανεώσιμες πηγές ενέργειας (ITER, ηλιακή, αιολική, γεωηλεκτρική, υδροηλεκτρική, παλιρροϊκή...) θα προχωρήσουν αρκετά ώστε να καλύψουν το υπόλοιπο της ενεργειακής μας κατανάλωσης. Ο χρόνος είναι ουσιαστικής σημασίας και οι πυρηνοηλεκτρικοί σταθμοί χρειάζονται χρόνο για να κατασκευαστούν λόγω αυστηρής ρύθμισης. Μόλις αρχίσουν να λειτουργούν, θα παρέχουν ενέργεια εδώ και δεκαετίες. Στη συνέχεια, μπορούμε να μεταβούμε στους αντιδραστήρες Gen IV, οι οποίοι αναμένεται να μειώσουν την ποσότητα των πυρηνικών αποβλήτων που πρέπει να απορρίψουμε. Ο χρόνος είναι κρίσιμος. Τα ορυκτά καύσιμα σκοτώνουν εμάς και το μέλλον μας. Δεν μπορούμε να τους εξαλείψουμε παντού, αλλά η παραγωγή ενέργειας είναι ένας τομέας στον οποίο διαθέτουμε την τεχνολογία και την ικανότητα να το κάνουμε τώρα. Και αυτό.","es":"La única manera de impulsar el futuro de la UE de manera sostenible es sustituir los combustibles fósiles (incluido el gas natural controvertido) por alternativas más ecológicas. La ciencia (que un reciente informe del CCI afirma) está de acuerdo en que la única respuesta viable es la energía nuclear. Es seguro, está en torno a décadas y es la única tecnología que puede proporcionar suficiente poder para luchar contra el cambio climático. No basta con incluir la energía nuclear en las tecnologías «verdes». Debe promoverse activamente. Tenemos que empezar ayer a construir cien centrales nucleares en Europa. Y luego esperan que las demás energías renovables (ITER, solar, eólica, geo, hidroeléctrica, mareomotriz, etc.) avancen en la medida necesaria para compensar el resto de nuestro consumo energético. El tiempo es esencial y las centrales nucleares tardan en construirse debido a una regulación estricta. Una vez que estén en funcionamiento, proporcionarán energía durante décadas. Y entonces podremos pasar a reactores del Gen IV, que deberían reducir la cantidad de residuos nucleares que necesitamos eliminar. El tiempo es crítico. Los combustibles fósiles nos están matando y nuestro futuro. No podemos erradicarlos por todas partes, pero la generación de electricidad es un ámbito en el que tenemos la tecnología y la capacidad para hacerlo ahora. Y lo hace.","et":"Ainus viis, kuidas me saame ELi tulevikku jätkusuutlikult mõjutada, on asendada fossiilkütused (sealhulgas vastuoluline maagaas) ökoloogilisemate alternatiividega. Teadus (mida Teadusuuringute Ühiskeskuse hiljutises aruandes kinnitati) on nõus, et ainus elujõuline lahendus on tuumaenergia. See on turvaline, aastakümneid kestev ja ainus tehnoloogia, mis suudab pakkuda piisavalt jõudu kliimamuutuste vastu võitlemiseks. Tuumaenergia kaasamine keskkonnahoidlikesse tehnoloogiatesse ei ole piisav. Seda tuleks aktiivselt edendada. Eile peame Euroopas ehitama sadu tuumaelektrijaamu. Ning loodame, et teised taastuvad energiaallikad (ITER, päike, tuul, geo, hüdro, looded jne) edenevad nende kasutuselevõtu ajaks piisavalt, et katta ülejäänud energiatarbimine. Aeg on väga oluline ja tuumaelektrijaamade ehitamine võtab range reguleerimise tõttu aega. Kui nad on üles ehitatud ja töötavad, annavad nad energiat aastakümneid. Seejärel saame minna üle IV põlvkonna reaktoritele, mis peaks vähendama kõrvaldatavate tuumajäätmete kogust. Aeg on kriitilise tähtsusega. Fossiilkütused hävitavad meid ja meie tulevikku. Me ei saa neid kõikjal kaotada, kuid elektritootmine on valdkond, kus meil on olemas tehnoloogia ja suutlikkus seda praegu teha. Nii see ongi.","fi":"Ainoa tapa, jolla voimme vaikuttaa EU:n tulevaisuuteen kestävällä tavalla, on korvata fossiilisia polttoaineita (mukaan lukien kiistanalainen maakaasu) ekologisemmilla vaihtoehdoilla. Tiede (jonka YTK:n tuoreessa raportissa vahvistettiin) on yksimielinen siitä, että ainoa toteuttamiskelpoinen ratkaisu on ydinvoima. Se on turvallinen, noin vuosikymmenten ajan, ja se on ainoa teknologia, joka voi tarjota riittävästi valtaa ilmastonmuutoksen torjumiseksi. Ydinvoiman sisällyttäminen ”vihreisiin” teknologioihin ei riitä. Sitä olisi edistettävä aktiivisesti. Meidän on aloitettava satojen ydinvoimaloiden rakentaminen Eurooppaan eilen. Tämän jälkeen toivotaan, että muut uusiutuvat energialähteet (ITER, aurinko, tuuli, geo, vesi, vuorovesi jne.) kehittyvät toimintavalmiuteen mennessä niin hyvin, että ne vastaavat muuta energiankulutustamme. Aika on olennaisen tärkeä, ja ydinvoimaloiden rakentaminen vie aikaa tiukan sääntelyn ansiosta. Kun he ovat aloittaneet toimintansa, ne tuottavat energiaa vuosikymmenten ajan. Sen jälkeen voimme siirtyä neljännen sukupolven reaktoreihin, joiden pitäisi vähentää hävitettävän ydinjätteen määrää. Aika on kriittinen. Fossiiliset polttoaineet tappavat meitä ja meidän tulevaisuuttamme. Emme voi hävittää niitä kaikkialta, mutta sähköntuotanto on yksi ala, jolla meillä on teknologia ja kyky tehdä se nyt. Näin on.","fr":"La seule manière dont nous pouvons faire le pouvoir sur l’avenir de l’UE de manière durable est de remplacer les combustibles fossiles (y compris le gaz naturel controversé) par des solutions de substitution plus écologiques. La science (que le CCR a récemment déclaré dans son rapport) est d’accord sur le fait que la seule réponse viable est l’énergie nucléaire. C’est sûr, c’est aux alentours de plusieurs décennies et c’est la seule technologie qui puisse fournir un pouvoir suffisant pour lutter contre le changement climatique. Il ne suffit pas d’inclure le nucléaire dans les technologies «vertes». Il convient de la promouvoir activement. Nous devons commencer à construire une centaine de centrales nucléaires en Europe hier. Et espèrent ensuite qu’au moment où ils seront opérationnels, les autres énergies renouvelables (ITER, solaire, éolienne, géo, hydraulique, marémotrice, etc.) progressent suffisamment pour compenser le reste de notre consommation d’énergie. Le temps est essentiel et les centrales nucléaires prennent un certain temps pour construire en raison d’une réglementation stricte. Une fois qu’ils seront opérationnels, ils fourniront de l’énergie pendant des décennies. Nous pouvons ensuite passer aux réacteurs GEN IV, ce qui devrait réduire la quantité de déchets nucléaires dont nous avons besoin pour éliminer. Le temps est crucial. Les combustibles fossiles nous tuent et notre avenir. Nous ne pouvons pas les éradiquer partout, mais la production d’électricité est un domaine dans lequel nous disposons de la technologie et de la capacité à le faire maintenant. Tel est le cas.","ga":"Is é an t-aon bhealach amháin ar féidir linn todhchaí an AE a chumhachtú ná úsáid inbhuanaithe a bhaint as breoslaí iontaise (lena n-áirítear gás nádúrtha conspóideach) trí níos mó roghanna éiceolaíocha a úsáid. Aontaíonn an eolaíocht (ar tuarascáil ó JRC í le déanaí) gurb é an t-aon fhreagra inmharthana atá ann ná cumhacht núicléach. Tá sé sábháilte, tá sé thart ar feadh na mblianta agus is é an t-aon teicneolaíocht í atá in ann dóthain