France Vs Germany: The Battle for Nuclear
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 июн 2024
- Go check out the courses on Brilliant.org : brilliant.org/IntoEurope/
Into Europe: The European Union is going through a Civil War on nuclear energy, with a policy war behind the scenes.
0:00 Introduction
0:54 The Two Teams
3:34 Act 1: Post Chernobyl
4:36 Act 2: The Lead-up to the European Green Deal
5:39 Act 3: The Russian Invasion of Ukraine
7:06 Act 4: The European Compromise?
8:04 Act 5: Europe's Energy Tightrope
© All Rights Reserved.
Contact information:
Email: Into.Europe@outlook.com
Twitter: / europeinto
Patreon: / intoeurope
Thumbnail Design by Tom Hurling (studiotomkin.com)
It's so ironic that "Team green" plan is to build more natural gas plants😬
Yeah! Right? Natural gas is just methane an 80 times stronger greenhouse gas then co2. If only 4% it's worse then even coal. How is that green?
tells you everything, doesn't it
@@hofimastah But the methane doesn't get into the athmosphere... it get's burned and emits CO². And it does emit only 40% of what oil does and an even smaller percantage of coal. Nuclear has it's own drawbacks. Uranium is not sustainable. It's a limited resource that mostly comes from Russia and will run out completely in the forseeable future.
@@hofimastah The methane "only" gets released through leaks. When burned, it turns into co2 and water. Because of the leaks, the climate impact of coal and natural gas are similar, but unlike coal, gas has no negative impact on air quality (which kills tens of thousands of people every year in Europe). It's only a transitional technology at beast though. Hydrogen produced via access renewable/nuclear power should replace it as soon as possible. It's not very efficient because of the conversion losses, but at least it's something that will work for sure and can also be scaled up to meet the demand.
That's what blind fanaticism leads to - results opposite to what was intended.
To me, "team green" are simply shortsighted. The idea of forcing countries like France, to reduce existing nuclear capacity (the emissions of which are negligible compared to gas power/MWh) in order to be 42% "renewable" is just silly.
Furthermore, team green's "fear that they'll produce cheaper electricity" so nuclear should be excluded from subsidy..... is a real double standard - subsidy for MY low carbon energy but not for yours, is again, just narrow minded and needlessly competitive almost
Ah ! Finally someone understands. Its not about CO2 but about ruining your concurrents.
No need to force France. Their reactors are falling apart already. Due to age, many will have to be shut down in the next decades, and only few are newly build.
@@neodym5809 the old ones will be transformed
@@neodym5809 they are finally going to shut down their old reactors, but the replacements should be more than enough for France. France already had to cap nuclear power generation from each plant at 40% because they overbuilt in the 70's.
@@secretname4190 Power-generating nuclear reactors are normally designed to last forty years. Most of France's reactors were commissioned in the mid-late 1970s. They should have been decommissioned a decade ago and replaced with current-generation nuclear power plants.
France had to import from Germany for a variety of reasons. Because their reactors are so old, way more maintenance is required (think of a high mileage car, it is still functional but maintenance is going to be more common and expensive) and 32/56 reactors had to shut down for maintenance due to corrosion.
Normally, this would be fine since most of France's reactors do not operate at full power generating capacity and could make up the difference. The thing is, last year's heat waves warmed rivers to the extent that most of the online reactors had to operate at reduced capacity.
In Canada we have 6 Nuclear power plants that were built in 1970 that never had a problem.
The Bruce generating station is the largest operating nuclear power plant in the world.
You would think a modern 2023 Nuclear plant would be even safer.
Oh yeah it is as much safer as a modern 2023 student is smarter than his 1970 counterpart
Nuclear problem is not safety, but economics. Most of plants aren't profitable, the largest nuclear operator in the world (EDF) is essentially in bakrupcy. If the white kinight of civilian nuclear energy (France) is unable to make it work you'll have hard time trying to convince me that nuclear is anything but a money sink. Meanwhile, EU build 42 GW of solar and 16 GW of wind last year alone, that's around 14 Nuclear Power Plants.
Danger of nuclear energy comes from human error not from a flawed design and there will always be human error and capital interest which will seek to safe costs like in Fukushima where the operator was fully aware that a sufficiently large Tsunami would endanger the plants safety. There have also been a lot of close calls all based on human error like lack of maintanance or corruption. Furthermore despite stated otherwise in the video nuclear energy is the most expensive energy source. Basiclly nuclear is neither cheap nor safe.
@@enriquethinius2472 Agree, but safety isn't even relevant anymore since just the economics of nuclear are so bad that can't compete vs renewables. That's why their declive is so steep.
@@enriquethinius2472 lmao how delusional you are xD
Small update, since I recorded this video, Italy has decided to lift the limitations on nculear energy. Initially they were a bit more on the fence about their nuclear ambitions, but you could now consider them to have the hedging strategy, since they plan to become a gas hub between North Africa and Europe as well as re-developing their own nuclear industry. This further shifts the balance towards Team Low Carbon.
Cheers,
Hugo
Hello, thanks for the video, it was interesting to see everyone's point of view. However, a big player was in grey on your map : Sweden, I thought I heard they might join the low carbon camp, what do you think about it?
Yes they definitely are, however due to their presidency of the European Council, they have been sitting on the fence during this debate so far. I expect that will change when their presidency ends in a few months!
One less country letting Germany bully them into doing what Germany wants 🎉🙌🙌🙌
@Influence08 I don't know how Germany managed to convince EU that burning a fossil fuel is green. This just ridiculous. 😂. Natural gas is just methane, an 80 times more potent greenhouse gas then co2. If 4% of it escapes it already worked for warming climate then burning coal.
@@IntoEuropekeep in mind that Italy, despite not having active reactors (it has some but not for energy production), has always massively contributed to the development of French energy nuclear program, funding 50% of the Super Phoenix tech and also the new generation, still under development, of reactors from Areva.
The problem with Nuclear is that it deeply inefficient, with france having 69% of it's reactors under maintenance and many in need for replacement, while the new generation is still years away.
Thorium tractors could potentially change the stance of public opinion about Nuclear as Uranium and Plutonium has been given high priority due to their ties to nuclear weapons production.
I do not understand how Germany can be labeled team green with so much of their energy being generated by natural gas, as gas leaks are a huge problem
Gas leaks are called fugitive emissions. If only 4% escapes it's worse then coal as methane is 80 times more potent greenhouse gas then co2.
@@hofimastah But 4% doesn't escape. Don't act as if you're a scientist. You clearly aren't. Youre just bragging about a number you read in some paper and think you have the deathsentence argument now...
ye and burning coal
Because Germany will generate 80% from renewables until 2032 - long before any new nuclear reactors have been built. And even today only 7% of Germany's electricity comes from gas. Germany currently has prohibited gas heatings for houses, not only for new built houses but even for replacements. They now require everything to mainly come from renewables. Gas is only seen as a temporary backup. Something nuclear cannot be. I don't oppose France's use of nuclear, but the question is a lot more complex than gas vs nuclear. In Germany (and others) the consideration is that nuclear power production would make expansion of renewables more difficult.
