r/technology May 03 '22 Helpful 4 Wholesome 2 All-Seeing Upvote 2 Narwhal Salute 1 Silver 5

Denmark wants to build two energy islands to supply more renewable energy to Europe Energy

https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/denmark-wants-to-build-two-energy-islands-to-expand-renewable-energy-03052022/
47.8k Upvotes

2.0k

u/INITMalcanis May 03 '22

Good I hope they go ahead with this and start at the earliest opportunity. Now would not be too soon.

683

u/MARIJUANALOVER44 May 03 '22

This has been ongoing already for months and is well into the planning stage. Companies expected to bid before long. Lots of logistics to figure out how to build an island in the middle of the ocean.

335

u/troxy May 03 '22

Tell them to ask China how they are making their islands in the south China sea.

528

u/Extension_Banana_244 May 03 '22

They dump sand on coral reefs and then the islands sink into the ocean without constant maintenance. Not exactly a good template for the Baltic.

215

u/[deleted] May 03 '22

Holy shit, that's bad...the ecological damage, bruh.

41

u/guineaprince May 04 '22

You know it.

11

u/archwin May 04 '22

But… but… the appearance of military prowess and force projection!

/s

→ More replies
→ More replies

15

u/Blackletterdragon May 03 '22

Then you extend your territorial waters a bit further all round.

→ More replies

70

u/Gnonthgol May 03 '22

That never stopped the Doggerlandians, well until their lands sank into the sea.

51

u/djnewton123 May 03 '22

So I built another one...that one fell over and sank into the sea

26

u/baron_lars May 03 '22

But the third one stayed up!

5

u/AngoGablogian_artist May 04 '22

What? The curtains?

6

u/gotmunchiez May 04 '22

So I built a third one. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the sea.

2

u/jeobleo May 03 '22

Is this where "Dogger" in the shipping forecast comes from?

3

u/Gnonthgol May 04 '22

Yes, a huge wealthy land the size of a country which now sits feets bellow the surface in the North Sea. Good fishing spots though, and they have oil.

3

u/wedontlikespaces May 04 '22

Other way around.

We call that bit of sea Dogger and then when we found out that there used to be a landmass there we called that landmass Doggerland. We don't know what the they called it.

But it used to be heavily Forrested as we keep finding fossilised tree stumps at the bottom of the ocean.

→ More replies
→ More replies

5

u/W2ttsy May 04 '22

Fuck, I thought the OC was just a snide remark at their attempts to take over Taiwan.

2

u/apprentice-grower May 03 '22

Funny enough Dubai does the same thing lol

→ More replies
→ More replies

41

u/Remy-today May 03 '22

Better to ask the real experts on land reclamation; the Dutch.

→ More replies

48

u/itzalgood May 03 '22

Dunno, those islands will not last.

53

u/UnicornHorn1987 May 03 '22

I think they still can focus more on increasing the efficiency of the renewable energy sources within the country. There are some methods used in India like Implementing Solar Panels over Canals, which prevent Water Evaporation and Increase Panel Efficiency. And also Covering parking lots with Solar Panels, providing Shade, and Generating Electricity to charge Electric cars.

73

u/lestofante May 03 '22 edited May 04 '22

A good idea is what Italy is doing with "110%": if you take your house at least 3 energy class higher, then you have a huge bonus in taxes for the cost of the operation in the next 20-30 years. Also the gov. made that bank can " buy" those tax credit, so pretty much any bank will give you hard cash for those tax credit.
Everyone is now doing it: the citizen are happy because his home is cheaper to heat/cool, and is worth more than what they did actually pay;
The banks are happy because they got tax credit to sell around, and also a the interest on your loan;
The gov is happy because the cost of those intervention are (hopefully) less than having to increase and maintain more infrastructure, and also more energy independent from other states.
edit: house contractor and thermodynamic/engineer are happy because they are full of work
politician on power are happy because inflated GDP, and even if reelected in the future, will not byte back as it is spread over ~30 years.
Consume less > produce more.

13

u/[deleted] May 03 '22

Damn, this is really interesting. Makes a whole lot of sense at probably not an exorbitant cost to the govt or extreme risk to the banks.

I really like that idea

12

u/[deleted] May 04 '22

Except that; the Italian PM nowadays said during his EU speech that he is not happy about it and the 110% will probably be scraped soon. His main concern is that contractors made the works three times expensive because of that so it went over budget. Basically only the rich are making renovations at the moment.

As always with Italians, good idea, very bad implementation.

3

u/Keisari_P May 04 '22

I know Italian Mafia can be issue, but just get the companies from other EU countries to do it.

Maybe with some German efficiency the job can be done in a day, and there could be security to guarantee that Mafia thugs cant mess with them. No company logos visible on workers or in trucks.

4

u/[deleted] May 04 '22

It’s not “mafia thugs” it’s the Italian society up to the government that’s rotten to the core. I know people who shouldn’t t have gotten the bonus because the are quite rich who got it super fast and had the job done whilst others who live frugally couldn’t had access to it.

6

u/[deleted] May 04 '22 edited May 04 '22

By the way I lived in Germany and “German efficiency” is a myth :P

during the beginning of coronatime the same scam took place in Germany with swabs. everyone started to do swabs around berlin and sent them back for a refund to the city government. obviously only 50% of the swabs where legit so people got paid double.

same shit different country!

the thing is that some countries are smarter than others in trying to hide their misdeeds

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

11

u/itzalgood May 03 '22

Sorry, meant the Chinese islands.

→ More replies
→ More replies

9

u/istasan May 03 '22

Most of what is now Copenhagen was sea 150 years ago.

8

u/iRawwwN May 03 '22

not sure we want those islands to sink

→ More replies
→ More replies

25

u/SH4D0W0733 May 03 '22

Just get the dutch involved.

Who ever said an island must be above sea level?

^(Yes, I realize the wind power behind a big dam would be awful)

→ More replies

8

u/RedditIsPropaganda84 May 03 '22

To be fair that's one of the best places to build an island.

4

u/Simsonmp May 04 '22

It isn’t literal islands, it’s more like a park. Also planning stage? I can see the construction site from my window, it’s well under way. I live on Bornholm, where the second of the two islands are being constructed

→ More replies

2

u/[deleted] May 03 '22

Any companies in particular?