cumhachta a chur ar fáil chun seans troda a dhéanamh i gcoinne an athraithe aeráide. Ní leor go n-áireofaí núicléach i dteicneolaíochtaí “glasa”. Ba cheart é a chur chun cinn go gníomhach. Ní mór dúinn céad stáisiún núicléach a thógáil san Eoraip inné. Agus tá súil ansin go bhfuil siad ag feidhmiú faoin am a bhíonn siad ag feidhmiú, na foinsí in-athnuaite eile (ITER, gréine, gaoithe, geo, hidrea, taoide...) dul chun cinn go leor chun an chuid eile dár n-ídiú fuinnimh. Is é an t-am is tábhachtaí agus glacann stáisiúin núicléacha le tógáil ag an am i ngeall ar rialáil dhian. Nuair a bhíonn siad suas agus ag rith beidh siad fuinnimh a chur ar fáil ar feadh na mblianta. Agus ansin is féidir linn aistriú go himoibreoirí Gen IV, rud a laghdóidh an méid dramhaíola núicléiche atá de dhíth orainn a dhiúscairt. Tá an t-am ríthábhachtach. Tá breoslaí iontaise ag marú dúinne agus ár dtodhchaí. Ní féidir linn iad a dhíothú i ngach áit, ach tá giniúint cumhachta limistéar amháin ina bhfuil an ardteicneolaíocht agus cumas chun é a dhéanamh anois. Déan amhlaidh.","hr":"Jedini način na koji možemo održivo upravljati budućnosti EU-a jest raspuštanje fosilnih goriva (uključujući kontroverzni prirodni plin) s ekološki prihvatljivijim alternativama. Znanost (koju je nedavno potvrdilo izvješće JRC-a) slaže se da je jedini održivi odgovor nuklearna energija. Sigurna je, desetljećima je okosnica i jedina tehnologija koja može pružiti dovoljno energije za borbu protiv klimatskih promjena. Nije dovoljno uključiti nuklearnu energiju u „zelene” tehnologije. Trebalo bi ga aktivno promicati. Moramo jučer započeti s izgradnjom stotinu nuklearnih elektrana u Europi. A zatim se nadaju da će do trenutka kada počnu s radom drugi obnovljivi izvori energije (ITER, solarna energija, vjetar, geoenergija, hidroenergija, plimna i oseka...) dovoljno napredovati kako bi nadoknadili ostatak naše potrošnje energije. Vrijeme je od ključne važnosti, a nuklearne elektrane još nisu izgrađene zbog strogih propisa. Nakon što počnu s radom, osiguravat će energiju desetljećima. A zatim možemo prijeći na reaktore IV. generacije koji bi trebali smanjiti količinu nuklearnog otpada koji trebamo zbrinuti. Vrijeme je ključno. Fosilna goriva ubijaju nas i svoju budućnost. Ne možemo ih svugdje iskorijeniti, ali proizvodnja energije jedno je od područja u kojima sada imamo tehnologiju i sposobnost da to učinimo. Tako da to učinite.","hu":"Az EU jövőjét csak úgy tudjuk fenntartható módon befolyásolni, ha a fosszilis tüzelőanyagokat (köztük a vitatott földgázt) környezetbarátabb alternatívákkal helyezzük el. A tudomány (amelyet a JRC közelmúltbeli jelentése megerősített) egyetért abban, hogy az egyetlen életképes válasz a nukleáris energia. Biztonságos, évtizedek óta létezik, és ez az egyetlen technológia, amely elegendő erőt tud biztosítani az éghajlatváltozás elleni küzdelemhez. Nem elég, ha az atomenergiát beépítjük a „zöld” technológiákba. Ezt aktívan elő kell mozdítani. Tegnap el kell kezdenünk egy száz atomerőmű építését Európában. Azt reméljük, hogy a többi megújuló energiaforrás (ITER, nap-, szél-, geo-, víz-, árapály stb.) akkora mértékben halad előre, hogy az energiafogyasztásunk fennmaradó részét fedezze. Az idő a lényeg, és az atomerőművek a szigorú szabályozás miatt egy ideig tartanak. Amint felépülnek és működnek, évtizedekig energiát szolgáltatnak. Ezt követően átállhatunk a IV. Gener-reaktorokra, amelyeknek csökkenteniük kell az ártalmatlanításra váró nukleáris hulladék mennyiségét. Az idő kritikus. A fosszilis tüzelőanyagok meggyilkolnak minket és jövőnket. Ezeket nem tudjuk mindenhol felszámolni, de a villamosenergia-termelés az egyik olyan terület, ahol most megvan a technológia és a képességünk. Ezt megteheti.","it":"L'unico modo per imprimere al futuro sostenibile l'UE è sostituire i combustibili fossili (compreso il gas naturale controverso) con alternative più ecologiche. La scienza (che la recente relazione del CCR ha affermato) concorda sul fatto che l'unica risposta praticabile è l'energia nucleare. È sicuro, è prossimo da decenni ed è l'unica tecnologia in grado di fornire sufficiente potenza per una possibilità di lotta contro i cambiamenti climatici. Non basta includere il nucleare nelle tecnologie \"verdi\". Essa dovrebbe essere promossa attivamente. Dobbiamo iniziare ieri a costruire un centinaio di centrali nucleari in Europa. E spera poi che, al momento della loro entrata in funzione, le altre energie rinnovabili (ITER, solare, eolica, geo, idroelettrico, maremotrice...) progrediscano a sufficienza per far fronte al resto del nostro consumo energetico. Il tempo è essenziale e le centrali nucleari richiedono tempo per costruirsi a causa di una regolamentazione rigorosa. Una volta entrati in funzione, forniranno energia per decenni. Possiamo poi passare a reattori del Gen IV, che dovrebbero ridurre la quantità di rifiuti nucleari di cui abbiamo bisogno. Il tempo è fondamentale. I combustibili fossili ci uccidono e il nostro futuro. Non possiamo eradicarli ovunque, ma la produzione di energia è un settore in cui abbiamo la tecnologia e la capacità di farlo ora. Così facendo.","lt":"Vienintelis būdas tvariai valdyti ES ateitį – iškastinį kurą (įskaitant prieštaringas gamtines dujas) pakeisti ekologiškesnėmis alternatyvomis. Mokslas (kuris neseniai patvirtinta JTC ataskaitoje) sutaria, kad vienintelis perspektyvus atsakymas yra branduolinė energija. Ji yra saugi, jau dešimtmečius – vienintelė technologija, galinti suteikti pakankamai galių kovoti su klimato kaita. Nepakanka įtraukti branduolinės energijos į „žaliąsias“ technologijas. Jis turėtų būti aktyviai skatinamas. Vakar turime pradėti statyti šimtą atominių elektrinių Europoje. Be to, tikimės, kad kiti atsinaujinantieji energijos ištekliai (ITER, saulės energija, vėjas, geografija, vanduo, atoslūgis ir t. t.) bus pakankamai pažengę į priekį, kad atsvertų likusią mūsų suvartojamos energijos dalį. Laikas yra labai svarbus, o atomines elektrines reikia pastatyti dėl griežto reguliavimo. Atkūrus ir pradėjus veikti, energija bus tiekiama dešimtmečiais. Tada galime pereiti prie IV-osios kartos reaktorių, kurie turėtų sumažinti branduolinių atliekų, kurias turime šalinti, kiekį. Laikas yra labai svarbus. Iškastinis kuras mus ir mūsų ateitį žudo. Negalime jų išnaikinti visur, tačiau elektros energijos gamyba yra viena iš sričių, kurioje turime technologijas ir gebėjimą tai padaryti dabar. Tai irgi.","lv":"Vienīgais veids, kā mēs varam ilgtspējīgi ietekmēt ES nākotni, ir aizstāt fosilo kurināmo (tostarp pretrunīgu dabasgāzi) ar ekoloģiskākām alternatīvām. Zinātne (ko apstiprināja nesenais JRC ziņojums) ir vienisprātis, ka vienīgā dzīvotspējīgā atbilde ir kodolenerģija. Tas ir droši, tas ir bijis aptuveni gadu desmitiem, un tā ir vienīgā tehnoloģija, kas var nodrošināt pietiekamu spēku, lai cīnītos pret klimata pārmaiņām. Nepietiek