Green Energy

3070 readers

4 users here now

Everything about energy production and storage.

Related communities:

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

poVoq@slrpnk.net

SteveKLord@slrpnk.net

Nuclear reactors stoke the climate they claim to cool (www.nationofchange.org)

submitted 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) by Agrajag@scribe.disroot.org to c/energy@slrpnk.net

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Consider these headlines from recent days:

“France and Switzerland shut down nuclear power plants amid scorching heatwave,” was the July 3rd headline on Euronews. As the piece explained: “To cool down, nuclear power plants pump water from local rivers or the sea, which they then release back into water bodies at a high temperature. However, Europe’s ongoing heatwave means that the water pumped by nuclear sites is already very hot, impacting the ability of nuclear plants to use it to cool down. On top of this, nuclear sites run the risk of posing a dangerous threat to local biodiversity, by releasing water which is too hot into rivers and seas.”

edit: it seems like there's gonna be a very negative response to this article so to respond to all of them in advance. If I were you I would question why this article supporting non extractive means of green energy over extractive forms of green energy offending your sensibilities so much.

top 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 9 points 5 days ago

So the reactors shutting down so they don’t damage local ecology is a bad thing? Why does nationofchange hate nature so?

[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Yeah, and windmills kill birds and solar panels damage delicate desert ecosystems and dams flood some of the most stunning natural places in the world along with people's ancestral homes. Sure, nuclear power sources have problems - all power sources have problems. It's good to be a aware of these problems so we can mitigate them and solve them in the future. But the big problem we have right now is climate change, and nuclear power produces significantly less carbon per kilowatt than coal or gas.

Stop parroting anti-nuclear propaganda. It only helps the fossil fuel industry. Yes nuclear, yes solar, we can have both. Stop getting caught up in the narcissism of small differences, and focus on solving the fucking problem.

[–] solo@slrpnk.net 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Stop getting caught up in the narcissism of small differences, and focus on solving the fucking problem.

The problem is phasing out fossil fuel, and now. Nuclear power plant take so long to plan and build that using them as solution to the climate emergency is only a way to prolong the use of fossil fuels. We no longer have the luxury of time.

[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Several of your assumptions here, I think, are highly suspect. But regardless of that, even by your own logic, putting out hit pieces on existing nuclear plants is counterproductive.

[–] solo@slrpnk.net 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I didn't post the article. I just replied to your comment.

Edit: Just realized, am I vaguely accused of something undefined?

[–] Tobberone@slrpnk.net 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Sure, this piece can't tell it's Fahrenheit from it's kWh and God forbid anybody mentions power. It is of relevance, though, that nuclear is very sensitive as a power source and is hampered in many ways. It's almost as if to be able to count on 1 reactor at any given time, 2 must be built.

Dont get me wrong, it is obvious that a mix is needed, because all sources have their own shortcomings. I just hope nuclear can be built fast enough. I don't think so, but would gladly be proven wrong☹️. The last European reactor took 15 years to build. The world needs to have transitioned by then.