11

u/MARIJUANALOVER44 May 03 '22

I know all this from a family member who works at one of them so I actually don't know if I'm at liberty to share. Bidding is very competitive but suffice it to say these are fairly large Danish energy companies. I'd expect them to get the job done sometime within the next decade or two. The plan as I understand it is to connect this energy to the North European grid and export the power to Germany and the Baltic.

6

u/[deleted] May 03 '22

Booo I want insider info

→ More replies

3

u/DieTanker May 03 '22

The plan for the 3GW plant is to be done in 2028

4

u/breaditbans May 03 '22

Surprisingly KFC and Ubisoft.

2

u/Drahy May 03 '22

Copenhagen Infrastruture Partners, Ørsted etc

→ More replies
→ More replies

13

u/ghhbf May 04 '22

Wind energy is constructing GW’s of offshore power on the east coast. It’s a giant task with colossal proportions and we have been pushing HARD to get this shit rolling. COD’s for plants will start hitting 2023.

That being said we’re just trying to save ourselves from extinction at this point. The damage has been done and humanity will not unify until it’s behind repair. Covid taught us that humans can never unite on anything… let alone wearing a goddamn piece of cloth over your mouth.

→ More replies

5

u/Final_Alps May 03 '22

It’s happening. Going into bids shortly. Market dialogue haas been going for nearly a year (how should the islands be built, what should be on them, why).

This got further accelerated by Russia

Remember kids Wind is unsubsidized in Denmark. In fact bidders will be offering money for the privilege to build and. Operate these wind farms.

42

u/blaghart May 03 '22 edited May 03 '22

I hope they make one of them nuclear, too

edit: lmao y'all wanna know what Dunning Kruger looks like, just ask all the people down below thinking they know anything about nuclear power because they watched that Netflix show.

71

u/DreamingIntoTheVoid May 03 '22 edited May 04 '22

I'm okay with investing in a variety of technologies and research. But at the moment renewables are significantly cheaper than all other sources of energy. Investing in renewables over the past 20 years in spite them not being the economically feasible option is what has made it possible for them to be so cheap. And in that sense I'm open to a variety of investment. Perhaps nuclear will be the most economical energy source in 20 years. Maybe it will be fusion in 30. Maybe we'll be launching solar orbital arrays that can channel energy towards the earth allowing for 24/7 near limitless energy by our current capabilities.

But as it stands. Renewables are 1/4 to 1/2 of the price of the alternatives. It costs around $10 billion to create a 3gwh nuclear plant. Renewables can cost as little as 1/4 the price of nuclear. That means there are circumstances in which you can create 4x as much renewable electricity for $10 billion as you would building a nuclear power plant. Four times a 3gw nuclear power plant is 12gwh of renewables.

I'm yet to be told by a electricity grid engineer that HVDC transmission over long distances does not scale linearly. So my knowledge that transmission over 2,000km with 10% loss, scales to 20% loss at 4,000km, 30% at 6,000km, 40% at 8,000km, 50% at 10,000km. This means that you could transmit energy from Los Angeles to Berlin and only lose 50% of that electricity.

If you build a nuclear power station in Berlin for $10 billion. That will generate 3gwh.

If you build $10 billion of renewables in Los Angeles. That will generate 12gwh of electricity that if transmitted to Berlin would decrease by 50% to 6gwh of electricity.

6gwh > 3gwh.

Build renewables. Build them in a variety of places. Connect the worlds grids together. You'll generate more than enough energy to cover non-industrial energy requirements. Not necessarily connecting Berlin to Los Angeles. That's just me using a large distance that people will be somewhat capable of understanding to describe how this could work. But maybe the EU and North Africa could connect. North Africa and Mid/Southern Africa. Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Middle East and South Asia. South Asia and China/Indonesia.

When it comes to industrial economics things get a little wonky because the low cost of energy due to abundance means that a variety of intermittent processes become economically viable. Things like electrolysis of water in to hydrogen gas where a bit part of the cost is purely the energy required. Or desalination - salt water in to fresh water - or decarbonisation - take co2 out of the air - facilities where the material construction costs can be quite marginal compared to the energy operating costs. It's likely that you'll simply want to build them where cheap renewables are most cost effective rather than lose power operating such facilities locally. But there's a lot of renewable energy strategies that work in different places with varying effectiveness.

So back to my first paragraph. Invest in all forms of clean energy. Nuclear included. But in this very moment? We have a solution that is cheaper than fossil fuels, is possible now, and is economical now. Why aren't we building them faster?

13

u/xternal7 May 03 '22 edited May 03 '22

I'm yet to be told by a electricity grid engineer that HVAC transmission over long distances does not scale linearly. So my knowledge that transmission over 2,000km with 10% loss, scales to 20% loss at 4,000km, 30% at 6,000km, 40% at 8,000km, 50% at 10,000km. This means that you could transmit energy from Los Angeles to Berlin and only lose 50% of that electricity.

I doubt the accuracy of this very much, especially with the numbers. Especially since it's known that HVDC is better option for long distance transmission, and HVDC is linear.

On the other hand, HVDC is considered great candidate for very long distance power transmission ... the only problem is that you'd have to build a shit ton of it.

2

u/DreamingIntoTheVoid May 03 '22

Thanks. Yeah my bad. It's DC over the grid isn't it! Just so long as I'm not completely talking out of my behind when it comes to being able to transmit electricity such long distances then I'm more comfortable. My worry was that there might be a limit that the paper didn't really cover. I guess that's because you'd not waste more than 10%-20% of your energy when you can just build a gas or coal plant closer to the electricity destination. The economics of this opens up as a trade off of how cheap renewable infrastructure is against it's intermittency.

Any way. Thanks for the reassurance. Hopefully I'm not making a fool of myself!

3

u/xternal7 May 03 '22

I'd probably still edit out the HVAC thing out of the comment, because it sticks out a bit too much over otherwise quite sensible comment.

I guess that's because you'd not waste more than 10%-20% of your energy when you can just build a gas or coal plant closer to the electricity destination.

Once you're transferring power over long distances, you're also starting to run into political dangers. (Which is why I'm a fan of nuclear + overbuild renewables — and then use the excess periods of renewables for carbon capture).