ar kodolenerģētikas iekļaušanu “zaļās” tehnoloģijās. Tas būtu aktīvi jāveicina. Vakar mums jāsāk būvēt simts kodolspēkstaciju Eiropā. Un tad ceram, ka līdz to darbības laikam citi atjaunojamie energoresursi (ITER, saules enerģija, vējš, ģeoloģiskais, hidroloģiskais, plūdmaiņu avots...) pietiekami virzās uz priekšu, lai kompensētu pārējo enerģijas patēriņu. Laiks ir ļoti svarīgs, un kodolspēkstaciju būvniecībai ir vajadzīgs laiks stingra regulējuma dēļ. Kad viņi sāks darboties, tie nodrošinās enerģiju gadu desmitiem. Un tad mēs varam pāriet uz IV Gena reaktoriem, kam būtu jāsamazina apglabājamo kodolatkritumu daudzums. Laiks ir izšķirošs. Fosilais kurināmais mūs nogalina un mūsu nākotni. Mēs nevaram tos izskaust visur, bet enerģijas ražošana ir viena no jomām, kurā mums ir tehnoloģijas un spēja to darīt tagad. Tad dari to.","mt":"L-uniku mod kif nistgħu nħaddmu l-futur tal-UE b’mod sostenibbli huwa li jiġu spustati l-karburanti fossili (inkluż il-gass naturali kontroversjali) b’alternattivi aktar ekoloġiċi. Ix-xjenza (li r-rapport riċenti tal-JRC afferma) taqbel li l-unika tweġiba vijabbli hija l-enerġija nukleari. Hija sikura, ilha madwar għexieren ta’ snin u hija l-unika teknoloġija li tista’ tipprovdi biżżejjed enerġija għal opportunità ta’ ġlied kontra t-tibdil fil-klima. Mhuwiex biżżejjed li n-nukleari tiġi inkluża f’teknoloġiji “ekoloġiċi”. Dan għandu jiġi promoss b’mod attiv. Jeħtieġ li nibdew nibnu mijiet ta’ impjanti tal-enerġija nukleari fl-Ewropa lbieraħ. U mbagħad jittama li sa dak iż-żmien ikunu operattivi, l-enerġija rinnovabbli l-oħra (ITER, enerġija solari, enerġija mir-riħ, ġeo, ilma, marea...) tavvanza biżżejjed biex tpatti għall-bqija tal-konsum tal-enerġija tagħna. Iż-żmien huwa essenzjali u l-impjanti tal-enerġija nukleari jieħdu ż-żmien biex jinbnew minħabba regolamentazzjoni stretta. Ladarba jibdew jaħdmu u jibdew jipprovdu l-enerġija għal għexieren ta’ snin. U mbagħad nistgħu naqilbu lejn reatturi tal-Ġen IV li għandhom inaqqsu l-ammont ta’ skart nukleari li rridu niddisponu minnu. Il-ħin huwa kritiku. Il-fjuwils fossili qed joqtulna u l-futur tagħna. Ma nistgħux neqirduhom kullimkien, iżda l-ġenerazzjoni tal-enerġija hija qasam fejn għandna t-teknoloġija u l-kapaċità li nagħmlu dan issa. Dan jagħmluh ukoll.","nl":"De enige manier waarop we de toekomst van de EU op duurzame wijze kunnen aanjagen, is fossiele brandstoffen (met inbegrip van controversieel aardgas) te vervangen door milieuvriendelijkere alternatieven. De wetenschap (die onlangs door het GCO werd bevestigd) is het erover eens dat kernenergie het enige haalbare antwoord is. Het is veilig, het is al tientallen jaren en het is de enige technologie die voldoende macht kan bieden om de klimaatverandering te bestrijden. Het volstaat niet om kernenergie op te nemen in „groene” technologieën. Het moet actief worden bevorderd. Gisteren moeten we beginnen met de bouw van honderd kerncentrales in Europa. En hopen dan dat de andere hernieuwbare energiebronnen (ITER, zon, wind, geo, waterkracht, getijdenenergie) tegen de tijd dat ze operationeel zijn, voldoende vooruitgang boeken om de rest van ons energieverbruik te compenseren. Tijd is van essentieel belang en kerncentrales nemen een tijd in beslag als gevolg van strikte regelgeving. Als ze eenmaal operationeel zijn, leveren ze tientallen jaren energie. En dan kunnen we overschakelen naar Gen IV-reactoren, die de hoeveelheid kernafval die we moeten verwijderen, moeten verminderen. Tijd is cruciaal. Fossiele brandstoffen doden ons en onze toekomst. We kunnen ze niet overal uitbannen, maar elektriciteitsopwekking is een gebied waar we nu de technologie en het vermogen hebben om dat te doen. Dat is ook het geval.","pl":"Jedynym sposobem, w jaki możemy kształtować przyszłość UE w sposób zrównoważony, jest zastąpienie paliw kopalnych (w tym kontrowersyjnego gazu ziemnego) bardziej ekologicznymi alternatywami. Nauka (co potwierdziło niedawne sprawozdanie JRC) zgadza się, że jedyną wykonalną odpowiedzią jest energia jądrowa. Jest bezpieczny, od kilkudziesięciu lat jest to jedyna technologia, która może zapewnić wystarczającą moc do walki ze zmianą klimatu. Włączenie energii jądrowej do „zielonych” technologii nie wystarczy. Należy ją aktywnie promować. Musimy wczoraj zacząć budować w Europie sto elektrowni jądrowych. A następnie ma nadzieję, że do czasu ich uruchomienia inne odnawialne źródła energii (ITER, energia słoneczna, wiatrowa, geograficzna, wodna, pływów itp.) będą na tyle zaawansowane, aby zrekompensować naszą pozostałą część naszego zużycia energii. Czas ma zasadnicze znaczenie, a elektrownie jądrowe czekają czas na budowę ze względu na rygorystyczne przepisy. Po ich uruchomieniu będą one dostarczać energię przez dziesięciolecia. A następnie możemy przejść na reaktory czwartej generacji, które powinny zmniejszyć ilość odpadów jądrowych, które musimy usuwać. Czas ma kluczowe znaczenie. Paliwa kopalne zabijają nas i naszą przyszłość. Nie możemy ich wyeliminować wszędzie, ale wytwarzanie energii jest jednym z obszarów, w których dysponujemy technologią i zdolnościami, aby to zrobić teraz. Tak się dzieje.","pt":"A única forma de capacitar o futuro da UE de forma sustentável é deslocar os combustíveis fósseis (incluindo o gás natural controverso) com alternativas mais ecológicas. A ciência (que afirmou recentemente um relatório do CCI) concorda que a única resposta viável é a energia nuclear. É seguro, está em torno de décadas e é a única tecnologia que pode proporcionar poder suficiente para combater as alterações climáticas. Não basta incluir a energia nuclear nas tecnologias «verdes». Deve ser ativamente promovida. Temos de começar a construir ontem uma centena de centrais nucleares na Europa. Esperam que, quando estiverem operacionais, as outras energias renováveis (ITER, solar, eólica, geométrica, hídrica, marés, etc.) progridam o suficiente para compensar o resto do nosso consumo de energia. O tempo é essencial e as centrais nucleares levam tempo a construir devido a uma regulamentação rigorosa. Uma vez que estão a funcionar, fornecerão energia durante décadas. E, em seguida, podemos transitar para reatores de Gen IV, que deverão reduzir a quantidade de resíduos nucleares de que necessitamos de eliminar. O tempo é crucial. Os combustíveis fósseis estão a matar-nos e o nosso futuro. Não podemos erradicá-los em toda a parte, mas a produção de eletricidade é um domínio em que temos tecnologia e capacidade para o fazer agora. Fá-lo assim.","ro":"Singura modalitate prin care putem impulsiona viitorul UE în mod durabil este de a înlocui combustibilii fosili (inclusiv gazele naturale controversate) cu alternative mai ecologice. Știința (despre care recentul raport al JRC a afirmat) este de acord că singurul răspuns viabil este energia nucleară. Este sigur, este de aproximativ decenii și este singura tehnologie