How dependent is France on Niger's uranium?
How dependent is France on Niger's uranium?
The military coup in Niger has raised concerns about uranium mining in the country by the French group Orano, and the consequences for France's energy independence.
You're viewing part of a thread.
@MattMastodon @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel
The optimum imho is:
-
The bulk of the generation from wind and solar, and nuclear for 15% - 20% base load. Also some Geothermal where cheap but it's potential is small.
-
Grids improved to cover local and intermediate renewable generation, and extended to facilitate import/export.
-
Variable electricity pricing for demand shifting.
The result is vastly reduced need for storage, probably batteries used intelligently in a hierarchy of grid and home, compared to the naΓ―ve "just build wind and solar and batteries."
Then add in:
- A 90% transition from personal cars to free green public transport (#FGPT), taxis, e-bikes, bicycles, and walking.
This all needs no new technology (although for nuclear there are several advances not yet used at scale: molten salt, small, modular, U238, thorium), it needs a fraction of the rare earths, and delivers a huge in reduction steel production courtesy of car recycling.
#Energy #Renewables #ClimateCrisis #Climate #Nuclear
[P.S. Dams damage eco-systems so I'm not in favour of more hydro generation, and pumped hydro storage needs the spare water too.
Biomass not "net zero" and obviously not "zero" which we actually need. It's just more carbon burning plus extra pollution from the agriculture and other products of combustion. It increases land use, and at present the industry is full of corruption with trees being burned sometimes alongside shredded car tyres... and subsidised!]
There are a lot of really good ideas there. I only get 500 letters so briefly:
The priority is damage minimalusation. We are heading towards a very bad future where civilisation collapse is very possible.
#nuclear uses lots of energy to build. Even windmills use fibreglass.
#nuclear investment may take funds from #renewables which can provide an energy overabundance.
We need all Storage options, hydro, H2 and battery and demand side measures.
nuclear uses lots of energy to build. Even windmills use fibreglass.
It may be more expensive to build, but not because it's more energy intensive. Especially when you look at capacity. It is by far the most efficient source, requiring much less material and energy per generation capacity.
That's a big claim, and having watched a #nuclear power station being built I struggle to agree. Especially if you look at full life cycle from mining uranium to disposal.
Also most of the work with a #windmill is establishing the site. Once done repairs and upgrades are cheap.
And #renewables are quick. Chuck a spare at it and you'll have useful energy in a few months. The main problem in the UK is government obstructing them.
And they're still being built.
I'm challenging the claim about energy use, not cost. Uranium mining is a rounding error in this regard.
What you're missing from seeing a power station being built is how much energy it produces. Being conservative, a single reactor generates as much energy as around 1000 wind turbines. And that's without taking into account the full life cycle, which can probably 3-4x that number.
The energy density numbers of nuclear power are such completely different orders of magnitude to other energy sources that people usually have trouble understanding them in real world terms.
Well zeros can make a big difference and the cost is not to be sniffed at. Our local reactor is looking to cost 40 billion. You could run every school and hospital in Wales for 2 years with that amount of money and have spare change to build a couple of tidal lagoons.
You can easily build 1000 wind turbines for the cost of one reactor and do it in less time.
Of course, when they get fusion going...
Again, I'm not talking of costs, that's a whole different discussion. Only pointing out the environmental impact. Although I very much believe in a few decades we're going to find out the hard way how much more expensive it is not to have spent the money now, and we're going to be wishing we did.
We certainly need to spend the money now on #renewables to get #ZeroCarbon and mitigate #climate breakdown.
I assume you are talking about #embodied energy and found this.
But I would say embodied energy of renewables or #nuclear is almost irrelevant as it is a one off. It's an investment so will reap a massive reward in CO2 reduction year on year.
However, cost is a real problem for nuclear. And in terms of scaling up fast, #wind & #solar seem best.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints/
That's exactly what I'm talking about, yes.
Investing only in what's fast is the kind of short sighted thinking that has put us in this situation in the first place. We need diversity on the grid if we're serious about decarbonising. But also, Japan and South Korea can build nuclear plants in 4-5 years, why can't we?
Because there are a number of problems with #nuclear
It's so expensive it requires state support to even get the financing off the ground. And a wealthy state at that.
Safety issues mean the risk has to be underwritten by a government as no insurer will touch it
Disposal costs destroy the economic viability so this has to be underwritten by the state
They consume huge amounts of water
So, even China is backing off from nuclear
That is an incredibly biased article. And most of those claims are demonstrably false. The fact remains that the past 60 years of worrying about economics has put us in this situation. And that short sightedness is proving catastrophic for the planet. What is the economic viability of worldwide catastrophe?
Permanently Deleted
Permanently Deleted
@Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Ardubal @Sodis
So
One #nuclear power station will buy about a million #electric cars. Most #EVs have a 300km range but most days go <30km.
So the mean available #energy capacity of all these cars would run the #UK for 24 hours using #V2G (Vehicle to grid)
This could be a massive #car share scheme with a couple of EVs on every street
All the energy could come from #wind or #solar and the #battery fills the gaps when there is no wind
@MattMastodon @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis
A few points to factor in:
- A nuclear power station has a much longer lifetime than batteries, solar panels, and wind turbines.