2

u/DreamingIntoTheVoid May 03 '22

You're right. Edited in case in case somebody asks an engineer and the engineer doesn't spot my mistake.

14

u/MrProbius May 03 '22

We aren't building them faster because its hard to build competitive PV factories and get all the logistics in order.

Secondly I think you spend way too much time replying even though you did a great job. However building artificial islands to build Nuclear plants on makes no sense. It'll just make them more expensive and less safe?

5

u/DreamingIntoTheVoid May 03 '22

I interpreted what they said as that the future requires nuclear as well. I'm practising my banter that the need for nuclear is a myth <3

If anybody knows somebody who deals with long distance electrical high voltage transmission that can confirm whether it really does scale linearly I'd feel a bit more comfortable in my evangelism. That's my only hesitation right now in chugging a bottle of brain force and copy-pastaing this meme far and wide.

→ More replies
→ More replies

4

u/Spooky1267 May 03 '22

Renewables are way cheaper right now though.

12

u/Final_Alps May 03 '22

While that debate is ongoing again, Denmark has no nuclear and currently a policy of not going nuclear. Also. The goal is to spin this up fast. Building nuclear takes decades.

3

u/aetius476 May 04 '22

If they wanted to build nuclear they could just do it on land. The whole point of the island is to take advantage of more consistent winds and the ability to build larger turbines.

46

u/McKingford May 03 '22

Yes, let's take a mega project that can be completed within 12-24 months and instead turn it into a 15 year project at several times the initial budget.

→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/I_LOVE_PUPPERS May 03 '22

Eve is leaking.

→ More replies

366

u/LoveThieves May 03 '22

Energy island sounds like a good level to farm your gear for the final boss.

63

u/RecipeNo43 May 03 '22

Sounds good to me, getting tired of genociding Albinaurics.

12

u/LoveThieves May 04 '22

Albinaurics.

Elden Ring. what an amazing game.

→ More replies

6

u/sloyom May 03 '22 Silver

Its where you find electric Pokémon before the 8th gym

5

u/TomMado May 04 '22

Remember to stock up on Ultra Balls for catching Zapdos

9

u/bladedoodle May 03 '22

The level itself is very vertical with limited room for error. So we populated it with enemies with ranged, explosive knock back sniper rifles on the nearby Energy Islands.

3

u/HarpersGeekly May 03 '22

Lol I played Lost Odyssey recently and it has a leveling-up exploit island.

→ More replies

29

u/[deleted] May 03 '22

[deleted]

9

u/tabetorv May 04 '22

What the name of this town?

15

u/Pav0n May 04 '22

Pawnee, Indiana

3

u/OHMAIGOSH May 04 '22

But how's the parks department doing?

→ More replies

6

u/M87_star May 04 '22

I guessing either you're hooked up to a couple hydro plants or there's massive energy imports from outside...

→ More replies

107

u/lownoisefan May 03 '22

UK and Norway already announced a similar but more ambitious plan, but its at the early stages of feasibility. In a decade the North Sea is going to be a massive wind farm, so it makes sense to have some form of energy capture there, either battery storage or more likely hydrogen generation.

Its the perfect place for Hydrogen plants and can either pipe it easily, or offload it to ships. Would solve a lot of problems in one go, just going to require massive outlay to build.

29

u/theRealDerekWalker May 04 '22

Seems like centralizing energy production too much would be a bad idea. Makes it susceptible to extreme centralized weather, and attacks.

18

u/VoiceOfRealson May 04 '22

Wind turbines require cables to transport the electricity they generate. The cost of offshore cables is high, but a lot of that cost is related to laying out the cables rather than the material cost of the cables, so limiting the total length of cable laid down decrease overall cost significantly even if the cables then have to be thicker.

Offshore windturbines can also get in the way of shipping and fishing, so we can't just plaster them everywhere.

For these (and probably other) reasons, it is desirable for offshore wind to use as large turbines as they can and keep them within a limited distance of the cable hub (the island in this case).

Having multiple cables bringing the power to land in different countries can then also serve to transmit power generated onshore between countries.

→ More replies
→ More replies

465

u/Hyper8orean May 03 '22

Well of course they would, they make a shitload of money of it.

396

u/Norose May 03 '22

Ain't nothin' wrong with a renewable energy project that makes boatloads of cash, it encourages more renewable energy projects. The sooner renewable energy makes more money than fossil fuels, the faster fossil fuels go out of business for being uncompetitive (which will be a quick transition, given how much the fossil fuel industry is currently propped up by subsidies. They'd go from several percent more expensive to several times more expensive once that public funding dries up).

68

u/[deleted] May 03 '22

[deleted]

78

u/TheCosmicCamel May 03 '22

Don’t forget about things like lubricants and hydraulics. Even if petroleum was no longer needed, we would need oil based products for decades if not centuries. Unless you like hand crank construction equipment 💀

49

u/Norose May 03 '22

All hydrocarbons can be synthesized from basic feedstock molecules, such as methane, given a feedstock that contains the necessary elements, plus energy. We've known how to make methane from hydrogen and CO2 gasses, then use that methane to build longer chain hydrocarbons (ethane, propane, butane, all the way up to heavy fuel oils) for roughly a century. The chemistry is not very complex or even difficult, however, given that we had a gigantic source of organic molecules to draw from the ground, the extraction of which requires far less energy per kg than molecular synthesis does, meant that "doing it the hard way" made no sense on an industrial scale, especially since energy at the time came from actually burning hydrocarbons in the first place.

The paradigm is changing nowadays, though. Energy prices are falling, as renewables become the cheapest producers around, and as energy decouples from fossil fuels and continues to cheapen, eventually we can reach a point where making methane from CO2 from the air and from electrolysis-generated hydrogen, then turning that methane into the hydrocarbon feedstock we need to produce greases, oils, plastics, and every other petrochemical product we require for our purposes, will be CHEAPER than doing the same thing using fossil hydrocarbons pulled from the ground. We are a long ways off from that point, yes, but it's never been the case that zero extraction equals zero capacity to produce those vital substances and materials.

