Ukraine invasion

Eltab

Lord of the Hidden Layer
A few months of blackouts and brownouts, and even the most determined environmentalist can start thinking that nuclear power might be one of those 'bridge technologies' ... and offer permit / construction oversight methods that do not involve "get a Court involved" -scale delays.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Zardnaar

Legend
A few months of blackouts and brownouts, and even the most determined environmentalist can start thinking that nuclear power might be one of those 'bridge technologies' ... and offer permit / construction oversight methods that do not involve "get a Court involved" -scale delays.

Still won't be online anytime soon though.

WW2 would finish faster than building it.
 

Horwath

Hero
I am not sure that helps matters, in that you still need fuel for those reactors. Not a single country in the EU is in the top 10 list of known Uranium reserves, so with nuclear power, they still have a fuel import problem.

True, Australia and Canada are on that list, so they have options for better energy trading partners, but still - broadly speaking, moving to nuclear may change the players the the geopolitics of energy, but doesn't remove the issue.
that is true.

But we could say that Canada and Australia are far safer options than Russia, Venezuela or Saudis.

also, you can stock up uranium reserves for 30 years in reasonable amount of space. Imagine if you have to storage oil and/or gas for 30 years of consumption.
 

Horwath

Hero
Still doesn't change the cost or time requirements and consent process.

If they started tomorrow threw enough money at it the first new reactor might be online by 2032 at the earliest. Realistically more like 2042.

And even if they did that the reactor would still cost more than every other option.

There's a good chance Putin dies of old age before any reactor comes online.
today average time for building nuclear power plant is around 83 months with record being 39 month for a reactor in Japan.

When did this Ukraine #$"% started? Ah, yes... in 2014. So with average of 7 years, we could have had first new reactors in EU last year.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
today average time for building nuclear power plant is around 83 months with record being 39 month for a reactor in Japan.

When did this Ukraine #$"% started? Ah, yes... in 2014. So with average of 7 years, we could have had first new reactors in EU last year.

Yeah but it's mostly Germany reliant on gas and other countries don't have the resources or knowledge to build one.

It's not the actual construction it's locating a site and consents. Even of you fast tracked consents finding a site is difficult.

Not sure how the law works but I'm sure local nimbyism will tie up the site and construction for years.

8vyears ago Russia got a free pass no one cared enough to do much.

The west essentially enabled Russia but zee Germans and every US administration since 1993.

And even if you oked the construction of a nuclear plant it's not that economic to do so vs say cheap Russian gas. Oops.

One way or another this crisis will be over before they even confirm a site. Either Russia caves, Ukraine caves or big red button gets pressed.

The countries that can build a reactor won't for economic and political reasons the others can't afford run or can't build one.

Personally I was kinda shocked how reliant Europe is on gas. Didn't know my country was so high on renewables. Gaslines and gasworks closed decades ago. Hipsters, some commercial kitchens and BBQ's use it.
 

Horwath

Hero
Yeah but it's mostly Germany reliant on gas and other countries don't have the resources or knowledge to build one.

It's not the actual construction it's locating a site and consents. Even of you fast tracked consents finding a site is difficult.

Not sure how the law works but I'm sure local nimbyism will tie up the site and construction for years.

8vyears ago Russia got a free pass no one cared enough to do much.

The west essentially enabled Russia but zee Germans and every US administration since 1993.

And even if you oked the construction of a nuclear plant it's not that economic to do so vs say cheap Russian gas. Oops.

One way or another this crisis will be over before they even confirm a site. Either Russia caves, Ukraine caves or big red button gets pressed.

The countries that can build a reactor won't for economic and political reasons the others can't afford run or can't build one.

Personally I was kinda shocked how reliant Europe is on gas. Didn't know my country was so high on renewables. Gaslines and gasworks closed decades ago. Hipsters, some commercial kitchens and BBQ's use it.
however this ends, it's in EUs best interest not to buy a single ccm or russian gas/oil in nearest possible future.

it's just sad that tens of thousands will die and cities will be destroyed so someone can keep oil/gas monopoly for EU

Just hope that whatever small humanitarian aid we gather here can ease some suffering :/
 

Zardnaar

Legend
however this ends, it's in EUs best interest not to buy a single ccm or russian gas/oil in nearest possible future.

it's just sad that tens of thousands will die and cities will be destroyed so someone can keep oil/gas monopoly for EU

Just hope that whatever small humanitarian aid we gather here can ease some suffering :/

I agree but powers that be/consumers went with cheap energy.

Alot of things I'm opposed to are because it's just a race to the bottom on price but it ignores the other costs that don't involve $$$$.

And push comes to shove how many divisions does the UN have?
 

Horwath

Hero
I agree but powers that be/consumers went with cheap energy.

Alot of things I'm opposed to are because it's just a race to the bottom on price but it ignores the other costs that don't involve $$$$.

And push comes to shove how many divisions does the UN have?
cheaper is relative here, while nuclear power plants are 5/6 times more expensive then gas power plants to build, over decades of operation, nuclear come out cheaper.

maybe in 10 or so years we will have new generation of batteries that will be able to store much more power with faster charge/discharge rate to be effective in "peak power" hours of the day.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
cheaper is relative here, while nuclear power plants are 5/6 times more expensive then gas power plants to build, over decades of operation, nuclear come out cheaper.

maybe in 10 or so years we will have new generation of batteries that will be able to store much more power with faster charge/discharge rate to be effective in "peak power" hours of the day.