care poate oferi suficientă putere pentru a lupta împotriva schimbărilor climatice. Nu este suficient să se includă energia nucleară în tehnologiile „verzi”. Aceasta ar trebui promovată în mod activ. Ieri, trebuie să începem să construim o sută de centrale nucleare în Europa. Și speră că, până în momentul în care sunt operaționale, celelalte surse regenerabile de energie (ITER, solară, eoliană, geo, hidroelectrică, maree...) avansează suficient pentru a compensa restul consumului nostru de energie. Timpul este esențial, iar centralele nucleare trebuie să se construiască ca urmare a unei reglementări stricte. Odată ce sunt în stare de funcționare, ele vor furniza energie timp de decenii. Iar apoi putem trece la reactoare Gen IV care ar trebui să reducă cantitatea de deșeuri nucleare de care avem nevoie pentru a elimina. Timpul este esențial. Combustibilii fosili ne ucid și viitorul nostru. Nu le putem eradica peste tot, dar generarea de energie electrică este un domeniu în care avem tehnologia și capacitatea de a face acest lucru acum. Același lucru este valabil și pentru acest lucru.","sk":"Jediným spôsobom, ako môžeme posilniť budúcnosť EÚ udržateľným spôsobom, je nahradiť fosílne palivá (vrátane kontroverzného zemného plynu) ekologickejšími alternatívami. Veda (ktorú nedávno potvrdilo JRC) súhlasí s tým, že jedinou realizovateľnou odpoveďou je jadrová energia. Je to bezpečné, je to približne desaťročia a je to jediná technológia, ktorá môže poskytnúť dostatočnú silu na boj proti šancu v boji proti zmene klímy. Nestačí zahrnúť jadrovú energiu do „zelených“ technológií. Mala by sa aktívne podporovať. Včera musíme začať budovať stovky jadrových elektrární v Európe. A potom dúfa, že ostatné obnoviteľné zdroje energie (ITER, slnečná, veterná, geografická, vodná, prílivová atď.) budú v čase svojej prevádzky dostatočne na to, aby pokryli zvyšok našej spotreby energie. Čas má zásadný význam a jadrové elektrárne si vyžadujú čas, kým sa budú budovať v dôsledku prísnej regulácie. Keď sa začnú rozvíjať a budú fungovať, budú dodávať energiu už desaťročia. A potom môžeme prejsť na reaktory Gen IV, ktoré by mali znížiť množstvo jadrového odpadu, ktorý musíme zlikvidovať. Čas je rozhodujúci. Fosílne palivá usmrcujú nás a našu budúcnosť. Nemôžeme ich odstrániť všade, ale výroba elektrickej energie je jednou z oblastí, v ktorej máme technológie a schopnosť to urobiť teraz. Tak to robí.","sl":"Prihodnost EU lahko trajnostno poganjamo le tako, da fosilna goriva (vključno s spornim zemeljskim plinom) zamenjamo z bolj ekološkimi alternativami. Znanost (ki jo je nedavno potrdilo Skupno raziskovalno središče) se strinja, da je edini izvedljiv odgovor jedrska energija. Varna je že desetletja in je edina tehnologija, ki lahko zagotovi dovolj moči za boj proti podnebnim spremembam. Vključitev jedrske energije v „zelene“ tehnologije ni dovolj. To bi bilo treba dejavno spodbujati. Včeraj moramo v Evropi zgraditi sto jedrskih elektrarn. Upamo, da bodo drugi obnovljivi viri energije (ITER, sončna energija, veter, geogorija, hidroelektrarne, plimovanje itd.) v času, ko bodo začeli delovati, dosegli zadosten napredek pri preostanku naše porabe energije. Čas je bistvenega pomena, jedrske elektrarne pa potrebujejo čas za gradnjo zaradi stroge ureditve. Ko bodo zgrajeni in bodo delovali več desetletij, bodo zagotavljali energijo. Nato lahko preidemo na reaktorje IV. generacije, ki bi morali zmanjšati količino jedrskih odpadkov, ki jih moramo odstraniti. Čas je ključnega pomena. Fosilna goriva nas in našo prihodnost uničujejo. Ne moremo jih izkoreniniti povsod, vendar je proizvodnja električne energije eno od področij, na katerem imamo tehnologijo in sposobnost, da to počnemo. Enako velja.","sv":"Det enda sättet att styra EU:s framtid på ett hållbart sätt är att ersätta fossila bränslen (inklusive kontroversiell naturgas) med mer miljövänliga alternativ. Vetenskapen (som GFC nyligen bekräftade i sin rapport) är överens om att kärnkraften är det enda hållbara svaret. Det är säkert, det är runt i årtionden och det är den enda teknik som kan ge tillräcklig makt för att bekämpa klimatförändringarna. Det räcker inte med att inkludera kärnkraft i ”grön” teknik. Den bör aktivt främjas. Vi måste börja bygga ett hundratal kärnkraftverk i Europa igår. Och hoppas sedan att de andra förnybara energikällorna (Iter, solenergi, vindkraft, geo, vattenkraft, tidvattenenergi osv.) när de tas i drift utvecklas tillräckligt för att täcka resten av vår energiförbrukning. Tiden är av avgörande betydelse och det tar lång tid att bygga kärnkraftverk på grund av strikt reglering. När de väl är i drift kommer de att tillhandahålla energi i årtionden. Och sedan kan vi gå över till GEN IV-reaktorer, vilket bör minska den mängd kärnavfall vi behöver för att bortskaffa. Tiden är avgörande. Fossila bränslen dödar oss och vår framtid. Vi kan inte utrota dem överallt, men kraftproduktionen är ett område där vi har teknik och förmåga att göra det nu. Så gör det."}},"title":{"en":"Make nuclear power the focus of the green transformation","machine_translations":{"bg":"Превръщане на ядрената енергия в центъра на екологичната трансформация","cs":"Učinit jadernou energii těžištěm ekologické transformace","da":"Sætte fokus på kernekraft i den grønne omstilling","de":"Kernkraft zum Schwerpunkt des ökologischen Wandels machen","el":"Ανάδειξη της πυρηνικής ενέργειας στο επίκεντρο του πράσινου μετασχηματισμού","es":"Convertir la energía nuclear en el centro de la transformación ecológica","et":"Muuta tuumaenergia keskkonnahoidliku ümberkujundamise keskmesse","fi":"Ydinvoiman nostaminen vihreän muutoksen painopisteeksi","fr":"Faire de l’énergie nucléaire la priorité de la transformation verte","ga":"Cumhacht núicléach a dhíriú ar an gclaochlú glas","hr":"Stavljanje nuklearne energije u središte zelene transformacije","hu":"Az atomenergiát a zöld átalakulás középpontjába kell helyezni","it":"Rendere l'energia nucleare al centro della trasformazione verde","lt":"Užtikrinti, kad branduolinė energija būtų ekologiškos pertvarkos dėmesio centre","lv":"Padarīt kodolenerģiju par zaļās pārveides galveno mērķi","mt":"L-enerġija nukleari ssir il-fokus tat-trasformazzjoni ekoloġika","nl":"Kernenergie centraal stellen in de groene transformatie","pl":"Sprawienie, by energia jądrowa znalazła się w centrum zielonej transformacji","pt":"Fazer da energia nuclear o foco da transformação ecológica","ro":"Transformarea energiei nucleare în centrul transformării ecologice","sk":"Aby sa jadrová energia stala stredobodom zelenej transformácie","sl":"Umeščanje jedrske energije v središče zelene preobrazbe","sv":"Göra kärnkraften till fokus för den gröna omvandlingen"}}}
This fingerprint is calculated using a SHA256 hashing algorithm. In order to replicate it yourself, you can use an MD5 calculator online and copy-paste the source data.
