667
A nuclear plant’s closure was hailed as a green win. Then emissions went up
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2024
667 points (92.3% liked)
News
23353 readers
3084 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Lol, anti-environment propaganda. Also, it's really hard for me to accept nuclear energy as a source, considering how dangerous it can be, and because of the fact that ANTI-environmentalists are pushing for it so hard.
You are anti-science. Modern nuclear is clean energy. The plant needed a lot of work, but nuclear energy is safe and the answer in the long-run. It strips the earth of far less resources and is the most abundant source of energy. Modern reactors like thorium and other designs with built in disipation of heat cannot melt down or have runaway reactions in general. Although "free" solar and wind require both habitat destruction en masse as well as mining for millions of tons of rare earth mineral. Nuclear requires a finite footprint where you can even just upgrade existing facilities and existing fissionable material can be used and the waste can even be recycled to make more reactor fuel. You fell for the doom and gloom of the mass media.
Are there even any commercial thorium reactors in use?
As solar and wind are already more economical and less of a financial risk than uranium reactors, I don't see anyone from western countries, with strict safety concerns then china, investing in newer nuclear technologies. Maybe when every office building and industrial complex has solar panels on its roof, there might be renewed interest.
The supply and environmental impact of mining rare earth elements (REEs) and other critical minerals used in solar panels and renewable energy technologies vary across different elements:
Supply Constraints
Gallium and Indium: These elements are not rare in the Earth's crust, but they are typically produced as byproducts of zinc and aluminum mining, which means their supply is limited by the production rates of these primary metals. Their availability is considered more constrained due to the specificities of their mining and production processes rather than their actual abundance in the Earth's crust.
Tellurium: This element is one of the least abundant elements in the Earth's crust. It is primarily obtained as a byproduct of copper refining. Its limited availability is a concern for the scaling of cadmium telluride (CdTe) solar panels.
Dysprosium and Neodymium: While these rare earth elements are relatively abundant, their economic deposits are concentrated in specific regions, particularly in China. This geographical concentration creates supply risks related to geopolitical factors, rather than actual scarcity in the Earth's crust.
Environmental Issues
Mining and processing of rare earth elements and other critical minerals can have significant environmental impacts:
Water Pollution and Toxicity: The mining process for REEs often involves the use of toxic chemicals, which can lead to water pollution if not properly managed. The release of toxic substances can harm local water sources and affect ecosystems and human health.
Radioactive Waste: Some rare earth element deposits are associated with materials that contain naturally occurring radioactive elements such as uranium and thorium. The processing of these elements can result in radioactive waste, posing challenges for disposal and management.
Habitat Destruction: Mining activities can lead to significant alteration of landscapes, destruction of habitats, and loss of biodiversity. This is particularly concerning in areas of high ecological value.
Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The extraction and processing of these minerals are energy-intensive, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions, especially if the energy used is derived from fossil fuels.
Yes, there are thorium reactors currently in various stages of development and testing, though large-scale commercial deployment is still in progress. China is notably advancing in this field, moving closer to completing the world's first thorium reactor. They have been working on an experimental molten salt reactor, which uses thorium as fuel, with construction on a 2-MW prototype reactor nearly finished. The first tests of this prototype were anticipated to begin as of my last update oai_citation:1,China moves closer to completion of world’s first thorium reactor -- ANS / Nuclear Newswire.
In addition to China's efforts, Copenhagen Atomics, a company based in Denmark, is making significant progress toward the mass manufacturing of thorium reactors. They have developed full-scale reactor hardware for molten salt thorium nuclear reactors and have announced plans to have their first reactor operational by 2028 oai_citation:2,Copenhagen Atomics Progress to Mass Manufacturing Thorium Reactors and First Reactor in 2028 | NextBigFuture.com.
These developments highlight the ongoing interest and investment in thorium technology as a potentially safer and more sustainable alternative to traditional uranium-based nuclear power.
I'm not arguing with any of these points and not if it can be done or that it might be less draining on the environment. The reality is that it's not there and any current project can't use them. It's either uranium reactors, wind, solar or hydro (maybe also tides?)
And, like I said, it's normal that these types of projects are more viable in China with laxer safety and no political roadblocks.
We should halt current efforts with the promise of some better alternative in the future. If currently the cheapest and easiest is solar, we should do that. When newer nuclear reactors price themselves, it can change.
But a promise that newer nuclear reactors might be cheaper and safer is no argument for building a current generation nuclear reactor.
But wind turbines kill birds!
Fossil fuel advocates always have a reason to fight for their paymasters.