Mapped: The World’s Nuclear Reactor Landscape
Which countries are turning to nuclear energy, and which are turning away? Mapping and breaking down the world’s nuclear reactor landscape.
www.visualcapitalist.com
The world’s nuclear reactor landscape
- Thread starter Forerunner
- Start date
www.visualcapitalist.com
Well, the first thing I noticed is the two most populous countries in the world are increasingly moving towards cleaner energy solutions, which is a huge plus. They're still heavily reliant on fossil fuels, as far as I recall.
America's also heavily reliant on fossil fuels as well, although I don't know how the fossil fuel lobby would play into the small amount of yellow on the map there.
While I don't think we should scoff at this information, it is worth appreciating that there's more to this picture. For example, with the last image, I immediately notice that the US is a little ahead of Canada there, but part of why that would be is because Canada already makes heavy use of hydro power and so fossil fuels are a smaller segment of power generation as it. Just grabbing the first charts that I see, US above and Canada below:
Germany's decision to close down their reactor is so freaking stupid and short sighted
Last edited:
Indeed. it will go down in history as one of Merkel's worst decisions, if not the worst.
Indeed, I'm all for alternative solutions but as a stop gap on that nuclear energy in a country with little natural disasters was a bit stupid. Japan on the coast I get, Germany in the middle of Europe less so.
Still, you can't really blame her. That was a very sound political decision, considering the complete irrational fear even reasonable Germans have of nuclear power. I blame the crazy propaganda campaigns.
Only issue with out west (especially prairie provinces) is that no matter the reactor design, it's preferred to have a water cooling system on the scale of a natural body of water.
Definitely still doable and it seems (in Canada at least) that SMRs are the future due to their inherent compact/prefab designs.
Issue we have in Canada with getting reactors is the licensing aspect to be able to build and operate one on our soil. Extreme liability and difficult to convince the govt to allow it/provide funding/oversight. But this is slowly changing as the right people are finally seeing that nuclear is clean AF.
I work on a nuclear site and love it.
I will certainly blame politicians for making decisions on their own behalf instead of the good of their country.
You should read up about that yellow 'under construction' blip in Finland, the third reactor being built at one of Finland's two nuclear power plants. The construction started in 2005 and the original plan was to start commercial operation in 2010. It is currently third on the list of most expensive buildings in the world, being under construction for over 15 years and the latest estimate for starting commercial use is 2022.
Eh I just said she did the decision not only on her own behalf, but clearly on what the majority of Germans think. Sorry but this is what elected officials are expected to do, if that's a good thing or not it's another question.
Thanks for your contribution to worsening climate change then. It is a braindead move to turn off nuclear power if your alternative is coal.
Did Germany start burning more coal?
why isn't Germany's BER Airport on that list?
I don't know much about BER but this is specifically about individual buildings, not construction projects as a whole.
The alternative is renewable energy, that's what the German Green Party and others are advocating. Maybe stop making up shit if you want a serious discussion.
You can't suddenly replace that much capacity with renewables. And personally, if you're still using so much fossils, maybe first replace the fossils.
A party that is aiming to combat climate change should put as priority getting away from fossils, not nuclear.
bahahaha and it will never make money in its whole livespan of 20 years.
But yeah give nuclear a chance, it will come around eventually, somehow, at some time, in the not so near future.
Just wait for it and in the meantime maybe bash some renewables, which are :
- already available
- decentralized
- Cheap(er)
- Safe
And baseload is best replaced by renewables
Also worth reminding that we're speaking about already built reactor. Closing them neither prevent the carbon ( and monetary cost ) from building and decommissioning them, it's pretty much only keeping the worst aspect of a nuclear reactor project, but not properly reap the benefit.
And like you say, all of that while still being heavily producing energy with fossils/coal. It does not prevent the usage of coal to slow down, but it make that trend slower than it could have been.
You realise that Germany is now generating less energy from fossils than at the height of their nuclear energy generation? And avoiding a nuclear disaster is also kind of important. The decision to phase out nuclear wasn't even made by the Green Party, it was made by our conservative, industry-friendly government.
if they had kept nuclear reactors going they would be burning even less coal with the increase in renewables. Carbon emission per capita are still way higher in Germany than for example in France or UK.
Huh? What are you talking about? Base load is best replaced by renewables? Which ones? Wind and solar? The ones that do not have a steady 24/7 generating capacity? Do you understand what base load is?
if we had kept nuclear reactors going there would always be a risk of nuclear disaster. And if the conservative government of a highly advanced country like Germany decides that the risk of nuclear energy is too high, maybe others should take note. We know a few things about engineering. But feel free to follow the lead of the Trump government, or the Chinese government in this regard. They surely have only the well-being of their people and climate protection in mind.
It just makes me worry that our dystopian future will never arrive. There will be no Mad Max, or even a Waterworld. No Road, no Idiocracy (beyond what we've already got). If civilization broke down, these sites would not be properly decommissioned and would do a number on the Earth's ability to sustain life. I only mention that because in 2020, civilization seems kind of fragile. I fully acknowledge that it's the best option right now though.
You guys know that there is nuclear waste and that we need to store that somewhere safely for a long time. I get why we would prefer this over coal etc. , but nuclear energy will also be a problem for humanity due to all the waste, especially as we are building more and more plants.
I haven't followed recent developments regarding nukular closely, have we figured out what to do with the waste yet aside from throwing it into deep holes?
Please show us the coal plants that were build because (and don't start with a list of coal powerplants that were finished in this period. Include the approval and Planung process) nuclear powerplants were deactivated. And please show me the development of renewables in Germany. I'm not saying that everything is fine and dandy but the decision to go away from nuclear didn't worsen the climate. Source:
Energiemanagement Master / Auditor für ISO50002:2018. You know, someone who looked a very long time and very deep into this topic.
and it's funny how the waste topic isn't on the radar for most. 🙈🙊🙉
There are other topics like the carbon emission-Trade that needs a huge reform. Until 2022 8 more Coal plants are going offline without a new one. Thats the window we need to use to ensure another raise in renewables.
Last edited:
Solar and Wind is both considered to be a base load producer, since they both produce at a constant level, same as nuclear.
Coal and especially gas are both used for peak load capacity increase
How does one differenciate a government deciding that something is too risky from one which make that same decision to please the mass in this scenario ?
We should be making more of them not shutting them down, at the very least until we are completely free from burning coal.
The volume of waste produced is extremely small, relative to the amount of power generated. It's also not going into the atmosphere, unlike radioactive coal ash.
