Led by France, 10 EU countries call on Brussels to label nuclear energy as green source

[PoliticAverse]

A group of ten EU countries, led by France, have asked the European Commission to recognise nuclear power as a low-carbon energy source that should be part of the bloc's decades-long transition towards climate neutrality.

Tapping into Europe's ongoing energy crunch, the countries make the case for nuclear energy as a "key affordable, stable and independent energy source" that could protect EU consumers from being "exposed to the volatility of prices".

The letter, which was initiated by France, has been sent to the Commission with the signature of nine other EU countries, most of which already count nuclear as part of their national energy mix: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Romania.

Nuclear plants generate over 26% of the electricity produced in the European Union.

Read the rest at: https://www.euronews.com/2021/10/11/led-by-france-10-eu-countries-call-on-brussels-to-label-nuclear-energy-as-green-source

[Woodswalker]

1. I know I'll get horsewhipped.

But with Russia soon to be the EUs biggest supplier of energy maybe it's time to revisit nuclear energy. There I said it

[PoliticAverse]

3. The U.S. was right -- Europe has become a 'hostage' to Russia over energy, analysts warn

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/07/europe-is-now-a-hostage-to-russia-over-energy.html

[Haggard Celine]

4. The U.S. should revisit it, too.

It would be great if Europe could get free of Russia and we could get free of Saudi Arabia.

[jpak]

10. How much US electricity is generated by oil?

Awaiting your answer

[Haggard Celine]

11. Google it. I'm not your monkey.

[FirefighterJo]

2. I follow you

Because Belgium is at this moment building a sub critical low cost reactor. Want to know more? Google on project Myrrha

And do not forget project Iter, paid by the Union, located in France

[Crazyleftie]

5. It is certainly NOT "green"

with all of the radioactive waste issues but unfortunately it may be a quick but dangerous solution for Europe

[jimfields33]

6. Maybe it. But compared to oil, won't it save our planet?

The problem with going completely electric is that the grid can become overused and fail. Bottom line is to save the planet.

[Vogon_Glory]

7. The waste issue aside

We’ve had over 30 years to see the disastrous effects of greenhouse gas emissions and other fossil fuel pollutants on the environment. The current mega-drought in California is a frightening portent of a disastrous future if greenhouse gas emissions continue.

We’ve tried the “No Nukes!” approach since Chernobyl. What we have are rising temperatures, shrinking water supplies, receding crop lands, growing deserts and reductions of fish populations like salmon and cod.

Sorry, but we do need base-load power plants. Solar and renewables can’t do it alone (Neither can dams, especially if we also seek to restore old salmon runs). Nukes may not be green per se, but compared to coal and gas, they’re a better bad option.

[lark]

12. I hope not. Nuclear is too dangerous! n/t

[hunter]

8. Nuclear power is the only energy source that can replace fossil fuels entirely...

... especially coal and natural gas.

Renewable energy experiments in places like California, Germany, and Denmark have failed. They've only increased our long term dependence on natural gas.

There's enough natural gas in the ground to destroy the natural environment as we know it. It is best we leave it in the ground.

Solar and wind power won't save the world because none of these renewable energy schemes are economically viable without natural gas backup power.

As the world population approaches eight billion people we've become dependent on high density energy sources for food and shelter.

If we continue to burn fossil fuels for this energy billions of people will suffer and die as wide regions of the earth become uninhabitable because of rising seas, droughts, floods, and extreme weather events.

Natural gas is the most dangerous fuel imaginable, largely because most people seem to think it is "clean" and most renewable energy fantasies are economically dependent on it.

[Vogon_Glory]

9. The California and Pacific NW droughts

Are frightening portents of what could be in store for us if we continue to emit greenhouse gasses at present (or higher) rates.

Much of the western US is dependent on variable water supplies (So to is Much of China and India, not to mention other places like the Andes).

[hunter]

13. The drought and fires have directly affected my family.

Thankfully none of the family homes burned down, but the fires came close and there were mandatory evacuations -- all this and covid too.

We also know people whose wells have gone dry.

The water that's moved around the state, uphill and downhill, plays a very significant role in maintaining the stability of the electric grid, especially as wind and solar inputs fluctuate.

With less water that stability has to be maintained by natural gas power plants.

There's nothing mysterious about that, anyone can watch how it works here:

http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html

Hydropower is down very significantly. That load has been picked up by fossil fuel power plants. When the power plant at Diablo Canyon is shut down gas use will inevitably increase.

Germany has similar data available on the internet.

https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&stacking=stacked_absolute_area

[PoliticAverse]

14. News Germany: Coal tops wind as primary electricity source

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-coal-tops-wind-as-primary-electricity-source/a-59168105

Solar and wind need there to be backup generation capability, and that is often coal still.

[hunter]

15. Now compare Germany to France...

https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=FR&stacking=stacked_absolute_area

France closed its last coal mine twenty years ago.

[StevieM]

16. The United States needs to recognize nuclear power as green.

Nuclear energy, and a whole lot of it, is the only way to prevent catastrophic climate change.