@@tobiwan001 1/3 of the electricity production from Germany comes from coal, which has go up since the invasion of Ukraine. It’s good that they are going for renewables but they should have cut off coal first to pass to renewables, but they began by shutting down the nuclear plants, that pollutes so much less
I think the biggest problem with nuclear is that politicians don’t want to spend 100s of billions of euros to research and develop new more efficient and safer nuclear technology because they won’t see the results within their election cycle. They don’t want to spend all that money and not get an immediate impact from it because a lot of voters would see it as a lot of money being spent and they aren’t seeing immediate results. I think a lot of people struggle with seeing long term benefit and that most people can really only think short term when it comes to that kind of investment (0 to 5 years whereas it may take 10+ years to see the results of the nuclear investment)
F
Sad and true
Yes maybe, but current designs are safe enough. The problem is politicians are populists, and don't want to freak out the nuclear safety fanatics.
People want nuclear. Without nuclear you are at mercy of others
Why spend the money on nuclear research, when you can invest it in renewables now?
@@neodym5809 because not all countries have sea access
Nuclear for the win.
From my understanding renewables with storage technology are nuclear but better.
Thanks to the storage they would be reliable, they need no fuel don't generate dangerous waste and don't have that (admittedly very small) if of disaster attached.
Of cause, depending on the storage technology, it would need to be replaced every so often, making it kind of a fuel equivalent, but that still leaves the other benefits.
an expensive win
@@Hooorse Renewables with storages are not better. Renewables have issues. They need specific environmental conditions to be effective, space to be deployed and ressources that need to be imported (I'm thinking mostly thinking about copper which is getting rarer and that is a key component of wind turbines).
There is also the issue that the technology to stock the energy for renewable does not currently exist .
And before you mention hydrogen, it could be a solution but it definetly wouldn't be safer as nuclear as hydrogen is an explosive gas that needs very little energy to do a lot of damage. Mass producing hydrogen is possible. Mass stocking hydrogen is an other much bigger problem.
As for the safety concern about nuclear powerplants, there are just not going to blow up. And even if there were to be an accident the number of failsafe on a powerplant is insane. There are at least 6 levels of failsafe and even if they inexplicably were to all fail, the design of the whole installation is made so it would limit any actual risk for local population and even if that were to somehow fail too there are evacuation plan and training around nuclear powerplants to help population evacuate. People usually underevaluate just how incredibly secure those things are.
If you wanted to do massive damage to Lyon in France it'd be much much easier and far more effective to blow up the hydrolic barrage (Pierre-Bénite) than it would be to blow up the nuclear power plant (Bugey).
As for the concern of nuclear waste, that problematic only exist for people that have no clue how nuclear powerplant work. Cut short, the really dangerous stuff is processed and reused in other reactors and most of the contaminated waste that people worry about could be burried 100m into the ground and left there with no impact whatsoever for millenias.
Nuclear has issues but safety is definetly not one.
Ideology is a flawed way to think. Europe needs a healthy mix to decarbonate, with nuclear and hydropower as a baseload, battery and water storage, and intermitent renewable, and maybe biomass for peak use. Natural gas, coal, and petrol should not be part of the mix.
Well, maybe existing gas, coal and petrol stations should be allowed to run the course of their designed lifetime. No need to force them out, unless they are specially polluting.
How do you think uranium is coming from? The process is not so different to mining coal. The carbon footprint is smaller, but on the other hand, no one knows how much co2 you need for storing the waste for 100.000 years.
@@tiefensucht And where does the lithium comes from ? The amount of nuclear material that will have to be stored for this long is ridiculously small, and if you want to see the CO2 needed for that, just look at Onkalo. It's a deep tunnel. Not carbon free that's for sure, but storing 100 years of the national production waste.
@@cocolasticot9027 What lithium has to do with that? You need batteries in cars whatever source of energy you have. In the long run and of course in homes, there are different materials used in batteries.
You don't have to store much, yes, but the long time period is a problem. Basically you need an infinite amount of money while it only generated revenue for like 50 years. This is insane in a economic point of view.
Arthemis,
the flaw is that renewables cannot run without fossil fuel plants, fossil fuel plants can run without renewables and should. Renewables make the grid less stable and more expensive. They should never have been considered for grid supply as they are so inferior to conventional plants. But nobody, particularly the media ever mention this.
It's entirely insane to oppose nuclear on any "green" basis.
It's because the movement has its origins in the environmentalism movement before climate change became the primary environmentalist concern. Nuclear genuinely was a horrifyingly destructive tool to the environment given it was developed in a haphazard way with the primary goal of getting a WMD on their hand before the enemy. So regulations were lax and so much toxic shit was dumped straight into the ocean. Western countries at least kept track of where they dumped their waste whereas USSR just spilled em onto rivers that went into the Arctic.
It is absolutely understandable why the green movement opposes nuclear, they just haven't shifted their position according to the change in the nuclear industry.
@@chinguunerdenebadrakh7022 interesting take that makes a lot of sense. It is in part the reason why Sweden decided to go nuclear. The WMD project was shut down after assurances from the western nuclear powers but the power plants remained.
It depends for countries that are out of nuclear plants (like Germany) it would make no sense to build it up now, for building the plants and supply lines takes decades, while renewables are cheaper and faster to build.
@@Manu-qf8bs they're still going to need energy in decade(s) times too, makes perfect sense to build them still. With renewables, what do you do when it's not windy/sunny?
@@fleshreap One of the solutions being worked on is massive inter-connectors which allow the transfer of massive amounts of electrical energy over great distances. E.g. morocco to Spain. Therefore when it's not sunny or windy in one country power can be transferred from another country where it is this will likely turn out to be a better and cheaper alternative to either of the options presented here.
If you get rid of bans on plutonium refinement, you can use nuclear energy fuels to the point where the halftime is very short.
France already does that
As Italian I am super pro nuclear
I'm pro nuclear but have been flabbergasted by the universal dislike of the technology I've witnessed in my Italian relatives. I genuinely don't know which energy sources Italians like
As a French i'm very super pro nuclear
But our grandparents voted against it, and now it is illegal to build them
UK is also building nuclear reactors. With help from EDF I believe.
Calling it a cold war is massive hyperbole. It's just a disagreement.
More like a ”war of cold”. Da dum ts
It's a descriptive term, nobody would see the title and think Germany and France are on the verge of war
It all depends on what Europe as a whole invests in for the future
He does this a lot with titles recently.
Thank you, Captain Obvious. Cold War became common parlance for any major disagreement at national levels many decades ago. Get hep with the times, youngster. Wink
One fallacy in most of team green's plans is, IMHO, that renewable means green.
Also, I love the irony in that Portugal is on team low carbon but all impactful plans for hydrogen generation are for blue hydrogen.
