https://thenextweb.com/eu/2017/03/13/check-out-europes-crazy-clean-energy-plan/

Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands are considering creating a new island in the North Sea filled with windmills, enough to power the life of 80 million Europeans.

Denmark's Energinet and DE/NL TenneT are currently negotiating for an agreement to build 70-100 GW of wind power in the North Sea. The island would cover 6 km2 and would be mainly used for servicing the windmills at sea. Building the windmills on the Dogger bank will be cheaper, easier and better than building them on land according to both energy providers. The plan is part of meeting the 2050 goals set in the Paris agreement.

Real ambition would be expanding nuclear energy.

You aren't solving any long term energy problems without embracing the expansion of nuclear energy.

This is good though, I just get annoyed when people who consider climate change to be one of their most important issues are also against nuclear energy.

The narrative needs to change regarding Nuclear energy.

This post was edited by sir_lance_bb on Mar 13 2017 01:58pm

Fission is inherently non-durable. Even breeder reactors and LFTR are not going to create a long-term solution.

A combination of fusion power and other renewable sources is essentially the best long-term solution.

i couldnt agree more, the ideology driven renewable energy madness has to stop
nuclear power has almost unlimited potential and especially a country like germany is milking its citizens to waste billions on ineffective measures
also, renewable energy does not automatically equal eco-friendly energy, something that so many activists just cannot understand

i really dislike this gigantic idea, it doesnt matter how big these wind power stations get, you cant supply an industrial nation with it
reminds me of that solar power plant idea in the sahara desert

by the way, just this january in germany the renewable energy production was almost at zero, needless to say that classic power plants covered for it

we need less ideology and more technology and most importantly more money and projects like the ones in greifswald (germany), culham (england) and the fusion reactor in france (dont know where that one was right now)

That's pretty awesome.

Yeah, that's enough energy for the entire population of Germany (80mil).
That's impressive !


This will be a massive wall, so big, that it will prevent any immigrant air particle from entering Europe.
The British can keep their shitty windy weather, after the Brexit disaster, we will make them pay for the wall !

This post was edited by Knaapie on Mar 13 2017 08:00pm

Nuclear is currently the most powerful energy source option at the moment and into the foreseeable future.

If the climate is a real concern , you should be 100% for the expansion of nuclear energy.

Nuclear needs to be expanded vastly. Wind is pretty solid and has great potential but it's almost inexcusable that nuclear isn't expanded.

You will not combat climate change in any pragmatic way by thinking we can defeat fossil fuel companies/industry with just renewable energy. The battery technology just isn't there to make it viable when you compare that vs the cost of oil and gas.

If climate change is going to be combated or have any hope, Nuclear has to be expanded, it's as simple as that.



The wind technology is a good idea. Wind has real promise in applications for energy, it's just we can't be foolish and just try to think we can't completely replace fossil fuels without nuclear energy.

All fossil fuel subsidies need to go. I don't support a tax on those companies but the government should not be openly involving themselves with fossil fuel.

I'd like to see nuclear energy production in the US be vastly increased and wind energy be expanded in all places it is sustainable and massive amounts of funding into RnD within battery research. The better battery technology becomes, the more feasible renewable energy becomes.

If the Western world was completely sustainable on renewable energy and nuclear, it would change the dynamic of every part of life and even affect foreign policy. No longer would strategic interests related to oil reserves impact our decisions such as Saudia Arabia and how fucked up they are yet the US remains allies with them.

This post was edited by sir_lance_bb on Mar 14 2017 07:43am

Uranium is not a durable resource and its enrichment takes a lot of energy. At present consumption of Uranium it would last more than 200 years. However, currently only 10% of energy is generated by nuclear power, whilst 60%+ is still powered by fossil fuels. Increasing the power generation by nuclear sources is going to decrease the amount of time we have with it to decades instead of centuries. For long-term solutions, this isn't viable.

Solar is already getting to be pretty competitive with oil/gas in many places, the only real hardship is all the harmonic distortion introduced into the energy system with many of the modern renewable sources (could hypothetically be solved with several solutions but all decrease grid efficiency significantly).

Other fissionable products are options, but the research and experience with those reactors simply isn't as far as Uranium-based reactors. LFTRs (Thorium fuel cycle) is more or less in the same stage as fusion reactors are (with fewer hurdles to take but still in the same developmental stage).

I can see fission providing a baseline of power to generate at least somewhat of a decent 50/60Hz wave, but modern renewable power is pretty much mandatory for a long-term solution.

You are naive if you think solar has the ability to cover energy needs now or even within the next 30 years barring incredibly breakthroughs.

The most significant hurdle in stopping climate change is the reality that we have to stop using fossil fuel NOW if we want to prevent any more damage than we have already done.

If you're worried about 100 years down the road, you should be even more accepting of Nuclear because nuclear is the best short-mid term solution to stopping fossil fuel energy usage and having some hope for the future.

And long term down the road, who knows what advances are made with Nuclear.

The solution is an energy plan that expands Nuclear and Wind/Solar. But to curb Nuclear might as well be to some extent allowing climate change to get worse because you aren't willing to accept the reality that Nuclear is a good solution now to fight fossil fuel.

there is plenty of material available, the uranium sources you talk about are the classic ones (not including the fact that its possible to extract it from sea water)
and you mentioned thorium already which is more common

availability is not a problem regarding long term solutions, but the increasing amount of nuclear waste comes into the play at that point
there are so many ideas around for that, its impossible to list it all here, more recycling, use the heat emitted from that waste, using giant catapults to throw it into space (since rockets are not viable), its crazy ^^



wind technology is fine, but imo not for large scale energy production
just as solar panels i think they are best suited for local energy production for households

lets not forget that producing them in the first place costs huge amounts of energy and ressources, plus especially solar panels produce some serious hazardous waste when they are not usable anymore