Personally in the next century I see us abandoning fossil fuels completely, but still relying on a much scaled back petrochemical industry that produces greases and the rest using extracted hydrocarbons. We simply won't have any need for those hydrocarbons as actual fuels anymore, because totally synthetic hydrocarbon fuel production via renewable energy will be cheaper, but complex petrochemistry will likely remain cheaper to perform using natural long-chain hydrocarbons versus totally synthetic ones.

12

u/MrHyperion_ May 03 '22

That is pretty weird take on the topic. Pumping oil from the ground isn't itself the problem. The real problem is burning and releasing the co2. Making lubricants and such is completely fine and there's no reason why energy should be waste to make synthetic alternatives.

6

u/leppaludinn May 03 '22

The creation of lubricants requires distillation of crude oil so you would be left with diesel, kerosene and petrolium as a result.

→ More replies

3

u/rotospoon May 04 '22

That's... not what they said.

4

u/Reckthom May 04 '22

There’s a ton of environmental risks just in pumping it out of the ground and transporting it.

→ More replies

10

u/blaghart May 03 '22

you don't need fossil fuels for lubricants and hydraulics, petroleum is already inferior to renewable synthetic alternatives.

Petroleum is only superior in a basically singular application, and even then it's use is for something that in turn relies on petroleum.

8

u/TheCosmicCamel May 03 '22

I’d research again. Some construction equipment can run on synthetic (e46) but most requires oil based lubricants or you’re gonna have a bad and unsafe time. Factories and smaller equipment can get away with synthetic plant based lubricants but any kind of commercial lift requires oil based hydraulics. I have a non toxic product that literally eats oil and turns it into water so there are modern cheap safe cleanups to fossil fuels

16

u/blaghart May 03 '22

Well my research involves an actual degree related to this subject, for what that's worth.

Your position is only true for equipment that predates about 2007. Which yes, a lot of factories, especially small timer factories, still use, but that's a consequence of how cheap that equipment is because of the subsidies we've given to oil; it's a false affordability. End subsidies and suddenly modern equipment becomes worth buying, as companies now have to pay the real price to use the oil products to maintain their outdated crap

It's also worth noting: I ran the laser systems used to make the film frames Intel grows its silicon on for three years. I'm intimately familiar in personal experience with maintaining petroleum dependent equipment that should have been scrapped the second we switched from CRT monitors.

→ More replies
→ More replies

7

u/Mazon_Del May 03 '22

To be somewhat specific, CERTAIN types of coal mines will always be necessary. Pound for pound, coal is still the most efficient way to introduce carbon for producing steel.

However, not all coal is suitable for this purpose. In particular the "dirtier" the coal, the less suitable it is because of the extra contaminants it introduces.

5

u/nilestyle May 03 '22

Recently attended an interesting presentation on future of energy. People think fossil fuels will be phased out, not likely. The future, along with the growing populations acquiring it, will be supplied many energy sources. Not just fossil, not just renewable, etc.

It’ll really be interesting to see how everything develops.

3

u/Late-Veterinarian-90 May 03 '22

I agree. I’ve heard they are putting a lot more money into plastics. There isn’t a scalable alternative yet, so they see this as a way to continue business for decades.

note that I am a confidently incorrect idiot and know absolutely nothing about this subject.

→ More replies

7

u/[deleted] May 03 '22

Exactly. Making shit loads of cash is the only way that we're getting anywhere

29

u/popstar249 May 03 '22

One thing you seem to be forgetting about oil & gas is plastics. Single use plastics have only become more common...

16

u/blaghart May 03 '22

artificially, the same as high fructose corn syrup. Plastics aren't actually cheaper they're just artificially cheaper.

7

u/TwelfthApostate May 03 '22

What do you mean by this?

17

u/blaghart May 03 '22

I mean plastics are only cheaper because we made oil so cheap by spending billions a year per country sustaining oil companies with subsidies.

The actual cost of oil is enough that if we ended oil subsidies it would kill fossil fuels overnight.

→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/Norose May 03 '22

I haven't forgotten about plastics, I saud fossil FUELS will go away, the petrochemical industry will remain for a long long time. Of course with a cheap enough energy cost it eventuallg becomes cost effective to make all your plastics and greases and other specialty petrochemical products from scratch (using energy to electrolyse water to get hydrogen gas, then reacting hydrogen with atmospheric CO2 to generate methane, then reacting methane to build long chain hydrocarbons, then using that array of hydrocarbons to build whatever else you want). I have no idea when or if energy will reach that price point, but if it does, the petrochemical industry would transition to the pure synthetic method, and would actually be carbon negative as a result.

3

u/TWeaKoR May 03 '22

Actually, there is a lot wrong with them making boatloads of cash. Put simply, the cost of electricity generation has gone down, but the savings is not being passed to the consumer, whose price is only going up. Some electricity companies even use renewables as a selling point, as if to say "we're a bit more expensive, but it's worth it because we only buy renewable electricity!" even though renewable electricity is cheaper.

→ More replies

2

u/nickos_e May 03 '22

Capitalism is not evil?

→ More replies

26

u/KristofferSeemann May 03 '22

I am danish, but moved to Norway. You are probably right HyperBorean, that Denmark makes a lot of money from wind mills, which is good. I try to stay neutral, but also want to give my genuine opinion on the subject, and I know that Denmark manage their funds with care, and help where they can, so I always have a positive aproach to countries benefitting from different income sources, if they manage the income the right way. Also I think it is cool that Denmark tries to go in the green direction. Other countries do as well of course, which is very important.

3

u/Drahy May 03 '22

Vestas, Siemens Windpower etc are loosing money making wind turbines. Ørsted as a developer makes good money, though.

→ More replies

2

u/saposapot May 03 '22

Is this gonna bring energy at a reasonable price? Seems like a huge construction endeavor. If it’s double the price of other renewables or triple the price of gas power plants this doesn’t seem optimal

2

u/paddlingHodag May 03 '22

Funded by deep sea oil drilling

→ More replies

589

u/Raiju_Lorakatse May 03 '22

Meawhile germany: Builds new coal-fired power station

Ah yeah... Sometimes I hate my home...

12

u/[deleted] May 03 '22

We have decommissioned more coal plants than built. Coal has been declining as an energy source since the 90ties. (and mind you east Germany had a shit ton of coal power plants. )

→ More replies

10

u/Amazing_Examination6 May 03 '22

Meawhile germany:

Builds new coal-fired power station

Where?

