EU Court Rules Nuclear Energy Is Clean Energy

It seems that some geothermal works have caused mini-earthquakes and soil shifts in Germany and the Netherlands

Check out:

https://www.volts.wtf/p/catching-up-with-enhanced-geothermal

This is true for any investment pretty much.

Renewables now dominate generation during the optimal periods, but there's nothing on the horizon for other times.

Your graph also ignores energy used for heating and for industrial processes. Their electrification is now stalled by high energy prices.

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-sou...

I guess sabotaging France by preventing it for exploiting the advantage its great strategy in energy should have afforded it is just cherry on the cake.

Then you realise that a significant part of France new debts was due to them shielding their population for the soaring prices of electricity despite France producing cheap energy, said prices being due to Germany brain dead strategy leading to a dependence on Russian gas and the obligation to go through the European market, and you start to see the double whammy.

Well, at least, the energy market is not as bad as the ECB rules.

1: https://analysesetdonnees.rte-france.com/en/generation/nucle...

The difference in ranking might be down to how they model deaths from nuclear power accidents. One may be using the linear no threshold model, and the other may be using something else. We don't have an agreed upon model for how likely someone is to die as a result of exposure to X amount of radiation, which causes wide gaps in death estimates.

E.g. Chernobyl non-acute radiation death estimates range from 4,000 to 16,000, with some outliers claiming over 60,000. That's a wild swing depending on which model you use.

Even with that being said, those safety numbers have held even with China building large numbers of reactors in relatively dense areas. I'd be surprised if European reactors turned out to pose much of a higher risk.

Yet people keep fixating over the radioactive pollution, including evicting people from their homes for truly minor amounts of radiation.

Turns out the "worst case scenario" of nuclear accidents is jackpot for nature. By clearing Fukushima from humans, nature is thriving: https://www.sciencealert.com/animals-aren-t-just-surviving-i...

For an example of what happens to a reactor build according to safety requirements see the onagawa nuclear powerplant

Just kidding.

I neither said nor implied that the green transition is complete. Green transitions take decades. Germany is merely transitioning the fastest and doing it without the overpriced and risky albatross that is nuclear power.

>shutting them down when you are still burning coal is almost unbelievable

It's unbelievable that the country some people are most furious at is the one that has decarbonized at the fastest rate.

Not the country next door to it that didnt even try.

They are seemingly obsessed with what was once ~8-12% of Germany's power output, but the actual environment? Not that important.

It's bizarre.

I don't know how you are going to disarm the current stable-state of mutually assured destruction.

Not an expert, but isn't all you basically need to do is running the centrifuges a bit longer?

Breeding plutonium is a different process than enriching uranium, sure, but with enough enriched uran you will have a nuclear bomb.

And a dirty bomb is bad enough and simple to construct as well.

Obviously there are such things as "breeder reactors" that are deliberately designed for this. But there's really no such thing as a can't-be-used-for-bombs reactor.

For a well-established organization like Greenpeace, it becomes increasingly difficult to believe it's a matter of them collectively having an emotional reaction. They have the resources to look at the evidence, and have indeed almost surely done so; when it comes to explaining their refusal to accept that evidence, ”their jobs depend on rejecting it” is a much simpler explanation IMO than “they are experiencing a collectively-identical ideological quirk that their organizational bureaucracy somehow has yet to iron out”.

Like the guy you're responding to, I'm not a nuclear hater. We also have other "limitless clean energy sources" however, wind and solar.

How is nuclear going to benefit humanity in ways electrical energy hasn't already? We haven't been energy constrained in the past 10-20 years. It really doesn't seem like additional energy production is going to make that much of a difference.