Share:
Share link:
Please paste this code in your page:
<script src="https://futureu.europa.eu/processes/GreenDeal/f/1/proposals/985/embed.js"></script>
<noscript><iframe src="https://futureu.europa.eu/processes/GreenDeal/f/1/proposals/985/embed.html" frameborder="0" scrolling="vertical"></iframe></noscript>
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
67 comments
Conversation
The promotion of the nuclear energy is a typical example of a true false - good idea . No more C02 what a marvel. But what about the digging of the wasted radiactive materials (that nobody wants) and what about the cost of a nuclear accident (just a few hundred billions of euros for Tchernobyl or for Fukushima).
With the consequence that nuclear energy is what it is now taken into account in Europe: a just acceptable transition energy
You raise good and important points in the discussion about nuclear power. Let me address them one by one.
Radioactive waste - it certainly is a dangerous byproduct of nuclear power and that is why it is heavily regulated. Radioactive waste is divided into three categories: low-level, intermediate-level and high-level waste. The one that is most problematic and is usually meant in conversation is the high-level waste that is the result of spent fuel rods. For example, UK has currently 15 operational nuclear power plants (and many medical facilities) and high-level radioactive waste is less than 1% of overall radioactive waste. [Source: https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/~/media/shared/documents/policy/briefing%20notes/geological%20disposal%20radioactive%20waste%20policy%20briefing%20note.pdf]
That said, there's still a lot of it. Current technologies allow (and legistlation often requires) for recyling of this waste. That reduces the volume by around 85%.
Recently I heard - I haven't checked the details yet -that high profile nuclear waste has to be newly wrapped from time to time to make sure, the bins still are secure & only emitting relatively low amounts of radiation, which doesn't travel far. As soon as this continous waste management is stopped, they start to become dangerous to the environment.
That said, there's still a lot of it. Current technologies allow (and legistlation often requires) for recyling of this waste. That reduces the volume by around 85%. [Source: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-waste-management.aspx] There are also Generation IV nuclear reactor designs currently in development which have a much higher fuel usage and could potentially run on the spent fuel of older reactor designs. Of course, that won't eliminate the problem completely, but scientists across the board agree that deep geological storage is a viable and safe option for long term storage of high-level radioactive waste. A facility like this is being built (technically mined since it's deep inside a mountain) in Finland and it is designed to hold 100 years worth of waste.
Nuclear accidents - are horrible. Luckily, they are rare. You have mentioned costs and I did a bit of searching and found a number of about $235 billion
You unfortunately didn't mention that Finland seems to be the only country with a sizable safe dumpsite for nuclear waste to be ready soon. The US have given up their only such project in Nevada due to protests & hopes to return it to the agenda are turned down by determined citizens & local authorities. Germany has given up a once favoured place due to protests & poor performance of the geological formation. Another favoured German dumpsite has to be evacuated due to incoming water. Unfortunately, there is no new place waiting & meanwhile the nuclear waste is stored near the power plants.
I'm no expert, but as far as I know, all sorts of nuclear waste need very safe storage places. The watery cave in Germany that has to be evacuated doesn't contain high profile nuclear waste & is still a threat to nearby villages & towns.
The difficulty of finding a permanent reserve is mainly political. In the US several sites had been identified but politicians rigged the criteria to avoid their state being selected. The site in Nevada was scientifically sound. The concerns were somewhat disingenuous as it is next to an old nuclear weapons test site. The main political issue is that Nevadans found it unfair to store all of the nations waste while they had no nuclear power.
In the neighboring state of New Mexico, there is a waste isolation plant licensed for 10000 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant
The German example was not a site for spent nuclear fuel but for low and medium level nuclear waste. Ironically Germany is already burring 330 000 tonnes of hazardous chemical waste per year for the last 45 years. https://www.kpluss.com/en-us/our-business-products/waste-management/underground-disposal/
That is the equivalent mass of all the spent nuclear fuel in the world, buried each year.
(over three decades) which lines up with what you said. [Source: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/chernobyl-disaster] Currently, there are 440 nuclear power plants operating around the globe, many since the 70s and 80s, producing about 2,616 TWh of power yearly. [Source: https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy] Average price of electricity worldwide is roughly $0.1315 [Source: https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/electricity_prices/] which means that nuclear power plants have (on average, globally, so it's all just an estimate for a sense of scale) $344 billion revenue per year.
The cost in human lives and lost health cannot be reduced to simple math and I sympathise with the victims of the disasters. Burning of fossil fuels is also negatively affecting the health of billions of people and jeopardizing their future with the environmental impact. Without making a false equivalence, I see it as plane accidents vs car accidents.
Someone from the energy sector lately told me that the main energy source globally still is cole & if we want to replace cole power plants by nuclear power plants, even to double the recent number would only replace 10 percent!
Bangladesh has started to do something more intelligent. They scraped 10 planned cole power plants, because they already have highly developed solar energy solutions. For decades now organizations like Grameen Shakti distribute solar panels & other renewables to poor rural areas & so empower people, who wouldn't have seen any electricity from the national grid in their lifetime, to produce this energy themselves as individual households or as communities. Thus the national grid development is less overstressed & needs less costly big traditional power plants.
In Germany there are about 50 percent of renewables now. Some say, 60 to 70 percent come from citizens. Some say more than 90 percent come from citizens, farmers & SMEs. Clear is that most of the dynamics of increasing renewables come from the citizens & that since the government decided to wait for the big companies to step in, the dynamics have dwindled & prices are unduly rising. If we give back the power to the people, we have some chances to meet the Paris goal. If we leave it to the big companies alone, we will fail.
50 percent renewables in the electricity supply. The other sectors are catching up, mostly due to citizens & municipalities, not forced or incentivised largely by the government.
Plane accidents, although much rarer, are more emotional and thus scarier while car accidents go under the radar even if statistics show us that they are by far more deadly.
JRC has published a review of the safety of nuclear power (including the disposal of nuclear waste) in comparison with other sustainable methods and fossil fuels and found that it is safe, efficient and, for all intents and purposes, "green". [Source: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/210329-jrc-report-nuclear-energy-assessment_en.pdf]
I'm truly sorry for the broken up response, there's a character limit and I wanted to be transparent and honest in the reply.
The idea is bad for many reasons from not being CO2 neutral, given the complete chain from building a reactor, getting uranium to the storage of its left overs, up to the dangers of nuclear energy and the scarcity of raw material, which will make nuclear energy even more erschienen. But there is one reason that completely disables nuclear from being a main tech against climate change: time. The time needed to build a secure reactor is longer than the time left to curb climate change to acceptable levels. In that time you can build more generation capacity in wind and solar power tenfold.
Of course. If you skim through the JRC report I've linked in my previous messages, you will see that they have investigated GHG emissions and environmental impacts of nuclear power plants (in comparison with other methods of power generation) throughout the entire lifecycle from mining and refinement, construction, operation and decommission.