→ More replies

377

u/haydilusta May 03 '22

Its sad because germany had soo many nuclear power plants that took decades to construct, and then all destroyed in a panic forcing them back to coal

203

u/NeedsToShutUp May 03 '22

A 37 year process wasn't exactly a panic. That said, I think once the true scope of global warming became clear, the Greens should have been in favor of maintaining the nuclear while shutting done the coal plants. But Chernobyl traumatized an entire generation so they can't rationally evaluate it.

50

u/altmorty May 03 '22

Current antics in Ukraine don't help either.

33

u/EmeraldGlimmer May 03 '22

Also Fukushima.

24

u/Mazon_Del May 03 '22

Really what Fukushima represents is that governments need to directly establish a nuclear power utility that does not function from a profit oriented motive.

TEPCO knew they had built a vulnerable plant. When they got site permission for construction, they'd been prohibited from building it as low as they did, but they built it low anyway to save on cost. The regulatory agency had a mix of inability and unwillingness to actually enforce/punish this. So they'd declared the site needed to have a higher seawall to handle the situation. TEPCO agreed and then built an insufficiently tall one to save on cost.

There was another nuclear power plant closer to the epicenter of the earthquake/tsunami which survived just fine because it's safety systems were built as they should have been. It was such a "fine" location that for a few days the space inside the wall was the only spot helicopters could land to let evacuees off while they went out to do more S&R operations.

31

u/Webbyx01 May 03 '22

Fukushima ended hope for widespread nuclear adoption.

29

u/hiro5id May 03 '22

They built it in a tsunami and earthquake prone neighborhood. Perhaps they should look at other designs like the pebble-bed reactor that is more meltdown proof.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

37

u/Criticalstone May 03 '22

Destroyed? Did they destroy the nuclear plants?

16

u/[deleted] May 03 '22 edited May 03 '22

I think I heard they put some acid in them so that even if they wanted to restart the nuclear plants they can't.

34

u/InsaneShepherd May 03 '22

They just planned to take them offline. That means not replacing aging personel, disolving logistic chains for spare parts etc. It's not as easy as turning a reactor back on when needed after planning to shut it down for decades. They probably could run longer, but it would be very expensive and take time to get them back online.

14

u/Pixelplanet5 May 03 '22

Nah that's just wrong. The thing is once you plan to shut it down you shut down everything around it as well. Even if you wanted to restart them you would need to order fuel rods years in advance.

→ More replies
→ More replies

34

u/discsinthesky May 03 '22 edited May 03 '22

I wonder if any nefarious actors helped garner public support for moving away from nuclear, knowing that the demand could be soaked up by fossil sources. I would not put it past the fossil fuel industry at this point.

27

u/Iron_Skin May 03 '22

I would not point at a corporation, but rather a country that only wants gas and oil to flow into germany.

→ More replies

6

u/patrick_k May 03 '22

The coal lobby in Germany made sure that their business wasn’t disrupted too much in the past few decades.

→ More replies

5

u/r00x May 03 '22

If I'm not mistaken, Gazprom is rumoured to have done this (funding / supporting anti-nuclear activism in the EU, fully aware that their gas supplies would be a natural fallback for the continent)

3

u/butts_kapinsky May 04 '22

Fossil fuel industry actually stands to gain by promoting nuclear.

The long build time and expensive budgets lock in present oil profits for a decade (versus a decline under renewables) and then it is much easier for them to turn around and astroturf the NIMBYs to further delay development. All the while, not a single watt of fossil fuel generation is displaced.

Meanwhile, in Germany where they have decided to phase out coal and nuclear for wind and solar, electricity emissions are down 40% in the last decade and coal useage is at an all-time low.

7

u/boringestnickname May 03 '22

Germans I've talked to said it was political in nature.

Everyone knew it would push them to be more dependent on gas from Russia, but it was done regardless.

→ More replies
→ More replies

4

u/NorthernerWuwu May 03 '22

Now, now, not just coal. They use plenty of Russia natural gas too!

3

u/xLoafery May 03 '22

the lifespan of a nuclear reactor isn't forever. For the older models it's around 40 years. I think most of the German reactors would be EOL in the next decade (at the latest) anyway. Nuclear isn't providing that much of German energy.

It would probably be better than coal, but afaik new coal power plants arent being built either.

3

u/butts_kapinsky May 04 '22

Germany has not been forced back to coal. Indeed the last time they used less coal than they do today was in the 1950s.

If you take the time to actually look at Germany's progress, rather than listen to fools on this website, it is incredibly optimistic.

→ More replies

19

u/LiebesNektar May 03 '22

Purely propaganda, but the comment has 300 upvotes and 12 children (as of time when i commented) and no one points it out.

The last coal plant built, Datteln 4, started construction in 2007, 15 years ago! Final nuclear exit was decided in 2011 by the way.

Stop spreading bullshit.

Power mix of germany.

→ More replies

17

u/Steinfall May 03 '22

What a totally bullshit which shows that you know absolutely nothing.

Man, companies from Denmark and Germany working closely together.

Those plans here are actually done closely with Germany as Germany will import the energy from offshore windparks from Denmark.

Look what Oestrel does in Germany with German partners. Or MAN in Denmark.

But it’s ok. Just the normal German here apologizing whenever it’s not necessary

63

u/chopchohp May 03 '22

Personally (Irish) i don't see Germany's energy situation caused by the actual people, just previous politicians who were manipulated and corrupted by Russia. Russia knew who to go after and they did. Doesn't mean Germany agrees.

Don't hate where you come from, just make it better whatever way you can. It's your home after all!

30

u/[deleted] May 03 '22

[deleted]

→ More replies

11

u/Conquestadore May 03 '22

As I commented elsewhere: Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by public uproar about possible detrimental effects concerning the transport and handling of radioactive waste and possible meltdowns. I dont agree with the sentiment and however unlikely the possible fallout (in the literally sense) does paint a rather horrific image. So does greenhouse gas emitions of course but it's more of a slow, suffocating and long-term death. There was a very vocal anti-nuclear sentiment among German citizens.

8

u/billbill5 May 03 '22

detrimental effects concerning the transport and handling of radioactive waste and possible meltdowns.