Portugal just needs some nuclear power to fullt decarbonize...and yet we chose not to
And how is nuclear renewable? It is a limited ressource, just like coal, oil or gas.
@@LadyNeravin Just like the resources needed for wind and solar, and even geothermal and hydro are finite
@@LadyNeravin where in my comment did you get the idea that I think nuclear energy is renewable?
Yes, it is limited, but very safe and much greener. It would only accelerate the independence of fossil fuels for energy.
@@joaquimbarbosa896 Onde ias construiur uma central nuclear em Portugal? Diz-me um sitio decente onde colocar uma central nuclear, também diz-me onde Portugal ia buscar o dinheiro para criar isso... Já agora, também diz-me como os políticos iam explicar a um bando de atrasadinhos comunistas que criar uma central nuclear é uma boa opção...
I am German. I apologize for the stupidity of my government. France is right on this point: nuclear energy is not only green energy but also necessary for energy security in Europe.
your governmet does not have the gut to say a thing about American meddling, maybe CIA has eyes and ears everywhere in German politics
i wouldnt say stupidity if they wanted to kill edf and as such open france energy market to german companies that would be the way to go
I'm Spanish. I apologize for the stupidity of my government(s). France is right on this point. Not only nuclear is co2 free but it offers the greatest possibility for technological innovation. ALSO: carbon power plants release far more radioactive materials into the atmosphere than nuclear, even with capture tech. Why do we not listen to the science people?!
No. Nuclear is a huge mistake and we germans can be happy to be finally rid of it.
Don't apologise! Just don't vote for them 👀
Gas is not green, period. I rather take my chances with nuclear reactor explosion than slowly dying to hydrocarbon fuel.
As a french very attached on nuclear énergie i never understood the logic behind germanys plan to replace it by coal...
The tea "low-carbon" is far greener than team green...
I think Nuclear is a clear move forward on the path towards clean and cheap energy. It's the best option we have until we come up with something better which can eliminate the issues with nuclear waste and the possibility for something to go horribly wrong.
Although major breakthroughs on fusion power does excite me, it's still a far off prospect in terms of becoming a energy source.
Nuclear is by far the most expensive energy. UK will have to increase its electricity bill for decades because of Hickley Point C
Don't hold your breath regarding fusion. The recent breakthrough didn't produce net energy (despite what the media was saying). When you don't count the lasers then it generated net energy. Fusion has been 20 years away for the past 80 years.
From my understanding that somthing are renewables with storage technology.
Thanks to the storage they would be reliable, they need no fuel don't generate dangerous waste and don't have that (admittedly very small) if of disaster attached.
Of cause, depending on the storage technology, it would need to be replaced every so often, making it kind of a fuel equivalent, but that still leaves the other benefits.
Nuclear is gonna be hellishly expensive for the forseeable future and building new nuclear plants takes for fucking ever. If we wanna be carbon neutral by 2045 then new nuclear plants simply can't play a big role in that. They're not going to be ready in time.
The benefit of Solar and Wind is that it's really really quick to build.
Major breakthroughs already exist 1/2 century ago in fission and fusion still has some hope left despite all the high energy physics crying wolf or fusion in there cases.
Fusion: ruclips.net/video/6ajqD0hoOMw/видео.html
Fission:ruclips.net/video/1EFfxMx6WJs/видео.html
Remember that Nuclear Energy also provides a heat source. Denmark for instance burns coal and oil primarily, and now also waste, for its district heating which is still polluting. If Denmark would turn over to Nuclear Energy, both heat and electricity could come from a carbon-free source, although I'm positive for the continued use of waste, but hopefully that will also be reduced in the future.
Coal and gas and imported “green” wood + trash.
Denmark generates 60% of electricity from renewables. You are spreading lies little boy
Would be more accurate to say team idiot and team nuclear. Since even us swedes who has a good relations with the germans see germanies action as idiotic.
I live in Germany, and am on Team France
no but seiously why did you shut down nuclear and start burning more coal. Im genuelny interested in german point of view. because i thought you guys are strongly against co2.
The future will be a diverse pool of energy sources. There is no need to create artificial sides as every country has their own possibilities due to geography and it's never a good idea to rely on just one source anyway.
European geography isnt's energy rich. Many country are grey, flat without minerals
Team greem is becoming more and more pro nuclear too. Italy is considering it, Denmark opened new education courses in nuclear, german's population is now massively pro nuclear. Reason and science is winning
Are we now? The Partys that want to tackel Climate change the most like the Green Party are heavily Anti Nuclear only the Conservatives and Alt Right are somewhat pro Nuclear but that also only in the last Year. Nuclear Power was shut down under the Conservates after all
True
It seems like the EU politicians travelled the long way to conclude that what they need is a diversity of energy sources. I'm pretty sure that was already the best practice approach experts already had agreed upon. There's no other way to balance out the pitfalls of costs, capacity and avoiding dependence on a particular resource.
E RF,
who are these 'experts'?
No self respecting power engineer would advocate large scale renewable construction and implementaion as it is so bad as a grid supply of electricity.
Just about everyone knows renewables are intermittent and seem to believe in the miracles that are batteries. (miracles will not happen)
Few know just how technically poor renewables are and how much support is required to accomodate what we already have. They will not and cannot replace fossil fuel generation.
@@iareid8255 Renewables are perfectly functional alone, they just require oversized capacity and good inter country connections. Nuclear % of electricity in Europe fell from 20% in 2001 to less than 10% today and will fade away in a couple of decades. EDF is semi-dead and Macron's delusional plan to relaunch his nuclear industry will probably make French enconomy to implode, but as happened with the Brexit someone needs to bring an example so the rest can learn, so we all thank Macron for volunteering to pilot this trainwreack called "nuclear revival".
@@iareid8255 As you said solar/wind almost never makes sense to be added to a grid that already has a large scale base power source (like nuclear). Whenever you add solar/wind in large amounts you are FORCED to modify your whole grid to cater to the intermittency of solar/wind. From the moment you already have an energy source fully capable of producing a lot of power constantly , then why would you restrict said stable power source in favor of unreliable (same cost or even more expensive) solar/wind ??
Solar/wind makes sense only in small amounts and very specific scenarios. For example it is okay for some single floor houses to add solar since they can rely on a reliable base load power source to make up for their slack. But if most people start switching to solar , then you won't have someone to pick their slack when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. So it makes zero sense to shrine solar/wind as a MAIN power source when there is nuclear on the table. With nuclear on a large scale , solar/wind can only be added supplamentary.