Time is the issue, yes. We need to get rid of coal, oil and gas as soon as possible. Currently available technology and production capacities do not allow this to happen if we rely solely on solar/wind/hydro/geo/tidal power generation. Not to mention that unless you have a handy lake to use as a battery, you need a stable source of baseline power. This is still mostly fossil fuels and we have the capacity to replace it with nuclear. Ten years to build a bunch of reactors and then we have 50 years of near-to-nothing GHG emissions from power generation to sort out industry and to improve long-term sustainable power generating technologies. ASAP.
I recently learned that coal is still the main power source for electricity in the world. Even if you would double the current number of nuclear power plants, you would only cover 10 percent of the current coal power plants output.
Additionally, you need big amounts of time, energy & other resources to do so. Even if you get the currently hiped new mini nuces running, they would still need time to be tested, acknowledged, built & ready to use.
Solar power & windmills are available, well tested & ready to do the job. For Germany, experts have found that both sources in a 1 to 1 ratio, mainly locally produced & used provide the best ratio of continuous energy production, the lowest costs, the lowest usage of resources. Because wind generally is the strongest in winter & night time, sun is strong in summer & during the day. Thus you minimize storage.
Conversation
You speak about the heavily regulated storage of radioactive waste and you consider deep geological storage as "viable". Up to now nobody and no geological model are sifficiently accurate to say that or the contrary.It is just a dangerous game.
For the other point I disagree with your frequently used car/plane risks comparaison. The reason is that the error attached to the probability of a nuclear accident is much bigger than mentioned and the number of parameters taken into account much too weak (what about climate changing one for the actual reactors: what about the quantity of cooling water needed in the next year; what about the sea level in a near future,...). You are playing a dangerous game.
That the reason why the classical nuclear energy is just a transition energy .
I don't consider anything. Experts who research this do. :/
It's not a game.
I agree with you that it is "just a transition energy" in the sense that it needs to power our transition to sustainable sources (as they mature and become usable, or hopefully, ITER works out how to use fusion) over the next 50 years or so.
Conversation
Der radioaktive Müll wird zehntausende Jahre giftig und gefährlich sein. Das dürfen wir unseren Nachkommen nicht zumuten.
I appreciate that concern, but in practice, radioactive waste is not very dangerous since it is produced in far smaller quantities than eg coal or gas waste, and is far more easily contained. Our current standards for acceptable emissions levels for radioactive waste containment set those levels below those one can get experience in hospitals.
In fact, chemical waste from solar power manufacturing is probably a much greater risk to human health.
I can't agree with your comments. High level nuclear waste in high security bins still radiates through the bins sizably. It's not recommended to stay nearby for a longer time, like protesters against transports of nuclear waste sometimes do. Recently I heard that at least high level nuclear waste has to be repacked from time to time to make sure that the bins are still secure.
No question, chemical waste is highly damaging. But with filters & other technologies you can get most of it. So it's a question of responsibility, not of technology to eliminate most of the problems. Even recycling of chemicals isn't that far fetched now. With nuclear waste, it's difficult.
And another point, I don't agree, is your claim that solar power brings massive chemical pollution. I investigated this issue & found that standard solar panels have zero environmental impact, if treated properly after usage. The EU has the necessary facilities that no solar panels need to get lost.
Conversation
This is a really crucial idea. There is literally no shorter path to carbon-neutrality.
No shorter path to carbon neutrality???!!!
Do you know one? I might be missing something! But I cannot see another one, so I'd love to hear your ideas.
Many people still think in long established, old categories & don't get new developments: For them, the energy market consists of energy production - big, centralized, distribution networks & a variety of consumers. In their minds, energy production for industrialized countries only can come from big power plants used & maintained by big companies. Energy distribution needs big sophisticated networks, organisation & machinery & consumers are just consumers in various sizes.
This already today is less & less true. Just lately for example, I learned that pharmaceutical companies in Ireland - don't know if only in one region or all over the country are on 100% renewables. As far as I understood, they produce & manage their energy themselves.
Some years ago, I learned that VW made a power purchase agreement with existing wind farms. I don't remember the details. For example, if VW uses a set of used batteries to manage surplus energy.
But I know that VW aims to go for 100% renewable energy asap. On one side this improves the value of the company & the value of their products, as they can say: "Look, our products are produced with 100% renewable energy. We are actively fighting climate catastrophe."
I guess, they would get less positive feedback, if they announced to go for nuclear power to manage their sustainable future.
Years ago, I realized that Mercedes has an own energy brand. They develop specialized fuel cell storage setups for self produced or maybe as well purchased renewable energy for big data centers.
I also learned that a big energy company offers win-win energy setups for companies, where the clients can choose to take in surplus renewable energy in times of overproduction, store what can't be used emediatedly in batteries & benefit from reduced energy costs in return for their energy network stabilizing service.
Similar projects exist for electric heating or electric vehicles.
Most of the above mentioned projects still handle big amounts of energy, produced somewhere else & distributed via big energy networks. So we need sizable renewable energy production somewhere else, for example by on & offshore wind farms of various sizes, age & owner structures.
Other existing projects use renewable energy technologies in local prosumer networks. One of the first such 100 % renewable regions which I know about, already started in the 1970s. Farmers, local SMEs & citizens came together to reduce their energy costs & fuel dependency. So they started to develop renewable energy setups, using everything that was easily locally available. In the beginning, they had no batteries & used hot water storages instead to be 100% self sufficient.
Recent projects often are situated in big cities. They often use the rooftops of housing areas to provide self produced energy for inhabitants & local enterprises.
Embellished with other local sources of renewables & excellent insulation, they could reach self sufficiency.
For example, a company in Norway has developed multi storey plus energy office buildings & refurbished one traditional office building to the same standard. More & more private citizens develop their own self sufficient energy production. SMEs are highly interested & hope for better legislation with less bureaucratic hurdles. Self organized citizens prosumer cooperatives hope to unleash their full potential under more favorable legislation.
Meanwhile, energy companies of various sizes offer energy contracts for prosumers, using their roofs for energy production & giving price deduction in return. A pv & battery distribution company enables the clients to exchange energy with other clients. They also have successfully formed a so called virtual power plant, which means that a network of small producers can act as if they were a big power plant.
These are only a few existing examples, I came to know. Especially such modern network structures of local prosumers are said to be more energy & resource efficient & more resilient to economic shocks & natural desasters. There is still massive untapped potential. Such networks can easily be set up, maintained, enlarged, developed & refurbished with low costs low time & resource input, & every such project reduces the amount of fueled energy from the general grid. They reduce the need of big distribution networks.
Of course, we also will need some big production sites to match the demand of energy intensive industries. Energy companies already have developed strategies to establish themselves in this new market, where they no longer sell primarily energy but complex energy solutions & sophisticated services.
There are incredible energy cooperations already on the way.
For example a big energy company, a real estate company & owner of a big business building & several companies, which reside in the building, cooperate with a sewage company to use the untapped energy of constantly 20 degrees Celsius for heating & cooling. There have been successful pilot projects to feed microbes with the highly polluted air from steel production, transform the carbon part of it into ethanol & burn the ethanol for on site energy production, which resulted in less air pollution & reduced fossil fuel consumption.
Part of Hamburg now is heated by rest heat from metal production. Parts of Munich consume hydrothermal heat. Iceland prominently is powered by hydrothermal energy, including the greenhouses for domestic food production. Part of Italy use hydrothermal energy to power the railway.
Modern sewage treatment plants produce biogas for electricity & heating. Some already use specialized fuel cells for higher energy output & less CO2. In the end, they often deliver high quality compost & either reduce their own costs & fossil fuel consumption, meet their complete energy demands or even deliver some surplus to the municipalities. Dumpsites are managed for biogas capture & energy production. Human & animal manure the same & also other sorts of organic waste. The modern circular economy uses everything & tries to use everything best.
All mentioned projects have in common that they are step by step solutions. Companies, municipalities or citizens establish one set of energy harvesting devices at a time & develop their setup step by step, reducing energy costs & fossil fuels with every step, using relatively low investment of time, cash & other resources & having relatively low risks. This way, everyone can start with whatever they have right now & then expand.