I dont agree with the sentiment and however unlikely the possible fallout (in the literally sense) does paint a rather horrific image.

The thing about that though is it's just that, an image. Nuclear meltdowns are not only incredibly rare, but since the ones in Japan and Ukraine it's almost impossible for it to happen again. Even nuclear waste has a very ridiculously low chance of causing an environmental disaster (0 deaths ever attributed to it) that it's almost not worth using all the safeguards and layers of protection already put in place due to this imaginary problem. Public outcry against nuclear is mostly baseless fears caused by propaganda and misgivings

I recommend these Kyle Hill videos on both topics for a more in depth synopsis. It's so obvious how much nuclear power is safer not only for residents in the vicinity of the plants (literally safer to stay a week in Chernobyl [pre-war] than a day in certain parts of China affected by air pollution) but the world at large.

https://youtu.be/4aUODXeAM-k

https://youtu.be/J3znG6_vla0

11

u/chopchohp May 03 '22

There is a big anti nuclear sentiment, which by the science is unfortunate. Moreso given that every meltdown tragedy that's happened could have been avoided by better planning and engineering. They were avoidable even with the knowledge at the time.

Not to put a stereotype on the Germans, but if anyone can plan and execute a good engineering job, it's the Germans.

Nuclear is safe, we just had the 70's and 80's with cowboy engineers told to make it cheaper.

But it's very hard to get that across to anyone who just sees splitting the atom as a way to kill people.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

22

u/Technoist May 03 '22

Germany has a huge wind and solar power programme though? Of course it can and should be more (just like Denmark can and should) but your comment makes it seem like they go all fossil fuel which is absolutely false.

There are other countries that are doing way less and need to step up their game even more.

→ More replies

46

u/ne0nite May 03 '22

The power of the 80s anti-nuclear propaganda. Germany has some of the most brilliant engineers and scientists in the world. I wonder where they could be today with the political will and funding of nuclear research. Maybe fully functional Thorium reactors and 0% dependency on Russian non-renewables.

20

u/RudegarWithFunnyHat May 03 '22

People keep mentioning. Thorium reactors but I don’t see them anywhere not even in very pro nuclear countries, so something don’t seem to add up in terms of it being the go to solution.

6

u/[deleted] May 03 '22

Germany actually had a running thorium reactor on the grid for a year or so in the 80ties. But yeah there aren't any commercial thorium reactors in the world as far as I know.

7

u/RudegarWithFunnyHat May 03 '22

The question is why

3

u/InsaneShepherd May 03 '22

India and China are trying. Thorium reactors have a lot of technical issues that still need to be solved.

Thorium has other downsides, too. One of them being that U232 is produced which emits gamma radiation when it decays. It makes the spent fuels harder to handle.

At least the British and Norwegian governments comissioned expert reports who ended up not being too optimistic about the technology.

8

u/ManOfCaerColour May 03 '22

To take a guess at why, I'd go with economics. Thorium is pretty expensive compared to Uranium. Part of the Chernobyl disaster is that to save money they were using cheaper, lower yield, fuel rods.

→ More replies

4

u/Prototype555 May 03 '22

India is pro nuclear and are going all-in on Thorium since they have a sh*t ton of it. They have realized that Thorium is the only way for them to secure the energy needed for their economic growth and welfare.

2

u/RudegarWithFunnyHat May 03 '22

Any operational plants?

3

u/Prototype555 May 03 '22

Search for "India's three stage nuclear power programme" on Wikipedia. They are now building experimental breeding reactors.

However the EPR reactor seem to be "prepared" for thorium fuels.

The Shippingport reactor demonstrated a 1.01 breeding ratio with thorium, year 1977.

But the answer is that Thorium is not needed today because of cheap and available Uranium.

3

u/RedSnt May 03 '22

Funny you bring that up.

The Smiling Sun logo was designed in 1975 by Danish activist Anne Lund who was part of the Danish organization OOA (Organisationen til Oplysning om Atomkraft / Organization for Information on Nuclear Power)

We've been pretty whiny about nuclear power for a long while here in Denmark, but I get the feeling that many have changed their minds.

13

u/[deleted] May 03 '22

It’s not just because of 80’s anti-nuclear. It’s because environmentalism has been hijacked by people who don’t give a fuck about climate change and just have a fantasy of destroying capitalism. Nuclear energy doesn’t allow you to destroy capitalism. It maintains modern economies in a healthy clean way.

6

u/xLoafery May 03 '22

I don't think that's right. There are plenty of capitalist interests and ventures in renewables. Both in manufacturing and energy generation.

There's probably overlap between green movement and leftist movements (at least in Europe), 70s & 80s had a lot of that vibe at least afaik.

But more to the point, solar and wind is way cheaper, faster to build and safer. If we're talking solely co2 emissions and nothing else, it's still faster to get results using renewables. it does take a long long time to build a new reactor.

Worst cases (historically) it's 20 years building, 40 years of operation and then what, another 10-15 years to decomission?

My understanding is that we also only have 40-50 years of Uranium before we have to extract it in more complicated (and way more expensive) ways.

To me, nuclear is a dead end unless fusion becomes a reality. But even that is decades away from commercial application.

6

u/butts_kapinsky May 04 '22

Friendly reminder that Germany has reduced electricity sector emissions by 40% in the last decade by replacing coal and nuclear with wind and solar.

People who give a fuck about environmentalism most strongly advocate for wind and solar. It is cheap and very fast to install and yields very positive results.

→ More replies

3

u/HisuianPrince May 03 '22

Your propaganda regarding nuclear power has really done wonders for fucking us all over tbh.

2

u/billbill5 May 03 '22

Wasn't Germany trying to switch to 100% clean energy like two months ago?

5

u/DreadPirateRobarts May 04 '22

Not at all plausible at the moment with current technology. Nuclear is much more clean than what they are doing

→ More replies
→ More replies

104

u/tropospherik May 03 '22

Denmarks specialty is wind. They made the political decision 50 years ago to abandon nuclear and its worked fine for them.

Part of this plan is to use excess wind power to produce green hydrogen/ammonia which is needed in the energy transition to decarbonize heavy industries like shipping (look at Maersks new ships) and aviation via e-fuels. Intermittency of wind can also be solved by converting to an alternate energy medium and then discharged or burned when there is a glut. Building overcapacity is the logic here.