I think this video oversimplifies the situation. Each country is relying more on one energy type than another. But most do have a mix. Obviously each country is going to defend the energy they use the most. But on a grand scale most of Europe is on a hybrid model. France has many gas ports, Italy has lifted their policies against nuclear energy and are a gas hub for Europe, etc. What would have been more interesting is hearing more about the different policies being debated, along with the pros and cons for each European countries.
not a lot of people can spend at least fifty minutes of attention on one video, me included to make views make them short
Gas is a technology that needs to be depcreated in 25 years. Being a gas hub is barely relevant
@@Iondaime100 if what you are after is views then yes short / simplified is best. You might even want to ask some hot chick to present, or make react videos on trendy topics, while we are at it. But if it’s quality you are after then making more complexe yet balanced vidéos is more appropriate. Look at Kurzgezagt if you need an example of how it’s done. Also the fact that many (and I hope not most) people can’t focus more then 5 min on content is a shame because the more elaborate the context the more you learn and understand the issues mentioned. Gaining more concentration / determination to understand, should be something everyone strives to improve on ideally.
Man how you find so up-to-date and interesting strategic information online? I'm intrigued
Is the Netherlands really pro-nuclear?
I live in the Netherlands I think we are more neutral.
We have 1 nuclear power plant and import nuclear energy but are not planning to build new ones.
We also reduced gas production but are building more LNG harbors and more gas production on the Wadden Sea.
Yes, we're getting 2 new reactors next to older one in Borssele, Zeeland
@@ironqueen_osrs are we really getting them? If you look at the plans there's nothing concrete yet and the 5 billion euros that was reserved for nuclear has not even been touched. In contrast the rest of the climate change fund has been allocated. Keep in mind that it takes a minimum of ten years to go from having a concrete plan to having a working plant, which does make you wonder if the government is as serious about nuclear as say they are.
@@ironqueen_osrs good!
Well considering the size of your country, I believe nuclear will be more convenient since it would produce more energy than LNG harbors using the same amount of space.
@@kevinaguilar7541 True, but then again our economy is built on gas from Groningen and it will take a lot of money and time to build a new nuclear powerplant.
The problem is that an energy strategy requires to think decades ahead and our elected leaders cannot think further than the last poll or hashtag
Yeah it's easier to get bribe from Gazprom, BP, Exxon or the others and use it for the captain to win again then to start a project that might take 20 years with all of the bureaucracy. But it is possible. In Korea they built nuclear power plant in 4 years.
Voters are just as bad. I cannot wait for the economic collapse and the cold and hunger.
'Poland wants to build nuclear so that they can in the long run have a nuclear weapons programme.' massive citation needed. Where did you come up with that? Poland relies on the US for nuclear deterrence and thats not going to change soon.
Poland is 100% building a powerful army, they said it again when they were in the US
How about setting concrete goals. Replace Oil and coal plants with gas in the short term, then over the long term deploy REs, and potentially wait for nuclear fusion.
I'm on French and Polish site...
Something we never talk about is that if we invested in modern nuclear reactors like Japan that recycle nuclear waste and use it 10s of times before burying it, the stock of enriched uranium in France would be sufficient to power all Europe for 150 years. That would mean real independance. Only solution forward while we develop renewables.
France had the solution with Phénix and Superphénix who've been shut down thanks to the greens, but there's still Astrid wich is on hold but can be relaunched.
Pretty sure that the only EU country currently planning to have a Russian constructed nuclear power plant built, is Hungary. All other central and eastern European countries that have Soviet designed nuclear reactors running, are switching to US fuels and for example Bulgaria (which generally isn't the most consequently anti-russian country in the EU) is looking at Westinghouse for new construction.
Shame they're not asking France to build them since we are literally the experts and fellow EU members, but estern europeans loooove america more than the eu
@@sambones1092 well, EDF isn't known to build fast or on budget. That's the main issue.
@@4tech404 Thank our politicians (we also thank them) for making us lose 30 years of hard-skills by shifting policies. When you don't build nuclear reactors anymore (apart of EPR which were a new tech and appearing more than 15 years after the construction launch of Civaux 2 in 1991), the people who have the capacities grow old and the hard-skill aren't passed on the next generation since there's no need. There're also other problems like heavy reliance to subcontracting.
The "Greens" and "antinuclear" gloat of making the grave of our expertise.
@@sambones1092 France is more an expert in nuclear safety and management, not so much in building actually.
@@4tech404 Westinghouse is not much faster than EDF
1:51, it looks like the map will need an update, given the 15 countries, who met in Paris In May. Indeed countries such as Estonia, Belgium and sweeden were here. A quick mention to Italy, who was here to as an 'observer' and the UK was invited too so, the gas team looking smaller and smaller.
In the Net Zero Industry act, only gen 3 reactors and SMR's are included, and even them are not in the special package of strategic industries
I think down the line Germany will feel forced to completely reconsider their position. The numbers are not in their favour, and many countries are noticing. Recently Italy has approved a motion to consider nuclear in their energy mix. Poland will start building their reactors in a few years. Even Danes are now in favour of nuclear if you look at the polls
Last year, Germany needed to burn a lot of extra coal to meet France's demand, because their plants were down for maintenance or because the rivers weren't carrying enough water. I hope, France finds a solution for that - via wind/solar or air cooled nuclear plants.
Wrong approach. Not true. Won't happen.
And in 20 years the first reactors will come on line, while Germany is adding the equivalent power of 1 NPP in renewables every 2 months. I am ok with nuclear. It's just too slow to build up. Europe would need hundreds of reactors just to make a difference. Meanwhile the US and China are building more Gas and Coal power plants.
@kira of course as they are still in the process of building up production whereas the others are replacing it. However, China is mainly adding fossil fuel like coal.
@kira Read "Even China Cannot Rescue Nuclear Power from its Woes"
I'm in spain and increasing dependency to gas is not only not actually green, but strategically really fucking stupid.
Spain is betting on replacing natural gas with green hydrogen.
Three points you should consider.
First, Nuclear Power Stations aren't very flexible. There are good for a basic electricity level. But there's to much electricity in the system, wind and solar Stations have to quit.
A big problem for the transition for more Wind and Solar.
Second, nuclear power stations need water to cool them down. Water which is being a problem in the european rivers. ( Look at France and it's nuclear power plants)
Third, the same political risk we have with gas we have with uranium as well.
We buy our fuel rod in Russia, we get our uranium form Niger, Russia, Namibia, Kazakhstan...
The political price could be high and the economic price of nuclear power is also quite high compared to solar or wind.
France problem is not the water, it's the temperature of the water released wich can't be too hot by regulation, one solution will be to build cooling towers.
Those 3 points are really insignificant compared to the benefits
1- While nuclear power is not as flexible as combined gas cycle, it has proven it can lower and increase output when necessary. Regardless, some storage will be needed
2- Yes, nuclear power stations need water. So do gas, coal, oil, biomass power plants, as well as solar to clean the pannels (and to manufacture and recycle ofc) and both hydro eletricity and hydro storage. In other words, nuclear is not the only source that uses water. How tf do you think UAE can have a nuclear power plant my guy? In fact, nuclear produces vastly more energy with the same ammount of water. Not only that, some nuclear reactors can run on waste water, and others like CANDU reactors use deuterium
3- Fuel rods are made in Russia because we gave up in the industry. Uranium is also mined in Australia and Canada, and is not mined in Europe because we don't want to. Also CANDU reactors don't need fuel rods, just natural uranium. ALSO Russia gets multiple times less profit from selling fuel rods then it does selling gas
I don't see how the EU's industries can compete without a reliable source of power like nuclear energy. Importing gas especially LNG is too expensive. Not only that the EU can't dictate the price, it also makes EU dependent to another country for energy.