So to answer your question, the modern solution is to develop complex network systems & take every available energy source into consideration, integrate all sources & technologies & maybe cross several energy sectors, connect several economic agents in more or less sophisticated technical & economical setups.
Thus energy production & consumption can be reorganised & restructured by utilizing what's available right now & gradually adapting to changing circumstances. This is the most effective, least costly, time, energy & resource consuming strategy.
Thank you, that is very interesting and comprehensive, and I appreciate your engaging in good faith which is not always the case here. Also, I agree that almost all of that is fantastic and that Europe should _also_ invest very heavily in distributed generation and in the network upgrades to make this as efficient as possible - we are on the same side there, these are _also_ major priorities!
I strongly oppose wind farms of any type, however, I think that their environmental impact is far under-appreciated and that the last thing we should be doing is re-industrialising huge landscapes or seascapes. So just one point of disagreement ;)
Actually, two, because I do not think that any of these solutions can meet our energy needs in a material way in the next 20 - 30 years. During this time, if we continue to fight global inequality we will need to increase energy consumption substantially and the only low-carbon way to do that that I am aware of is nuclear.
PS: I do also take your point about the concrete, but I assure you that solar power cell generation has an arguably worse impact overall due to the chemicals involved: the mining of them is both carbon-intensive and environmentally destructive, whilst their production is carbon and waste-intensive as well.
PPS (1/2): I think the elephant in the room in these discussions is the environmental, social and political urgency of getting out of coal and even gas, globally (and I think we agree on this!). To start with just Europe, Germany's crazy nuclear backflip has led them straight to Nordstream II and energy vassalage to a dictatorship, whilst the air pollution from coal in Europe has long exceeded Chernobyl (which would never happen in Europe) in impact on health and life expectancy. Of course this mainly affects lower socioeconomic strata and not the wealthy Parisians, Milanese or Hamburgers.
PPS (2/2): Extending that to the world, countries like India are even much further away than Europe from being able to rely on distributed networks and localised power generation and recycling. Also the above impacts of coal are far worse in these countries. If Europe invests substantially in nuclear power, this will dramatically lower the cost and will facilitate countries like India, Pakistan, Indonesia and Nigeria (collectively more than 2bn people) dramatically increasing health and life expectancy, reducing inequality and that is not even counting the incredible reduction in carbon.
I think we only disagree as to whether emergent technologies can rapidly and affordably scale to meet these demands - I see very little sign that they can, whereas we all know that nuclear can. For me the stakes are too high to bet on low probabilities.
Conversation
For densely populated and industrialized Europe ( if without mountains) there is hardly any other option than nuclear. There is still plenty of gas, but that is ultimately also limited.
Invest research in handling the waste material.
Have a look at above mentioned network solutions! They are at hand right now, simple to get started, to develop & maintain.
Technologies are continuously developing. For example just lately I learned about a new form of solar harvesting device which utilizes energy rich uv light. UV light is available even under clouded sky & the device even can use uv light reflected from facades or streets. Right now it's made from 80% organic waste & works with & without direct sunlight. The developer now wants to reach 100% organic material.
In the moment, this solution isn't in mass production & thus readily available. But such innovations come up continuously & normally 1 out of several dozens tends to conquer the market.
Right now, we have a whole bunch of established solutions together with some promising newcomers, which can already cover a wide range of untapped resources. Continously development of technology provides also for advanced resources & demands of the future.
About nuclear waste. Finland is building a waste underground dumpsite, which is considered to be safe for longer than humanity already exists. France is on the way to develop a similar dumpsite, heralded to be safe. Germany already has dumped part of the nuclear waste in a underground dumpsite, which once was considered to be safe, but actually isn't. Water has infiltrated the site & partly corroding bins are threatening groundwater. The bins have to be removed, but there is no place to go, as another once favored site is now considered to be insufficient. USA have developed a big dumpsite in Nevada, but stopped the endeavor after massive protests from citizens - no alternative in sight. Don't know about the situation in Japan, but as far as I got it, there is after decades of nuclear power production not a single country that already has buried the waste successfully. So high radiation nuclear waste mostly is recycled, transported & stored near the power plants.
I have to confess that I was a little shocked when I learned that high security bins for high radiation nuclear waste are still continuously emitting sizable amounts of radiation. So it's not healthy to stay close to those bins, as protesters often do to stop high security transports of nuclear waste. So, if there is any connection to water sources or any possibility that living creatures might come near & stay, that's suboptimate.
Conversation
Leading experts around the world have recently stated that worldwide 100 % renewable energy is possible for electricity in 2030, for buildings & mobility in 2035! Without nuclear power!
Uh no, those claims are highly contested by leading world experts in nuclear energy. There is no consensus that this is possible by 2050. Definitely not by 2030.
https://thebulletin.org/2017/11/scientist-vs-scientist-an-escalating-fight-over-renewable-energy/
The scientists who claimed that 100% renewables was possible, tried to sue their critics and ended up LOOSING the court battle.
https://retractionwatch.com/2020/07/09/stanford-prof-ordered-to-pay-legal-fees-after-dropping-10-million-defamation-case-against-another-scientist/
Typo: the critics were all kinds of energy experts but mainly renewable energy experts
Uh no, those claims are highly contested by leading world experts in RENEWABLE* energy. There is no consensus that this is possible by 2050. Definitely not by 2030.
https://thebulletin.org/2017/11/scientist-vs-scientist-an-escalating-fight-over-renewable-energy/(Externe link)
The scientists who claimed that 100% renewables was possible, tried to sue their critics and ended up LOOSING the court battle.
https://retractionwatch.com/2020/07/09/stanford-prof-ordered-to-pay-legal-fees-after-dropping-10-million-defamation-case-against-another-scientist/(Externe link)
It's not the case, I thought of. The new proposal came in just this year & as far as I know, it didn't come from Jacobsen.
This is actually not in favor of the proposal! Unfortunately can't change it.
Nuclear power plants are actually gigantic steam engines with a lousy efficiency. A technology from the 19th century combined with one of the 20th century. They primarily function as a heating & only secondarily produce electricity. That's maximum waste of resources.
Depending on the specific technology they use masses of water for cooling. In case of water scarcity they have to shut down partially or completely. For example in looong summer 2018 when they had to do so to prevent overheated ecosystems and classical meltdown.
Nuclear power plants are expensive in building, use masses of concrete as one of the least sustainable building materials on earth. Which in this case cannot even be recycled because every nuclear waste - not only the highly contaminated - has to go underground. On a time scale larger than all known human civilizations together!
As nuclear power plants are costly to build and evenly costly to dismantle, they need to run on full capacity as much as possible.
Technology also requires them to be mostly run on full capacity. They dislike fast changes as necessary in cooperation with renewable energy. So running as many as possible nuclear power plants actually means to make renewable energy less possible because from all non renewables they are the least viable in combination.
We don't lack sources for renewable energy. We just need crippling legislation to be put aside, so that citizens can produce their own energy. The potential is enormous.
We also don't need to wait for masses of batteries to come. It's a fairy tale. The first 100 % renewable energy run & 100% indépendant region, I know, started in the 1970s! They were completely independent, before any viable batteries were available. The simple solution they chose: Hot water storage. Easy to set up, use & maintain, but still half illegal in some places.
They used by heat from biogas plants to boil the water. Then they could use the water, either for heating or to provide electricity
Conversation
They also used surplus electricity from wind mills to boil the water. So, these simple hot water storages were double input (heat and electricity) and double output (heat and electricity).
This is a viable option, even without batteries. Though a few batteries even make the system more efficient.
There are a whole bunch of concepts and technologies available for every setting you want. But there are also crippling laws in place that hinder people to come together and make their own energy. Many do & many try. But few meet their whole potential due to limitations from legislation.