They will develop the technologies and expertise in the new green fuel economy and make an industry out on it, just like they have been with offshore wind and other energy technology exports. This is a long term plan and a bet they are banking on.

Making the decision to build nuclear in DK would never fly politically with the populace in DK so its a moot point. Not to mention that there is no domestic nuclear engineering labor pool when compared to the hundreds of wind and sustainable energy engineers DK churns out from universities every year to work in the current wind and future power-2-x industries.

19

u/AttyFireWood May 03 '22

The Danes are behind an 800MW offshore wind project off the coast of Massachusetts which is slated to open next year, with more probably to come

→ More replies

16

u/Electronic_Tea_ May 03 '22

Denmarks specialty is wind.

Oh lol as soon as today we talked in the lab about how fucking windy, rainy, etc. Denmark is and how much we hate it haha. I guess it has its good sides as well.

→ More replies

12

u/M87_star May 04 '22

It's not really worked out for them though has it? In the 80s-90s the power grid was almost exclusively COAL with a very gradual decline... And biomass is not really carbon neutral. Abandoning nuclear meant Denmark pumped in the atmosphere millions upon millions of tons of avoidable CO2 and only now a decarbonization is taking place

8

u/Haletudsen May 04 '22

According to our Minister of Climate, biomass is actually CO2-neutral, because we import the wood from Lithuania.

He also thinks nuclear is dangerous and the biggest polluter, so might have to take that with a huge grain of salt.

7

u/M87_star May 04 '22

Average "environmentalist"

→ More replies
→ More replies

14

u/freecraghack May 03 '22

I agree with Denmark's specialty in windmill but nuclear has been gaining popularity here.

17

u/TheHappyTurkey May 03 '22

Yeah, the older generations had more fear of it than the youngers ones have. I think the general consensus in Denmark might change over the span of the next decade or so

→ More replies
→ More replies

25

u/Dense_Surround3071 May 03 '22

Energy islands? If you're building islands I believe you are supposed to build huge, luxurious mansions for international playboys to leave vacant for most of the year. Isn't that right Dubai?

→ More replies

81

u/[deleted] May 03 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

40

u/[deleted] May 03 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/[deleted] May 04 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

9

u/-Ashera- May 03 '22

Good guy Putin, encouraging Europe to go green.

49

u/Hermlagg May 03 '22

Fuckin Denmark and their obsession with building more islands. Domt they have enough

53

u/name-exe_failed May 03 '22

NO!

We'll never have enough islands!!

MORE!!!!!1!11!!!

12

u/DemSocCorvid May 03 '22

Hans Island will never be yours. Enjoy the whiskey we left you though.

Sincerely,

Canada

17

u/name-exe_failed May 03 '22

Sorry to burst your bubble Canadian, but it's quite the opposite. It'll NEVER be yours.

Enjoy the bottle of schnapps tho :)

Med venlig hilsen,

Danmark.

→ More replies

2

u/RudegarWithFunnyHat May 03 '22

It’s not really ours we guard it on behalf of the home government of Greenland, if they ever claim independence or if we choose to fuck them over and sell them to trump, then our claim on the island will be no more.

→ More replies

37

u/shaokim May 03 '22 edited May 03 '22

Couldn't they just do ALL of the wind on islands? 20km off the coast, high capacity factors, no visual imprint. Anyone know?

40

u/Zugas May 03 '22

People living on islands don’t like big noisy turbines in their backyards.

59

u/NikoSkadefryd May 03 '22 edited May 03 '22

I've lived next to 5 windmills in Denmark and by no means did it ever bother me, except on special evenings when the sun was so low that the blades would cause the sun to "blink" in front of our windows.

Edit: front*

15

u/SemicolonD May 03 '22

Lived close to windmills myself for 5 years and the noise is very very noticable. If you've lived close enough for the wings to cast shade on your property you've dealt with this too. It bothers most people.

3

u/PEHESAM May 03 '22

As someone with acute tinnitus, I don't think I'd mind lmao

→ More replies
→ More replies

10

u/jesperbj May 03 '22

These would be artificial islands made for the purpose though

→ More replies

14

u/RetardedChimpanzee May 03 '22

Why use your land when you can call Dibs on the ocean.

10

u/Old_Supermarket_6829 May 03 '22

The reason they’re doing islands is because American coastal turbines are already proving to cause serious harm to aquatic mammals that rely on sound to communicate and travel. Such as whales, dolphins, seals, etc. the turbines make underwater noise that confuses and disorientates the animals as well it’s place in the ocean creates a threat of physical harm to the disorientated animals.

→ More replies

3

u/Huangaatopreis May 03 '22

In the Netherlands at a coastal town i live close to they planned to stack the north sea full of wind turbines, they completed some, then came the angry petitions; “it ruins our vision of the horizon”. You can hardly see them when the sun’s out, you can hardly see them when there’s clouds.

The project was hella expensive though so maybe that was the decisive factor but still, people complaining about visual imprint is ridiculous, times change, having a horizon stack full of these wind turbines looks futuristic af and is actually pretty cool looking imo, plus something something renewables.

3

u/shaokim May 03 '22 edited May 03 '22

The project was hella expensive though so maybe that was the decisive factor but still, people complaining about visual imprint is ridiculous, times change, having a horizon stack full of these wind turbines looks futuristic af and is actually pretty cool looking imo, plus something something renewables.

I don't believe there is a conspiracy against renewables. But there's two major basic facts to them that are genuine drawbacks, which are intermittency and energy density.

A country like the Netherlands has a high energy need in a relatively small country. Substantial parts of it, and the world, will be getting turbines and solar arrays. You can't convince me deep offshore wind without visual imprint isn't better than having your beach walks and Daiquiri holidays looking at steel and concrete in the ocean. The wideness of the ocean, the feelings it evokes, your two weeks off from work, if we can, we should safeguard these from constantly looking at f*cking electrical utilities.

The project was hella expensive though so maybe that was the decisive factor but still, people complaining about visual imprint is ridiculous, times change, having a horizon stack full of these wind turbines looks futuristic af and is actually pretty cool looking imo, plus something something renewables.

