this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
209 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

1454 readers
62 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

With climate change looming, it seems so completely backwards to go back to using it again.

Is it coal miners pushing to keep their jobs? Fear of nuclear power? Is purely politically motivated, or are there genuinely people who believe coal is clean?


Edit, I will admit I was ignorant to the usage of coal nowadays.

Now I'm more depressed than when I posted this

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DasRubberDuck@feddit.de 65 points 1 year ago (12 children)

Why "going back to it" have we ever stopped?

[–] 0110010001100010@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago

I was going to say, coal remains around 1/3 of our electric generation worldwide (as of 2022): https://www.statista.com/statistics/269811/world-electricity-production-by-energy-source/

Coal can't be reused, created, or otherwise obtained outside of mining. Until we remove our dependency on coal, mining will continue.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 33 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are concerns outside of the list you wrote. For example:

  • people need energy and coal is a source of energy
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 32 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And they’re going for coal in some places because the political situation has made other reliable energy sources unavailable:

  • the Russia-Ukraine war has destroyed natural gas supply lines to Europe
  • anti-nuclear activism has resulted in lack of nuclear investment

Outside of coal, nuclear, and natural gas, there aren’t many options for reliable sources of electricity.

[–] room_raccoon@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago (15 children)

Why are people so against nuclear? It doesn't make any sense.

[–] riley0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • Fukushima
  • Chernobyl
  • 3-Mile Island to name a few
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Zangoose@lemmy.one 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (11 children)

Nuclear is probably the safest form of power when proper protocols are put in place but it's hard to do that when the largest country in Europe (Russia, both by size and population) is currently in a war

[–] TheActualDevil@sffa.community 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Safer than wind and solar?

[–] TheHalc@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oddly enough, it's safer than wind.

Solar's a little better in that regard, but all three are so much safer than any high-carbon sources of energy that any of them are great options.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] ExLisper@linux.community 30 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Climate change 'looming'? Dude, it's already here.

[–] BigNote@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Oh good, let's quibble about semantics instead of actually discussing the meat of the problem.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 29 points 1 year ago

Because it got cheaper than natural gas.

Nobody thinks it's clean, they just don't care.

[–] theKalash@feddit.ch 29 points 1 year ago (26 children)

In my country, because of a decades long fearmongering and disinfomation campaing that destoyed the nuclear energy industry. So now we're stucked with coal to keep the power running at night and during winter.

[–] rufus@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Well, nuclear energy is expensive anyways and the amount of uranium on this world seems quite limited.

It's just not the technology of the future. In the long term we should use regenerative energies that are way cheaper.

[–] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well you didn't google any of that.

Nuclear power plants are expensive to build but the cost of running one especially when adjusted to the amount of electricity it produces is not significantly more than running any other power plant. Also uranium is not considered to be a gobally scarce resource.

[–] rufus@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

That's also what I believed. But turns out nuclear is the most expensive kind of energy.

Here's a good summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kahih8RT1k

(Seriously, watch it)

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (25 replies)
[–] thru_dangers_untold@lemmy.ml 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Yes, countries like Germany are turning to coal as a direct result of nuclear-phobia.

The US, with all its green initiatives and solar/wind incentives, is pumping more oil than Saudi Arabia. The US has been the top oil producer on whole the planet for the last 5-6 years. The problem is getting worse.

[–] klisklas@feddit.de 51 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Sorry, this is just false info. Germany is not turning to coal as a result of your called nuclear phobia.

I will repeat my comment from another thread:

If you are able to read German or use a translator I can recommend this interview where the expert explains everything and goes into the the details.

Don't repeat the stories of the far right and nuclear lobby. Nuclear will always be more expensive than renewables and nobody has solved the waste problem until today. France as a leading nuclear nation had severe problems to cool their plants during the summer due to, guess what, climate change. Building new nuclear power plants takes enormous amounts of money and 10-20years at least. Time that we don't have at the moment.

[–] skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]

[–] luk3th3dud3@feddit.de 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Germany has not build any new coal plants. At least not in the last five years.