What's to debate? If you go green but still need gas to burn, it's obvious that going green and filling the gaps with nuclear is more logical towards that low to no carbon emissions goal. So my take is that the gas guys should not be so full o fit and take one for the team if going nuclear is more of a burden for them right now. You just can't break future advancements because of past mistakes.
Nuclear power plants are still reliant on fuel imports (that is a finite resource) and is best suited for base loads instead of covering peaks as would better fit a pairing with wind and solar.
The end result will always be a mix of different energy sources but it's good to see there are considerations and discussions so we don't stumble blindly into the future.
I'm not too concerned with safety for nuclear power (the stakes are higher than with any other plant but it's a manageable technical challenge) but the long term (or indefinite) storage of depleted fuel needs a solution before committing to new plants.
1)renewables also rely on imports for the components, nuclear power consumes less metal than renewable per energy unit produced 2)Nuclear fuel can and is stored for decades because it's so energy dense
Besides all the ideology and economics, the word “renewable” simply implies that the fuel source isn’t limited (at least on human time scales). If there is fresh Uranium flying in from Space every week, feel free to call it “renewable”.
What they at the EU are talking about is “environmentally friendly”. And judging by the CO2 emissions it can be reasonable to give nuclear that label. But that’s not renewable.
the UK just joined the Nuclear alliance with the baltics
Together we can defeat German - Russian fossil fuel axis! 💪💪💪
@@hofimastah There is no German-Russian fossil fuel axis - at least not any more.
another problem for renewables is power grid stability
1. Frequency and voltage anomalies · 2. Overloading of existing transmission lines · 3. Demand and supply mismatch · 4. deforestation
i have a bachelors in environmentalism... people keep asking me if im an envornmntal activist or something which pisses me off so much
no, in fact i actually went ahead and educated myself on the matter of energy and other things regarding environment preservation and degradation
one of the subjects we had was nuclear science , its insane how amazing this technology is the minds working on it are out of this world
and yet we still debate weather to use it or not, its a no brainer
funny... no brainer, something missing from team green
Germany's phase out of Nuclear was one of the worst policy mistakes in history. Excluding nuclear produced hydrogen makes no sense, thats the ideal complement to renewables.
Disagreed. Investing in new nuclear energy in Germany would be expensive and again potentially increase dependancy on Russian uranium. I think looking for LNG sources while building up renewables is a good strategy.
Is it? Nuclear energy is rather slow, so not really good for renewables.
@@Micha-qv5uf it was hardly investing, it was simply maintaining existing facilities. Which were phases almost entirely to coal.
Also, the idea of Russian Uranium dependance is a nothing burger, the country shares a boarder with France and has good relations with the US.
@@neodym5809 combined with Hydrogen production it would have provided the exact peaking energy source needed for renewables. Moreover, renewables are rather terrible at producing process heat, which is a substantial portion of energy requirements.
@@neolithictransitrevolution427 You should maybe research where France is getting its uranium from. Cause they are certainly also not extracting it in their own country ;)
Look up the GE Hitachi PRISM & also the Advanced Fuel CANDU Reactor.
The European nations that are willing to invest in the research in nuclear power and the proper construction of nuclear power plants are going to have a significant edge and advantage in the future. Combining their nuclear technology with sources such as solar, tidal and wind along with better energy storage will be a winning strategy. Using a closed-fuel-cycle as described by Cleo Abram in her RUclips video "The Big Lie About Nuclear Waste" would drastically reduce the amount of nuclear waste that has to be stored, and that would benefit these nations, as well.
Nuclear is expensive, but it is truly amazing. Here in the US we use alot of nuclear power and not a single person has died from it. The waste takes up hardly any space, contrary to popular belief
Into Europe repeating nucar industy taking points.
It is really curios how only pro cage eu channels sponsor also the old dated nuclear energy
I don't think Germany's stand against nuclear is ideological. They invested a lot in Russian gas. In a weird way too.
Yeah so it confirms its ideological. They hate nuclear because they think chemical = bad. Natural = good
Because nuclear was never a huge thing in germany with only some percent of the energy production and with the accident in Chernobyl, people didn't want them anymore and formed the green political party, which had a huge impact along with regular protests. And what is wrong with importing cheap gas. The US imported gas & oil from the Saudis. No one cares about dictators or human rights.
100% it was ideological, the investment in Russian gas was a 50-year policy move originally intended to bridge the gap between East/West "Ostpolitick" but is no longer in play given Russia has decided to jettison these ties. There is no rational basis behind the nuclear shutdowns, no matter how much solar wind hydro you build, you need a baseload to provide energy when there's a shortfall cus the former 3 are all variable, nuclear can provide energy around the clock. Unless ofc you're cool with energy rationing and blackouts I guess
Too many of my fellow Germans are afraid but they sell it as being green. They are the most verbal ones too. Being a physicist by training, Merkel was pro nuclear until Fukushima. After this accident the political pressure by irrational cowards was just too much.
@@mohammedsarker5756 The problem is that nuclear and renewable don't work well together. In the summer you waste the baseload and in the winter, it is not enough. The only thing that might make sense is when you make gas with that excess energy, but when you need a huge infrastructure doing this. And no, I am not advocating for or against any technology. Everything is a big mess and I don't see a clear way. I think the future will see complex and individual solutions.
Nuclear energy is safe, its even safer than wind energy. Anybody who disagrees has every right to, but know that you're acting out of fear and not rationality.
The biggest concern about nuclear is not safety. At least not among educated people.
@@Micha-qv5uf exactly, the discussion is mostly about costs and if it's worth investing in nuclear or not. Fact of the matter is that nuclear has been significantly more expensive than fossil fuels for decades which reduced its adoption. Now we might be seeing a similar situation play out between nuclear and renewables since the latter has been rapidly declining in cost/kWh, while nuclear has become more expensive in recent years. This doesn't put nuclear out of the race, since renewables necessitate massive investments in new infrastructure in the form of transformers, thicker cables and a lot of energy storage in the form of batteries, hydro pump, hydrogen or some new technology. If the cost difference between renewables and nuclear is similar or smaller than the reduced costs in infrastructure, nuclear would still be a great choice. Team green believes this won't be the case and would rather invest more in renewables and bridge the gap, while team low carbon believes that nuclear can and will be competitive with renewables in the long run. Safety isn't really a concern since it's so much safer than any polluting energy source that it's almost negligible, just as with renewables.