Nuclear power plants do little to boost local economy because most of the money is made by transnational companies, the only entities except state, which are able to build & run them. Local wind mills or solar power owned by citizens in contrary have done a lot to develop left behind rural areas - without dangerous fuels & waste which by now is mostly stored close to the power plants.
It is an interesting point about transnational companies. I am afraid that I have some bad news for you about wind and solar power however...
Conversation
Es gibt weltweit kein Endlager für hoch radioaktive Abfälle!
Let's face it, Europe would have been better off if Germany was not allowed to make its own energy policy, your panicked nuclear backflip cost far more lives from air pollution from coal generation in just the last few years than all the nuclear power generated in Europe ever did. And the same panic is leading you to enthusiastically embrace Nordstream II :(
Conversation
Ohne die Kernenergie ist eine vollständige Decarbonisierung bis auf weiteres illusorisch. Nur die Kernenergie kann die fossilen Energieträger in dem nötigen Maßstab 1:1 ersetzen.
Why replacing the existing suboptimate system 1 to one & not transforming into a more efficient, more adaptable modular network system as mentioned above?
Non sono in grado di dire che la produzione di energie diverse da quelle fossili sarà sufficiente per le necessità attuali e la crescente richiesta di energia con lo sviluppo dei Paesi emergenti. Sono decenni che si discute di nucleare e mi risulta che gli scienziati hanno già presentato i costi (soprattutto non economici) degli impianti nucleari. I nostri rifiuti porranno fine alla razza umana e non mi risulta che quelli nucleari siano riciclabili. Sono contraria al nucleare da sempre. Forse dovremmo rinunciare ad un po' dei nostri consumi energetici a favore dei Paesi emergenti e non continuare a forzare la Terra ai nostri capricci di bimbi ingordi
My feeling is that the atomic industry is not really moving forward. Still sticking on old fashioned technology that initially was established to produce plutonium for supplying atomic bombs ... The EU could drive forward the establishment of new types of reactors like molten salt reactors, that are saver and produce less atomic waste.
Had we aggressively pursued nuclear power generation 50 years ago, we wouldn't be in as much of a mess as we are today.
The EU should prop up new SMR and VSMR technologies to decentralize the power grid while still maintaining interconnectivity.
There also needs to be A LOT more education about nuclear energy. For instance, A LOT of people don't seem to know that "radioactivity" is classified as alfa, beta and gamma with alfa and beta being the majority and not really dangerous if you're standing ~20 cm away from the source.
3% of nuclear waste are actual spent nuclear fuel rods with a 10k+ half-life, but they can be reused and half-life reduced to about 25~30 years.
97% of nuclear waste is not stored because it's not really dangerous. Put a fence around it and you're done (alfa and beta radiation).
The real danger is ignorance, and that is much more difficult to fight.
Nous sommes malheureusement pris de court.
Par exemple, les voitures électriques demandent beaucoup de ressources comme du lithium et de l'électricité.
Nous ne devons pas remplacer les éoliennes ou d'autres solutions vertes par des centrales nucléaires mais l'inverse.
Mais l'Humanité doit faire face à une situation inédite qui pourrait conduire l'Homme à sa perte.
Donc le nucléaire est une solution viable à court terme notamment pour les pays utilisant du charbon.
Mais nous ne devons pas oublier qu'à long terme nous devons remplacer le nucléaire par des solutions vertes, comme par exemple les panneaux solaires ou autres.
Apart from the fact that building nuclear power plants just takes too long, the danger and the waste problem, the main driver in capitalism is always the cost, isn't it? Nuclear power plants have never been cost efficient, they were always heavily subsidiesed. It is too expensive and we can use the money so much more efficiently with all the other clean energies we already have and which are developed further every year.
https://www.ingenieur.de/technik/fachbereiche/energie/neuer-materialmix-macht-solarzellen-tausendfach-effizienter/
https://www.ingenieur.de/technik/fachbereiche/energie/rekord-wirkungsgrad-von-fast-69-prozent-fuer-duennschicht-photovoltaik/
A good start would be not shutting down perfectly good nuclear power plants... (looking at you Germany...).
The EU taxonomy is a classification system, establishing a list of environmentally sustainable economic activities.
“The EC's Joint Research Centre has concluded that nuclear [power] should be included in the taxonomy and two other expert groups have agreed that the existing European legal framework provides adequate protection in terms of public health and environment in the EU.
In April, the European Commission announced its decision to include nuclear energy in a complementary Delegated Act of the EU Taxonomy Regulation, which will also include natural gas and related technologies.”
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Unions-repeat-call-for-nuclear-s-inclusion-in-EU-t
Nuclear power must remain to be included in the EU taxonomy, despite partisan politics and misleading manipulation against it.
Conversation
Besides, the choice of energy mix falls within the competence of the Member States.
They have their own geographical, historical and industrial context for the choice of energy sources they use, and their own technological choices for carbon free energy production, independence of fossil fuels from Russia, or steady and stabile sources of energy.
Therefore it is of utmost importance that the European taxonomy respects technological neutrality and scientific consensus, and the taxonomy rules should apply equally to all technologies.
The EU taxonomy should not reduce the mix of energy sources by discriminating nuclear energy.
Nuclear power plants don't need discriminating, they do that themselves by being dangerous, slow to build and very, very expensive.
Nuclear power – or any other single source of energy – does not deserve to be discriminated. All of them must be used where fit for purpose. For example, over half of EU's low-carbon power and about quarter of electricity is produced by nuclear power.
https://energyfocus.the-eic.com/nuclear/news/role-nuclear-low-carbon-europe
People have fears and phobias – like those of spiders, snakes, heights, enclosed spaces, or demons and ghosts. Irrational phobias are mental waste that does not reflect reality.
Nuclear power plants are safe by design. They are safer than cars, homes, or hospitals. People do not die in nuclear power plants. Those in the EU have been operated for decades without accidents.
Nuclear fusion power has taken a long time to develop. It is always 30 years from production.
Nuclear fission power lost 10 years of progress and development after water power killed 20,000 Japanese in Fukushima tsunami.
Fortunately, factory-built and mass-produced small modular reactors (SMR) are already on the drawing boards and in the pipeline. They could even give a new lease of life to nuclear-powered icebreakers, submarines and aircraft carriers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor
The EU should trust in science and modern physics, rather than biased views and unbalanced opinions.
I consider your view quite biased (where do you work?) and massively unbalanced.
But, just "let the market decide", won't we? Renewable energy power plants are so much cheaper, safer, faster to build, ...
That is your opinion, but I do not see any evidence that my facts or figures were wrong. And my only view is that ALL sources of energy need to be used where fit for purpose.
My views would be biased if I supported only nuclear power – or if I only highlighted negative or positive features of any single source of energy. My views would be unbalanced if I supported only renewables, ignoring all other sources of a balanced energy mix, or vice versa.
Markets do decide the price and use of oil, gas, coal, electricity and other elements of energy mix. However, politicians set up the laws and even interfere with the free (energy) markets with taxes, subsidies, restrictions, taxonomies, trade embargos, etc.
It is good to see how markets now impact on EU countries with different energy mixes: What is the price of electricity in each country? How much does heating cost? Who will be dependent of Russian fossil fuels? Who will meet the EU carbon objectives earliest?
Conversation
This so not true. There have been many accidents in nuclear power plants, according to the IAEA in Europe and the USA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents
Indeed. I stand corrected. There was one person killed in 2011 in Marcoule, France, when an explosion took place in a furnace used to melt metallic waste.
However, I did not find any other accident with a loss of human life in a nuclear power station in any EU country in the past decades. (In the US and Soviet Union, including the Eastern Bloc, such accidents were more common in the past.)
But then again, there are many deadly accidents involving cars, homes and hospitals every day. They are the places where people die.
Post
Sign in with your account or sign up to add your comment.
Loading comments ...