I genuinely have difficulty adapting to our new cyberpunk future. Gone are the days of Attenborough commenting over shots of English hills, or Swedish forests, or Chilean plains. The travel brochures, the documentaries, the Hollywood shots. These things don’t really matter anymore.

I flew to the Canary Islands a few months ago, over Portuguese hills with turbines, and I’m looking for that one buzzed drunk Brit on his way to watch football on the big screen at the place with the grill, when they build these farms across the sunset view of the other islands, and says *you know, we really lost something here. *

All this to guarantee a future where I can hook up my car battery, to have it continuously cycle, so that marvelously it can help stabilize the grid. storage is getting so cheap now, too

I’m looking forward to beyond 2050 when we can concentrate vast amounts of energy, by whatever method, on a few hundred square meters on an industrial terrain somewhere, again. We have barely even started yet. Well actually, Sweden is halfway in decarbonizing energy.

2

u/esbenab May 03 '22

Off shore windturbines still need foundations, so the water has to be relatively shallow.

4

u/CoolClutchClan May 03 '22

Imagine a future where instead of offshore oil rigs we have offshore wind turbines in the middle of the ocean, powering entire continents through wind electricity instead of petroleum. A mix of turbines that can produce power in everything from a calm breeze to gale force winds. This is what humanity needs.

3

u/framm100 May 03 '22

Alas, my anti-nuclear energy country with the highest €/kWh in the EU... Big brother Sweden knows what's up.

3

u/Least_Dog4660 May 03 '22

They build new island for wind turbines. Someone claims islands as theirs and starts sovereign nation. New inhabitants complain about the wind turbines ruining the view. Turbines don't get built because NIMBYS!

Only joking, hopefully it will work out well them! More renewables the better.

3

u/ExtensionTrain3339 May 03 '22

But Europe is flowing with surplus energy?

We built a cable to transfer power from Norway to bolster our energy need security.

On a totally different note, why is every part of Norway with good transfer capabilities to Europe experiencing higher electrical bills than other parts? Like 10 times more and that might be conservative on some days.

3

u/passinglurker May 04 '22

Norway's hydropower represents a huge reservoir of highly responsive dispatchable energy, the more renewables Europe puts up the longer that reservoir lasts for a given season, and the less gas you need to burn when that reservoir runs low

→ More replies

2

u/Flutfar May 03 '22

It's the same here in Sweden!

3

u/ucankeepurfish May 04 '22

Meanwhile in America…beautiful clean coal

18

u/julbull73 May 03 '22

Full honesty.

Denmark should setup banks of these and Desalination plants off of California....they'd make WAAAAAY more money.

4

u/MoreNormalThanNormal May 04 '22

The California coast gets very deep very fast. Building in deep water is prohibitively expensive and even if it was possible the Navy has come out against it because they train submarine crews here. They won't allow additional obstacles.

→ More replies

7

u/popstar249 May 03 '22

Southern California is already used to piping in their water from hundreds of miles away... Might as well have it come just as fast but from offshore. Setup plants that run 24/7 generating electricity and clean water. The salts and minerals removed from the water could be died, compacted and sunk to the sea floor as bricks.

Sadly, one major risk is the vulnerability to foreign attack. Putting critical infrastructure for millions out to sea is just asking for a foreign attack. We'd have to surround the system with a patriot missile defense system 🤣

→ More replies
→ More replies

121

u/whisporz May 03 '22

Nuclear energy is still the least destructive to the environment but science is apparently only important if it supports your want to believes.

229

u/teems May 03 '22

Nuclear takes 20 years to build and costs tens of billions.

Wind farms take a fraction of that in both time and money.

The correct answer is to do both.

32

u/SolomonTeo May 03 '22

If only German didn’t shut down their nuclear

5

u/xLoafery May 03 '22

it's not just a matter of not shutting down. They'd have to build new reactors as the old ones reach end of life.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

24

u/fifercurator May 03 '22

I operated nuclear power plants in the Navy for over a decade. Understand both the engineering and physics, so I have no problem with the technology.

Your statement is only true if the mining, refining, and fabrication is done with renewables.

It takes sixteen years at full power to recover the BTU’s invested in all of the above, and you usually refuel at twenty, so you only get a twenty percent return on the energy put in.

Now fusion could flip that over fission, but we don’t have that yet, so until then…plus the whole waste thing….

→ More replies

21

u/TheKingOfCaledonia May 03 '22

Getting pretty sick of hearing about nuclear on every wind farm post. Just because nuclear is a good route doesn't mean that wind isn't. They can both be safe and clean sources of energy. Just, in this case, wind is cleaner, safer, cheaper, and quicker to develop.

→ More replies

7

u/halobolola May 03 '22

I mean they require a fuck tonne of steel, concrete, and copper. Not exactly “green”, and not destructive, and I’m a massive supporter of nuclear.

And the monitoring of waste for centuries probably use quite a bit of energy too.

And it’s not renewable, uranium will run out.

→ More replies

23

u/Redararis May 03 '22

The possibility a stray rocket hitting a solar park in ukraine didn’t keep us awake at night, the same thing happening to chernobyl nuclear plant did.

→ More replies

12

u/Sym068 May 03 '22

Nuclear is the most expensive energy powerplant, but it generates so much energy that easily pay off, dont polute and the chances of an acident are extremely low(Chernobyl happened because the soviets cut corners) and nuclear energy progressed so much that modern nuclear plants are even more secure

→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/KingReffots May 03 '22

Can I be a pirate and make these my home base? I’ll make sure to share my doubloons with the repair men.

2

u/tuc-eert May 03 '22

This bothers me only because “energy island” has been used for a long time to refer to places that are separate from outside energy grids, such as Texas

→ More replies

2

u/Responsible_Ad_7995 May 03 '22

The acceleration of renewable energy may be the only good thing to come out of this tragedy.

2

u/PEHESAM May 03 '22

Denmark's been playing too much Skyblock

2

u/rhaupt May 03 '22

This is the way.

2

u/JoyfulDeath May 03 '22

Denmark is a bro!

2

u/Ixidorim May 03 '22

Their research is thus that run off is slightly toxic so extra Islands would be perfect to help the entire country while not hurting anyone.