Edit: Why are people down voting a factual statement? Go ahead and provide better info if you got it.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Metal_Zealot@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago

Fantastic. We're doomed

[–] Mrs_deWinter@feddit.de 25 points 1 year ago

It didn't, at least not in the way you think. The headlines of the past few days show the aftermath of the last decades: industry contracts that were made in the last century and the political heritage of a generation of politicians who are no longer in power.

Coal is being phased out and that's not changing. It cannot change substantially anyway; there is only so much coal in the gound. Recent political decisions moved to keep most of it there. For technological, political, economical and industry related reasons this won't be a fast process unfortunately.

One of the roadblocks of our transition to a sustainable energy supply is how much money (and in our capitalisic society, therefore, power) the industry itself holds. Coal lobbies will work hard for you not to think about them too much. Nuclear lobbies will work hard for you to blame those pesky environmentalists. A game of distraction and blame shifting. This thread is a good example of how well it's working.

Our resources are limited. This is true for good old planet earth as well as our societies. We only have so much money, time, and workforce to manage this transition. And as much as I'd love to wake up tomorrow to a world with PVC on every roof, a windmill on every field, and decentralised storage in every town center, this is just not realistic overnight. We'll have to live with the fact of our limited resources and divert as much as possible of them towards such a future. (And btw, putting billions of dollars in money, time, and workforce towards a reactor that will start working in 10-30 years is not the way to do this, as much as the nuclear lobby would like you to think that.)

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Again? Did we stop?

It doesn't look like anyone has mentioned metallurgical coal yet. Even if you don't burn it for energy, the carbon in steel has to come from somewhere and that's usually coke, which is coal that has been further pyrolised into a fairly pure carbon producing a byproduct of coal tar.

load more comments (2 replies)

Over here (Australia) we never stopped. Our coal lobby is simply too influential with our government.

[–] Beowulf@unilem.org 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It will slow when nuclear is the main energy source, especially in the United States (its currently ~47%)

Nuclear can also get recycled, and for the average American, the actual waste that can no longer be recycled is about a soda can (standard 12 ounce can)

Imo, the US needs to work toward nuclear usage being 90-95% instead of using coal. There's still a need for natural gas but it can be minimized

[–] bob_lemon@feddit.de 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Imo, the US needs to work toward nuclear usage being 90-95% instead of using coal. There's still a need for natural gas but it can be minimized

Why? Wind and solar are cheaper, faster to build and don't produce toxic waste. They can easily cover most of the energy needs. Or technically all of it, once you start using any overcapacity for hydrogen production (which is needed for carbon neutrality anyways).

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] roguetrick@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Fuel reprocessing through the purex process has never been economical and frankly doesn't make much sense. You'd want to increase the volume of those very nasty fission products for eventual storage through vitrification anyway (inverse square law gets very important for big gamma emitters) so you'd need a big site regardless. It's fine if you're recovering plutonium to make a bomb, but it seems to create a lot of chemical waste without much benefit otherwise.

load more comments (1 replies)

I'm sure places that are still banning nuclear power aren't helping either.

[–] const_void@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago
[–] Cynoid@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

I blame the release of both Factorio and Victoria 3.

[–] SplicedBrainwrap 8 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Until all coal plants are replaced there will be a need for more coal. We can’t just shut down these plants over night, the world is transitioning to cleaner energy production, unfortunately it’s just not happening fast enough.

[–] FarFarAway@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I get the feeling they're talking about all the publicity around coal in the past few days.

Germany is dismantling windmills to expand a coal mine. A state in the US gave the go ahead to restart a power plant (and supposedly turn it into a hydrogen plant eventually) , and another state is expanding mines. Australia approved enough new mines to add another 150 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. Canada is expanding exports of thermal coal. Not to mention, China and India using a bunch of coal in general.

These are all headlines I've seen, in like the past week. Even though demand for coal hasn't really ceased, it seems like recently, there's a renewed push.

[–] sirjash@feddit.de 10 points 1 year ago

Just FYI, those windmills were at the end of their lifespan and would've been torn down either way. I don't support coal mining, but let's not make this more stupid than it is.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Yadaran@feddit.de 6 points 1 year ago

Tf you mean stopped

  • a German
load more comments
view more: next β€Ί