1. I don't know what you mean, when you say that wind is more dangerous, but it definetly cant make big areas uninhabitable for a long time. I know that is very very very very unlikly for nuclear too, but it still can and wind cant.
2. It still needs fuel and still produces dangerous waste, which renewables don't, so in the future renewables combined with storage technology are superior anyway.
Shutting them down in an energy crisis is of cause still stupid.
@@Hooorse He means wind kills more people per KwH. And, uninhabitable for a long time is kind of an exageration, and specially the "big areas". An area the size of a city is NOT a big area, specially compared with that occupied by renewables. And places like Chernobyl are literal wildlife heavens. Also, nuclear waste is NOT dangerous, it is treated, most of it decays in 10 years, even more in 100. It can be stored underground, or in the surface, or recycled
And there is NO storage technology able to power a country for weeks
@@joaquimbarbosa896 The area comparison isn't fair to nuclear nor to renewables. If you wanted a nice wildlife area, you can just put one somewhere, you don't need nuclear disaster for that. Also you can still use the space renewables use for other things, for example putting a path, farmland or houses underneath. But that nuclear takes up that area you mentioned is also very unlikly and I think for arguments sake it is reasonable to assume that nuclear reactors still "waste" less space than renewables even though I don't know it for sure.
The fact that we need some sort of backup in case of unusual energy lows is also a valid criticism. But going entirely nuclear is just not a better option, because if you would have a lot more nuclear reactors you also would have a lot of nuclear waste and this waste IS dangerous. I don't know where you got that from, but current nuclear wast radiats for at least a million years and that radiation damages DNA, which is very much harmful. Even if that tech that is currently researched to reuse that waste comes to market at some point you still have waste, radiating for 300 years and you have to put that somewhere and I don't think anyone wants to have that near them. And then you have the risk of accidents happening with that waste, which could contaminate groundwater.
So what you get is the choice between some amount of more space requirements and a need for a backup versus a lot of dangerous waste you have to store somewhere. I don't like either, but I think the former is more solvable with less risk, but I also don't like risks that can have serous conse quences in general.
Once this channel reaches 1M subs I will say that I was here when there were 30k subs
love to see you hit over 100k subscribers!
You can probably add Sweden to "Team low carbon" after last election where the ruling majority went to election on reversing the shut down process of nuclear power and investing into new nuclear power plants.
I do agree with you, that shutting down already running reactors is stupid, but you could have at leat tried to aproch the topic from a more neutral stands. I mean "Team Green" and "Team low carbon"? Realy? That shaming doesn't help anyone and is just devisive.
Because this is not jurnalism. This is propaganda
But thats what defines them, Germany literally wants to be "green", France defends all low carbon sources
@@joaquimbarbosa896 With these names he is implicitly defining a "good" Team and a "bad" Team for the listener. The good guys who take global warming seriously and the bad guys who only care about ideology.
That is just a bad thing to do if you want to inform about a given topic, because the pro nuclear people will think "I am so right" the whole video and will just ignore points that contradict their position, while the people who are against it will feel shamed and attacked and will therefor not listen.
It would be far more helpful to just present the stances of both side and actually give reasons, why they think that way, so solutions can be found together, because we need to work together and find solutions, not fingerpoint at each other.
@@Hooorse But it IS the description this countries gave themselfs, Germany, leading the renewables block wants to be green (If you interpretate that as bad, that might say something about their aproach), while the nuclear block wants to be low carbon. If somehow green sounds bad (wonder why), its not his fault. Excluding nuclear simply makes no sense, like Germany could simply keep its 100% renewable apraoch, but at least allow other countries to use nuclear, specially those with few renewable resources. Its precisely because we need to work together, that we should accept EVERY low carbon sources. The only motive "team green" sounds bad, its because team green has no coherent plan neither a coherent execuse to force everyone else into following them. But more importantly, the labels are, quite literally, the labels those blocks chose to themselfs
@@joaquimbarbosa896 That might very well be the case, but if you make people feel bad, they will not listen. And implying that someone, who thinks of them selves as someone who takes global warming seriously, doesn't care about global warming, will make that person feel bad and he will not listen to anything you tell him after that.
I don't think Germany made this decision themselves.
Certain aspects of decisions match earlier ideas, but that’s it.
For example, Germany already wanted to phase out nuclear more than 20 years ago and proposed gas as an alternative for coal fired power plants, but included ramping up on wind and solar. Then the government changed, Merkel reversed the decision on nuclear shortly before Fukushima and then did another u-turn, already coating billions of “damages” In payouts to the nuclear industry.
Unfortunately, some states in Germany also didn’t follow that idea of ramping up renewables (noticeably Bavaria!) and instead relied entirely on cheap gas, prolonging nuclear (without being willing to store any nuclear waste) and prolonging a discussion of transporting electricity from northern Germany to Bavaria (plans have been recently finished - after a decade!). Plus imposing extra bureaucracy to prevent any wind and solar wherever possible.
The Merkel-government completely missed out on avoiding fossil fuels for heating, so still today, about half of German homes do rely on gas furnaces and another 15% on district heating from cogeneration in gas and coal power plants (who don’t really provide that much power to the grid and are mostly in service during winter).
So, the new German government didn’t have much of a choice to ensure availability of gas in the short term and is pushing for renewables and no longer fossil based heating in the mid term. Which means: replacing and renovating about half of Germany’s heating systems.
That “use hydrogen in gas furnaces” is a political decision to get every party happy: Germany’s government is formed by three parties(social, greens, liberals), and one of them (liberals…) is heavily promoting “openness for new technologies”. That party also fought for allowing new fossil cars after 2035 if they’d be powered by synthetic efuels. Even the head of Porsche openly said the entire automotive industry is moving to battery powered vehicles and efuels were something left to power historic cars, but wouldn’t have a role for any new cars beyond some niche markets. And hydrogen is going to be a similar thing: it’s just too expensive for heating, especially when there’s other areas (air travel, ships, heavy machinery) where the are little alternatives.
Germany is begging France for more and more electricity...
00:04 "Green zealots" means "dangerous fanatics".
Or Russian agents.
I really don't get this debate when there's so much objective evidence in nuclear energy superiority over all others. Deployable at scale, cheap (if done well), relatively safe (by far compared to others), sustainable especially if developed more, and has minimal impact on the environment. Most of the people I talked about it with agreed that nuclear was the best option, and the few that didn't had really flawed arguments that could be debunked in a matter of minutes. As I write this, "green" Germany produces electricity that emits 10x more Co2 than the one I use in France to post this message (and I'm not taking into account the villages destroyed to build coal mines).
So why are there still some politicians that continue to go against it ? I genuinely don't understand how qualified people can make such a bad mistake. Of course renewable should also be developed, but nuclear is undoubtedly indispensable in a decarbonized world. I hope the terrible things happening right now will at least put us back on the right track.
I’m missing a key point in this discussion: heating.
For example, France has been and is still heavily subsidising nuclear for decades, “forcing” nuclear power to be cheaply available to consumers, so there’s still many people who do have old and inefficient electric heating at home.