What does Croatia use?
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member

GreyLord

Legend
I'm not a big fan of Nuclear. I'd rather go solar. Solar has ways to store the energy (practically all solar based systems store the energy for later usage at night) and can be easily (though not cheaply) installed anywhere there is a roof, or land if one wants to use the land (roofs are easier though, many walmarts have transferred to using solar if you look at their roofs in recent years).

You still have the battery problem with wastes with solar (but you also have that problem with electric vehicles that are becoming all the rage these days) which isn't really cleaner than gas and oil, just destroys the environment in a different way (not really global warming, but destroying the environment in a different manner).

If Ukraine has shown us anything, Nuclear Energy is too easily used as a weapon if one is at war. We've already had the threat (and the threat isn't over) of Russia blowing up a nuclear plant and sending radioactive clouds everywhere.

That becomes a much easier and viable option the more nuclear plants there are.
 


Horwath

Hero
I'm not a big fan of Nuclear. I'd rather go solar. Solar has ways to store the energy (practically all solar based systems store the energy for later usage at night) and can be easily (though not cheaply) installed anywhere there is a roof, or land if one wants to use the land (roofs are easier though, many walmarts have transferred to using solar if you look at their roofs in recent years).

You still have the battery problem with wastes with solar (but you also have that problem with electric vehicles that are becoming all the rage these days) which isn't really cleaner than gas and oil, just destroys the environment in a different way (not really global warming, but destroying the environment in a different manner).

If Ukraine has shown us anything, Nuclear Energy is too easily used as a weapon if one is at war. We've already had the threat (and the threat isn't over) of Russia blowing up a nuclear plant and sending radioactive clouds everywhere.

That becomes a much easier and viable option the more nuclear plants there are.
solar is great for houses and if your area is mostly non usable wasteland. If it's not farmlands or forest or parks, sure, make a solar plant.

If you have, like in most cities, lots of residential high rises, there is simply not enough building area to have power production for people that live on that area. But every bit helps so solar should go on every building if possible.

pump hydro is ideal for energy storage, but that also requires unique terrain features, and also there is environmental issues with flooding for artificial lakes, and also displacement of people from the area.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
solar is great for houses and if your area is mostly non usable wasteland. If it's not farmlands or forest or parks, sure, make a solar plant.

If you have, like in most cities, lots of residential high rises, there is simply not enough building area to have power production for people that live on that area. But every bit helps so solar should go on every building if possible.

pump hydro is ideal for energy storage, but that also requires unique terrain features, and also there is environmental issues with flooding for artificial lakes, and also displacement of people from the area.
Also, of course, constant bright sunlight isn't abundant everywhere. It's great if you live in California, not so much in Scotland!
 


Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
that is true.

But we could say that Canada and Australia are far safer options than Russia, Venezuela or Saudis.

Yes. I already did say.

also, you can stock up uranium reserves for 30 years in reasonable amount of space. Imagine if you have to storage oil and/or gas for 30 years of consumption.

If you want the radiation hazard and security risk of having a large stockpile of fissionable material, sure, you could, if someone produced fast enough for you to do so.

But, we should also note: Known world Uranium reserves, as of a few years ago, was about 7.5 million tons. But, by that time, the world had already produced/used about 2.8 million tons. Now, a lot of that prior use was for weapons, but if everyone starts chewing the stuff for power, you'll run into supply problems fairly quickly. Uranium is not a renewable resource, and so probably shouldn't be a mainstay of power generation.

today average time for building nuclear power plant is around 83 months with record being 39 month for a reactor in Japan.

When did this Ukraine #$"% started? Ah, yes... in 2014. So with average of 7 years, we could have had first new reactors in EU last year.

That's just the construction time. Add in the planning and licensing, and the time is more like a decade.

Now, overall, this time can be reduced - at the moment every single reactor in the US is a one-off, individual design. If you standardize plant design (and thus you standardize parts manufacture, planning, and the like) you can get that time down. You also get the benefit that a plant worker trained in a plant in Arizna would be able to move to work in a plant in Michigan without a lot of retraining, which makes staffing a touch easier.

pump hydro is ideal for energy storage, but that also requires unique terrain features, and also there is environmental issues with flooding for artificial lakes, and also displacement of people from the area.

So, let us be abundantly clear - At scale, every single method to generate power has side effects we don't want. So, poiting out, "well this has drawback X" is not really an argument against it.

No method of generation is perfect - fossil fuels release CO2. Nuclear has radioactive and heat waste. Solar needs sun, has the rare earths you use in the panels, and having to deal with the panels when they are past lifetime. Wind needs wind, and has bird deaths and ocean ecology issues when built offshore. There is no energy source we can turn to that won't have problems.

The smart thing to do is to stop saying, "No," and start thinking "where, how, and how much."

At this point, I'd have to sway - if folks want to talk energy, let us have a separate thread. This should be about Ukraine.
 


Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
good news from today, is that russians might give up on Odessa in total

And possibly Kyiv as well. They may be rolling back to, "all we really wanted was in the Donbas region, and to make clear that we won't have you joining NATO."
 

Ryujin

Legend
good news from today, is that russians might give up on Odessa in total
There seems to be a fair bit of, "I meant to do that!" coming out of Russia, these days, now that they're being largely stymied from getting the completely overwhelming win that they expected in mere days.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top