- You need not only the batteries, but also the panels/turbines to fill them.
- Conversion and storage losses are significant. Attached is a rough overview for Hβ.
- Transmission infrastructure costs to/from individual cars are significant.
- 24 h is not enough by far to balance out usual fluctuations.
@Ardubal @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis
What do you think of this?
"Most recently, state-runΒ EnovaΒ awarded EUR 61 million for fiveΒ green hydrogen production plants, referred to as hubs, along the Norwegian coastline from north to south. The hubs will be an essential part of #Norwayβs clean hydrogen infrastructure and connect Norwegian players with theΒ #EU #hydrogen valleysΒ emerging in #Europe"
https://businessnorway.com/articles/norway-invests-big-realise-clean-hydrogen-future
@MattMastodon @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis
Without klicking anything, 61 million β¬ is practically nothing, so I do not expect this to be a big, impactful project. It might be a nice little extra income from surplus hydro power (Norway is almost completely running on hydro).
Then looking into the links, this supports just a small fleet of up to 40 ships. Which is good.
I think it can be a good way for this niche, and it might be one little thing less to worry about.
@Ardubal @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis
Shipping is a massive issue in terms of CO2. What I didn't appreciate is how many ships are used for short journeys.
The Damen ship looks ideal for public transport. Siemens seem to have a number of solutions. I know P&O have bought an electric ferry (Chinese) for UK to France route.
I guess the problem is longer journeys.
Maybe we need to just stop buying stuff from the other side of the planet.
https://www.siemens-energy.com/global/en/offerings/references/electric-ferries.html
@MattMastodon @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis
Yes, shipping in general, especially long-distance, is a huge issue. But it is only solvable through economics. A solution must be at least as effective and efficient (from a business perspective) as the current dirty oil burning, /and/ significantly better at something to overcome inertia.
My bet would be #nuclear power for that: already being done for decades (mostly military though), and the environment seems ideal (no cooling issues).
@Ardubal @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis
Forgive me if I'm not surprised by that suggestion. π
But having floating nuclear power stations might not be a bad idea given most of our present one are near sea level and...
@Ardubal @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis
Thanks for this. You have raised many interesting points and are obviously very knowledgeable.
I think #H2 may also be a read herring also. At the moment the cost of green hydrogen is so much higher than blue hydrogen, the cynic in me is wondering if this is just an excuse to rebrand fossil fuels
If my calculations about battery tech are correct we will have lots of #batteries very soon.
More than we would need for a few days
Very soon
@MattMastodon @Ardubal @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis
Batteries are great for short term storage (Hours to Days), but the further you are from the equator, the more you need seasonal storage.
Hydrogen possibly fits part of that, if it is produced by electrolysis when wind / solar are in surplus.
Problems are:
how to store it, it leaks through most storage containers, requires vast amounts of energy to liquify and
The round trip from Electricity via H2 to Electricity is very inefficient.@MattMastodon @Ardubal @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis
A thought,
I wouldn't completely write methane, LPG , or any other petrochemical, off yet, as a seasonal storage medium.They are a lot easier to store and transport than H2.
They can be produced from green H2 + captured CO2https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanation
We have a lot of existing infrastructure which can use them.
That is of course If we can produce enough surplus Solar / Wind to make them.
https://www.power-technology.com/features/eth-zurich-fuel-air-and-sunlight/
@BrianSmith950 @Ardubal @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis
Interesting bit of chemistry. A liquid fuel made from #hydrogen would be very useful.
If green hydrogen was practical this would be interesting. At the moment it looks like green hydrogen is ridiculously more expensive than hydrogen made from fossil fuels.
So the temptation for companies would be to use dirty hydrogen...
@MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Ardubal @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis There seems to be a lot of uncertainty around the cost of green hydrogen. The first three Google links differ wildly on it.
Natural gas has certainly increased the cost of grey hydrogen lately.
If the problem is the cost of electricity, that's easily solved by producing mainly when there's a surplus of green electricity. However, if the cost is the capital outlay, that's harder. Which is it?
Of course, we can and must require by law that all new capacity be green. Current incentives also include blue, but there is more green hydrogen actually being built.
the cynic in me is wondering if this is just an excuse to rebrand fossil fuels
That's exactly what it is. Hydrogen power plants are just trojan horses for methane. Since they can burn one as well as the other, but CH4 is much more economically convenient.
This is interesting in terms of demand side measures
"Globally each tonne of steel produced gives rise to an average 1.85 tonnes of CO2 (tCO2), accounting for around 7-9% of global emissions."
Building overcapacity of renewables means Europe can smelt for free most days. Other industries and households use can also be demand side managed for low wind days.
#Renewables are the gift that never stop giving.
For example Sweden are investing in nuclear but they have massive #hydro so they have the storage problem nailed. But politics means they are spending money on nuclear rather than a Solar Wind Hydro solution.
#nuclear energy is mainly a scam by big business rather than a cost effective or sensible energy source. It takes funding from renewables and leaves it in the pockets of big banks.
The strike price on Hinkley ends in 2063 but cost overruns mean probably later
-