And in Germany, about 50% of electricity is already from wind and solar, while coal or gas play a major factor in heating: about half of Germany is heating their homes with gas furnaces, and another 15% use district heating, “harvested” from cogeneration in gas and coal power plants.
By moving on to heat pumps, France could actually reduce their electrical demand for heating, which would be more compatible with the reduced output from French nuclear power plants. And Germany would reduce their dependency on gas and coal.
Beautiful video! What team are you on tho?😜
Nuclear power is the only source of reliable, safe base-load power. Modern reactors are extremely safe and the fact is that very few people have died from nuclear accidents compared to coal, oil, and natural gas. But, natural gas is not just very flexible for power production, but a basic raw material for the chemical industry. Most ammonia, the basic nitrogen fertilizer, is produced from natural gas. Germany is making every mistake possible. Their high electicity costs will make most industry uncompetitive, and their high natural gas costs will drive out most of the chemical industries. France was on the verge of succumbing to the pressure to close their nuclear industry before Macron’s first election. That is why they neglected their nuclear power and have had reliability problems. But, France has reversed the anti-nuclear policy recently, so have the biggest advantage.
That's something a lot of people do not realise about oil. When we talk about oil, the first thing they thing of is energy, car etc... But if we were to actually run out of oil, we have major issues on so many front. The pharmaceutical industry would crumble without access to oil.
Honestly neither side is completely wrong imo. As most here mentioned gas is also quickly fading if we use it more and not really green. However investing heavily in nuclear will have a very high initial investment cost and will take quite some time to integrate new plants to the net. Some here said that team green plans are shortsided. I think it’s more focused on short-term solutions which is alright if the mid and lateterm gaps of that approach are filled. Maybe I forgot something but the combination of both approaches could be a good middleground. I will say however, that Germany phasing out of nuclear completely is mostly ideological and I think we have to reconsider it in the near future. But currently both plans combined will fill the needs for a fast and a sustainable solution doesn’t it? On the basis that Europe works together and not individually. The combined approach could also improve each technology respectively. I don’t think it’s wise to completely invest in nuclear without investing in green hydrogen. With both major EU economies investing in different directions there is space to share knowledge instead of leaving either one to other players.
One side is completly wrong though. Team "low carbon" only wants nuclear to be included, team "green" wants to force everyone into 100% renewables
in a time when there is a real war / violence going on in europe,
does make sense to use violent, war-like words to describe non violence events?
I don't think that nuclear is the future (not talking about nuclear fusion) but it is a way into the future that we should't shut down yet. I hope the yellow team can win this debate because the reasons of team green are mostly ideological and are not looking into the future. That's atleast how I see this whole conflict...
I think this is why SMR development is going to be so important for Europe. If it works out it's a massive win for team low carbon, as now they have something nuclear that can scale far more quickly than traditional reactors, despite some of the compromises on efficiency. Interestingly the most likely front runner for SMR in Europe comes from a country that just decided to leave, Rolls Royce in the UK (who would definitely be on team low carbon if they were still in the EU, despite having a lot of wind power capacity). But that's probably not a major obstacle.
Also I'd say the "issues" France are having with nuclear are mainly because some reactors are reaching the end of their lifespan. That's also the case in some other countries too. So replacing them would be the way forward to fix this problem. Another is river based cooling, but again this can be mitigated with the right upgrades and new reactors.
Unfortunatly, only one european company can build SMR's, and they still have to prove themselfs worth it
Almost all SMR are the same fission reactor nobody wants, making it small doesn’t make its big problem’s go away.
@@YellowRambler If that was the case nobody would be developing them.
@@Croz89
There’s better fission reactors out there but the nuclear industry is stuck in a continuous groundhog day since the 1950s, they like to uses the term this generation or that generation, but it’s still the same old Cold War reactor relic design using two very incompatible substances uranium and water 💦 +☢️=💥.
@@YellowRambler There probably are, but they need a lot more R&D before there is widespread adoption.
Obviously, team low carbon will win. Not because they have the perfect approach, but because the team green's approach simply is not sustainable and will inevitably fail. Public opinion in Germany already shifted in favor of nuclear power. It is only a matter of time.
Within 10 hours!
Why do we use the word "natural" before gas ?
Well, we should use it also before coal. You know "natural coal" sounds better
One of the great advantages of nuclear is energy density. You can stockpile enough uranium to run your country for years or even decades if you choose to do so. Doing the same with gas would require a ridiculous amount of storage.
lol why not sweden in team Nuclear? they where no team?
Interesting
Great video. My point is nuclear energy enabled me the exciting opportunity to go on my first foreign trip to the Netherlands as a teen because employment in our UK nuclear industry enabled it. Only, I've actually been inside one of the world's first nuclear for commercial electricity production between the English/Scottish border. For they had a pioneering and innovative project that was a great success. Just, I appreciate France and Germany who are contributing their expertise to another innovative and pioneering project in the present day, don't you know? Indeed, France is helping to complete a new nuclear design alongside China in England as of 2023. This is just one 🍰 slice of a comprehensive energy and industrial strategy we have here in the UK. In fact, we are all science and technology softpowers, Germany and France and many others nations are contributing to our energy self reliance and netzero carbon goals. Results of which are to be found with record energy production from solar and wind in the UK and Germany(this before the next phase pink/blue/green hydrogen). All major European countries have a decisive role to play. Just don't European countries have another pioneering and innovative build back better to complete? 😊🎉 The UK is 0% coal and last quarter record renewables. After all, isn't it energy efficiency from electromagnetic and quantum technology that underscores our fourth industrial revolution today as if 2023? Pragmatism and following the facts together, everyone has a decisive role to play - no cold war mentality, right?😮😮
Germany is irrational on this part, and hypocritical: if you're against nuclear energy then do not import it from France and other countries.
It’s worth to know that since 2003, Germany has become a net exporter in electricity. For every single year.
France did this winter rely on a special agreement with Germany: French LNG terminals would import gas and send it to Germany, where there’s “still” enough gas power plants to produce electricity, which then can be exported back to France to power the electric heating so common in France while also providing heat (cogeneration) for German district heating.
@@AndersHenke And? That's still no excuse for closing down nuclear plants with increased poverty a.o. as a result..
First, France gets its electricity from Germany and not the other way around, and second, Germany is independent from Russia while France buys uranium from Russia.
Here in Canada, I sit on team carbon-free! Renewables, nuclear, hydro are all playing on the same team against Big Oil aka Alberta and the Tar Sands...
It is very simple. You can build a nuclear plant if you pay TCO. So you have to pay for insurance, storage of waste and destruction of the plant in advance. If you do you can build it.
I always wonder why -- if nuclear is as cheap as advertised -- subsidies like the energy price floor (8:00) are necessary. Another interesting observation here is that EDF has been effectively bankrupt for the last few years and the fact that its losses are absorbed by the French state are basically another big subsidy for nuclear in France.
