It’s not the first of its kind though. It’s just the first in Africa. There are already a bunch of these in Europe and America.
If the researchers are in Europe then it doesn’t work for the plant to be in Africa. I don’t know why you’re arguing such an obviously wrong position lol
Sure, I’m happy to support building large scale experimental establishments to test the theories, but that’s not what this is at all. This is a commercial installation in Africa, of all places. Why would the European research teams build a research facility so far away? That doesn’t make sense.
100% renewable is absolutely achievable and viable, according to many industry expert ye including the IEC. Arguing otherwise is fossil fuel industry propaganda.
Nuclear energy isn’t really part of the solution. It can continue to exist as it currently does but building more nuclear power isn’t going to help, it’s too expensive and too slow to provision. The best solution is to double, triple or quadruple funding/investment in renewables and infrastructure. That’s very achievable and the most viable option.
That’s what everybody said about solar / renewables
I don’t think that’s true, can you back up your claim?
we’re going to need the technology
I support research and development of the technology, because it’s something which could be useful in the future. But this article is about building carbon capture facilities today, which is a big waste of money.
This comment is well reasoned. Carbon capture is worth continued development and research, it should be a long-term goal once we have moved to 100% renewable sources of energy, until that point it’s just wasteful to spend money on this where it would better be spent on provisioning more renewables or infrastructure as you very rightly point out.
Yep, carbon capture, much like nuclear, isn’t cost efficient. Investments in electrical infrastructure in Africa should be the top priority there, they still predominantly use paraffin fuel for lighting and other combustibles for cooking and heating. The main issue there is infrastructure rather than energy production. But rolling out energy infrastructure isn’t sexy and profitable so it’s low priority for these capitalist monsters haha
Yes, you’re absolutely right. Carbon capture is a big waste of time and money.
Lmao okay, yes, defeating every single one of your arguments logically and soundly is absolutely “going straight for ad-hominem”. You’re projecting so hard it’s genuinely very funny.
We aren’t recycling solar panels enough
This is pro-nuclear scare mongering. Go ahead and compare the numbers for tons of solar panel E-waste produced compared to tons of nuclear waste produced per year.
Under EU law, producers are required to ensure their solar panels are recycled properly.
We haven’t had a lot of need for solar panel recycling yet because they last so fucking long and even when they reach “the end of their working life” they’re still generating a decent amount of power, so they can just be sold off or given away to someone with no solar panels.
It’s only if solar panels become damaged or really really old that they need recycled. It’s basically a non issue, especially when you compare it to nuclear waste.
Wind still is killing birds
Yet more pro-nuclear propaganda nonsense. Wind turbines kill an absolutely tiny fraction of birds compared to house cats, not to mention birds getting hit by cars, let alone commercial and private aircraft. It’s a non-issue.
uses massive amounts of land
As mentioned above: the entire United States could be 100% powered by renewable electricity if we converted just 5% of the land currently used FOR PARKING SPACES and turned it into renewables. It’s not a real issue.
that’s before we get into the cost of transporting
Which is all factored into TCOE, which, surprise surprise, is around the same or better than the TCOE of nuclear. So, nope, irrelevant. Go ahead and prove that utility-scale renewables have a greater TCOE than nuclear if you want to argue it though. Looking forward to you providing a source.
very real human rights problem
Ah yes, and the extraction of uranium ore, the handling of nuclear waste and the construction of nuclear power plants are all notoriously free from human rights issues!
I’m not using Chernobyl as an example of anything. I’m mentioning it because a number of people died as a result of the Chernobyl disaster, therefore it has a bearing on the number of deaths caused by that source of power.
nuclear is the cleanest, safest way to do it
That is not true, and I have posted evidence demonstrating that it isn’t true.
Also, IPCC says that all of our energy sources can be 100% renewable and that it’s totally viable. Sorry, but you’re not better informed on this topic than the experts. You’re no better than an anti-vaxxer with your science denial.
Won’t be a future unless we fund renewables instead of this junk.
Doesn’t bother me, just means there will be fewer fools arguing with me!
Nah, that wouldn’t work as well, because people wouldn’t necessarily click through into the thread, and also there’s often different context, depending on the specific article that I post it in.
IMO, the comment adds plenty of value whenever I share it and it certainly inspires plenty of engagement every time, so I see no reason to change what I do.
I’m ignoring fossil fuels because they’re obviously fucking terrible and both renewables and nuclear are an improvement over them, nobody questions that. The pro-nuclear lobby loves saying “it’s so much better than fossil fuels!” which is like explaining that a helicopter is faster than a car. Fossil fuels aren’t the competition for nuclear, renewables are.
I already discredited the “Germany swapped nuclear for coal!” argument in the other thread which I’m guessing you already found since you’re claiming I’m German, for some reason. It’s not really an honest claim.
Obviously, it’s bad that Germany is using coal, and nuclear would be better. You’ll get no argument from me about that. But when it comes to building new power plants there’s no good reason to use nuclear.
claiming there’s no downsides
Compared to nuclear? Yes, no downsides. In general? It’s not perfect of course but the best option we have.
having to invent solutions for the issue of production hours versus time of max useage
That’s like saying “nuclear has to invent solutions for the issues of meltdowns, and getting nuclear fuel, and dealing with waste material, and dealing with extremely high risk targets, and risks of earthquakes, and risks of flooding, and the need to have extremely highly qualified operators, and extreme building costs”…. I could go on.
Nuclear is the only reliable form of energy for humanity’s inevitable outward expansion
Ah yes, because nuclear fissile material is more ubiquitous in the galaxy than light.
The reason we haven’t invented a fusion plant that can pass the Q limit is because fusion never got funded for shit
Absolute nonsense, you just made that up completely. Post a source.
Calling nuclear wealthy is hilarious, neither group has oil & gas beat
“Calling a billionaire wealthy is hilarious, that’s not even in the top 500 richest people”
The nuclear industry is massively overfunded, they’ve consistently received billions in public money for years, and there’s basically nothing to show for it. It’s the carbon capture of electricity generation: cute idea, let’s keep researching it in hopes of a breakthrough, but in practice just a total waste of money at our current level of tech.
Lmfao are you serious? Supporting renewables makes me a shill for fossil fuel companies? You’re stretching so far you’re going to split.
Way more people and animals are harmed by it than by nuclear.
Absolute and complete bullshit. Even if you take the very, very low estimate for the number of deaths caused by nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl, wind and nuclear have a similar number of deaths, but when it comes to “people and animals harmed”, nuclear is HUGELY more harmful, it’s not even a contest.
Just look up all of the people with horrible health issues caused by nuclear.
But go ahead and source your claim lmfao.
Hahahahaha okay then
Of course it is, I’m not going to write it out anew every time, am I? That would be a big waste of time and would result in a less effective message. I think this is the fourth or maybe fifth incarnation - I have added to it every time someone has asked me about some specific issue, so it just gets progressively more and more complete.
I encourage everyone who wishes to argue against the wasteful deployment of nuclear power, please redistribute this comment as much as you’d like to.
“The majority of studies show that a global transition to 100% renewable energy across all sectors – power, heat, transport and industry – is feasible and economically viable.”
I agree that having all the eggs in one basket isn’t a great idea - luckily there are a good 4 or 5 sources of renewables, most of which are cheaper and better than nuclear, such as solar, wind, geothermal and hydroelectric.
Nuclear is more expensive than renewables in total, not just for startup cost. Per kW generated, nuclear is somewhere between 2x and 5x more expensive than renewables.
When it comes to benefiting from economies of scale, wind and solar are far more poised to benefit than nuclear. Nuclear is not gonna help us. It’s too expensive and too slow.