Europe
News and information from Europe ๐ช๐บ
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons), archive:is,ph,today (their JS DDoS websites)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the primary mod account @EuroMod@feddit.org
view the rest of the comments
Because fossil fuel companies are lobbying for it. Renewables are cheap and quick to set up, every single solar panel immediately lowers the demand for oil/gas/coal a tiny bit.
Nuclear energy on the other hand takes ages to set up and is far more expensive per kWh than renewables. Every single euro spent on nuclear is one euro taken away from renewables.
Oh, and in countries with nuclear weapons programmes, nuclear energy is a way to stealthily increase the military budget.
False.
Renewable is better for fossil fuels company, as of now solar and wind require high subsidies for fossil fuel power plant to operate. You cannot go 100% renewable as the sun does not produce at night and sometimes there is no wind. You can go 100% nuclear instead, as nuclear works all the time and can be adjusted with demand.
This is changing rapidly, as battery technology improves and cost goes down, but we are not still there yet. Nuclear cost goes down as you build more nuclear. China is on the forefront of renewable energy but also builds the most nuclear power plant in the world for very cheap.
France will need to keep the know-how and improve the technology if they want to keep up with aging power plants.
To abandon nuclear in favor of renewable means building more batteries then we can produce in a cost effective way. France nuclear stabilize the European grid. Without it energy would cost much more.
Not a mystery that country with low energy price in Europe have nuclear and country with high energy price lack nuclear.
You just do not need to go 100% renewable immediately. As per the pareto principle: 80% of the result can be achieved with 20% of the effort.
Put up enough renewables NOW to achieve 80% green, decentralized energy. But since we are still very far off from that result, there is no need to waste money for nuclear power plants. We don't even have enough renewables to result in negative energy prices, so there is no need for batteries just yet. Guess what happens the moment energy prices do become negative for large parts of the year:
Nuclear cannot be adjusted to demand at all by the way. It is extremely inflexible and does not handly varying demand well. Varying demand that will occur in the coming decades due to smart energy grids becoming a thing.
You also haven't explained why the only countries who build nuclear in significant numbers also possess nuclear weapons. Nobody builds nuclear power plants for the climate.
As long as we aren't at regular negative energy prices, it is more cost effective and better for the climate to invest into renewables. Once we are there, nuclear power plants are economically unviable due to their aforementioned inflexibility.
The only economical stopgap until we are fully renewable will be flexible emergency gas power plants that run for a couple of days/weeks per year at most. And due to the fact they are an order of magnitude cheaper than nuclear, you have vastly more resources for expanding battery storage and renewables.
With current and near future technology, it is cheaper to have that 20% being nuclear and the rest renewable and battery than to have only renewable and batteries. Not only cheaper, but also more environmentally friendly. Using fossil fuel is not really an alternative.
Nuclear can do grid load following (not peak due to thermal inertia but you will have batteries for that): nuclear power plant in France are required to be able to cycle to 30% power when needed.
If the target is to get to 80% renewable + batteries and 20% nuclear, then why do you think nuclear investments is removing money from renewable? Those are complementary technologies and we need both. By sabotaging nuclear we are just making it more expensive forcing polluting fossil fuels as the only alternative. Fighting nuclear is just delaying decarbonization.
Nuclear is the only technology that enabled a decarbonized electric grid in countries without natural low carbon source of energy such as hydroelectric.
The fact that solar is cheaper is inconsequential if you produce electricity when it is not needed and you do not when it is needed.
Nuclear costs more to produce, but lower the prices due to how the electricity market works.