They fucked up with their new reactor design. It runs into insane cost overruns.
Keep in mind, this is not a nuclear specific problem, but problem more specific to French designs (or implementions of it given French projects in China were pretty okay) as Korean designs don't run into nearly the same problem.
Because EDF was forced to sell at a loss, ans close down reactors, while being pressured to not build more for decades, all the while they neglected maintenence because they were going to shut them down any ways due to 50% nuclear goal
They need subsidies because solar/wind are heavily subsidized. When you want three energy sources to compete fairly in the FREE market then you need to assign similar regulations and give similar financial support. Recently private companies in Germany asked the government to increase financial support if they (the government) ever wanted to continue with their new 2030 solar/wind expansion.
The EDF is forced to sell electricity at almost base cost to solar/wind private companies which then proceed to sell it at many times the price. It is no wonder that they are doing ok for money. Besides EDF aims to provide the service of electricity to the French people. Those solar/wind private companies only care about profits.
@@chinguunerdenebadrakh7022 a big difference is that EPR is a 1600MW reactor, the Korean tops at 1400MW and the USA one at 1000MW, with 2 EPR you have more power than 3 Westinghouse reactors!
It's obvious that nuclear is the future (fission for now, fusion in the future), trying to argue with that is just dumb
Well, considering the costs and progress of projects like Hickleypoint or Flamanvile, realty proves you wrong.
Fission and Fusion has nothing to do with each other on the technical level. The entire discussion is purely about fission. Nobody even talks about fusion. It's an entirely different topic and nobody is against it. Don't play dumb plz.
Nuclear is not exactly a booming sector though. Many countries have been sceptical for ages, and new plants are massive projects that take over a decate to build. It's an option, but the up-front cost makes it hard to compete with increasingly dirt-cheap wind & solar.
And fusion will *maybe* be a late 21st century thing. Not going to be relevant to combat climate change - that needs to happen much sooner.
@@neodym5809 What about the costs of nuclear reactors outside the western buble?
@@faultier1158 Average construction time is 7 years, and many countries have lower times
Woah a nuclear Cold War that’s new
When it said nuclear cold war, I defs thought we were racing to build nuclear
They should stop fighting each other, and let both use both the tech on a depreciating basis for the next 20 years. Tik Tock Renewables with storage tech will be common place in 10-15
The problem is that Germany want that France shut down it's nuclear reactors (it worked for Fessenheim), mainly for energy price since if France industry has acces to "cheap" electricity it will be a problem for the German industry!
No one has mentioned that renewables require vastly more commodity resources such as copper and steel per GW of generation and transmission than nuclear. The transition to renewables is putting upward pressure on the cost of these commodities. Its not a reason in itself not to use renewables, but worthy of note when supply constraints are slowing the deployment of renewables anyway. Nuclear doesn't look so slow.
Could have been a 3min video.
More than ideological, abandoning nuclear for Germany comes from experience: due to its very dense population the problem of nuclear waste storages is essential. Of course no problem for France that ships it to its (former) colonies with no backlash from their voting population.
Thank god the coal plants we continue to run while having shut down our nuclear power plants, or even the gas plants we are still building on mass, don't emit anything dangerous into dense population centers, right?
What the fuck are you talking about ? the french nuclear waste is stored in mainland France, mainly in 3 different sites. Why are you spreading misinformation ? It's so dishonest.
Germany, Netherlands and other countries have drifted too far in implementation of their green marxist dystopia. I don't think there is any chance of return to common sense.
I think the only solution is for the Eastern European countries to break away from the EU and creates their own Union. It would be a block reaching from Baltic to Black Sea, something like Intermarium Pilsudski proposed after WWI.
The use and development of nuclear energy would be absolutely crucial to this block. It would also be based on more conservative values like family, nation, freedom of speech and enterprise and Christianity.
Not everyone in Europe wants to commit cultural and economical suicide under the leadership of Germany.
I don't know who is against nuclear in Spain...
Honestly, both approaches could work, so why not let either country do their thing?
Both should be a back up though and not their focus! All countries should build more solar and wind, no matter if Team Green or Team Low Carbon
Nuclear energy is the safest source of energy.
One of - at least.
Seems to be about on par with wind and solar
@@Martcapt but it works on windless night 😉
@@hofimastah no windless nights on the sea. Offshore wind energy is the future
Save until they are not safe. Chernobyl, Fukushima and many other that were near a nuclear meltdown.. . The war in Ukraine even can lead to another huge "accident".
@@b.k.5667 offshore is expensive and difficult to build, takes up a lot of space and disrupts marine ecosystems
"Team Green", what a bad choice of name. "Dream Sales Team" is more appropriate where we are promised that hydrogen will solve all problems, provide a bright future and much more. In the meantime, we still do not know how to transport industrial quantities of hydrogen.
Why don’t some do some and others do others? Why does every “independent” country have to do the same thing?
Because they have agreed to have some common laws they decide together and then all respect.
@@Hooorse We all know what the EU is, but don't you think that deciding what kind of a f***ng power plant a country is allowed to have is a bit stupid? I understand that we should try to work together, but those tons of "European" legislature is really just Germans interfering in other countries' business at this point.
In my opinion, the discussion in the EU is moving away from the core of the issue. In my opinion, the core of the issue is that the EU must have a plan that takes as a starting point in the technologies that are available today and those that are expected in the future, so that we ensure stable and safe supplies of energy in relation to the need, when it is there.
Nuclear is the best option
From my understanding renewables with storage technology are like nuclear, but better.
Thanks to the storage they would be reliable, they need no fuel don't generate dangerous waste and don't have that (admittedly very small) if of disaster attached.
Of cause, depending on the storage technology, it would need to be replaced every so often, making it kind of a fuel equivalent, but that still leaves the other benefits.
@@Hooorse Use much more land, much more resources, are more expensive, and still can cause blackouts because there's no storage that can power an entire country for weeks
The green team should be called High carbon team.
Natural gas is way more carbon than nuclear!
The methane released during gas excretion and transmission is much worse then the co2
I just don't understand why not both?
Competition is good unless i lose
Germany made a big mistake in discounting nuclear power
France is right, Germany is wrong in this case.
They are both wrong. Shutting down/not running already build nuclear reactors right now is stupid, but relying mostly on nuclear power for the future isn't great either, because renewables with storage technology are like nuclear, but without the dangerous waste and the (admittedly small) risk of disaster.
@@Hooorse Disagree. We should embrace Nuclear fully, it's the best way we have currently to combat climate change. I'm really happy the EPR in Finland started up this year finally.
@kira The supply argument can be made for uranium too. If everybody wants to use it for their electricity, prices will go up.
Also there are a lot of battery technologies in developement that need less rare resources.
ruclips.net/video/n1TBAWlbXKI/видео.html
You can also do stuff like pump water up when you have enough energy and then letting it flow down through a generator when you need energy.