Would you support an “Manhattan Project” style move to renewables for Europe?

26 comments

1. We’re already pipelined for that modular reactor crap. This being europe, the nice thing is I don’t have to bother to support or oppose anything. They will happen regardless.

2. You mean, like a Green New Deal type programme? Of course! And we should have done that at least a decade ago.

   In the space of less than 10 years, the US went from barely being able to get to space, to landing two men on the moon. The way it did that was to sink 5% of its budget each year into the space programme. We knew dependency on Russian gas was a liability at least since the mid-00s when Russia threatened to cut off Ukraine’s gas supply, and that’s not even mentioning dependence on Gulf oil or on Central Asian totalitarian dictatorships. If there’s the political will, it can happen.

3. We had 20 years to prepare for a bigger transition to nuclear and we mucked about

4. I have no idea what the Manhattan Project is/was.

   But my thought on renewables is the more the better.

5. Yes, especially nuclear. Renewables are good but they already get enough funding here. Besides that, we shouldn’t exchange energy dependency on Russia for dependency on the weather.

   We should at least make energy security just as important as decarbonisation. And if you can kill 2 birds with the same stone, that’s the best option.

   We really need some kind of operation warp speed to materialise all of this. And treat anyone obstructing it (climate change deniers as well as antinuclear ngos like GreenPeace, WWF, and WISE) the same way as antivaxers.

6. I never heard about the “Manhattan project”. So I don’t know what you mean by that.

   But moving to renewables is necessary. Climate change has devastating consequences.

   In Portugal, we end our coal plants last year and we are using natural gas and renewables. The problem is that we are having a very unusual dry winter and dams can’t produce electricity like they used to. (hydropower energy is the main source of renewable energy in Portugal).

   That is a reason why nuclear is necessary is that it gives consistent energy and doesn’t depend on the weather but Nuclear energy is not in the plans of the Portuguese government and how things work here I don’t expect anything to be done in the next 20 years.

7. I mean, I think that should be happening with or without Russia using energy as a bargaining chip. So sure, why not.

   I’m also pretty baffled that people haven’t heard of the Manhattan Project. How do you study WWII without running into it?

8. Can you give an example of how Russia uses energy as a baton?
   Not as a carrot, but as a club.

9. So long as we don’t exchange dependence on Russian gas for dependence on Chinese nuclear as seems to be a risk with our (UK) Hinckley Point nuclear power station project and the proposed Sizewell D project.

10. No, the reality is that hydro and Nuclear remain more viable than solar or wind, until they develope a more useful energy storage technology, building up capacity is a non starter. Though getting Europe off Natural gas or oil would be veryuseful.

11. Yes but it’s still going to take a long time to do. Looking at the Netherlands there are a few issues.

    1) Get rid of using natural gas for heating. We have 7.9 million houses, most of them still use gas. For my house it would cost roughly €40k to insulate the house and install a heat pump that can keep the house warm. My house isn’t on the cheaper end so even if that’s the average (might be higher) and half of the almost 8 million houses need this overhaul, you are talking over 150 billion euros. That’s just to disconnect households of gas and doesn’t include renewables yet or converting offices and industries. I don’t have 40k and can’t get a loan for that with our current strict rules. Even if I could i wouldnt want to invest it in this house as it’s sitting in top of a natural gas field that has been causing so many earthquakes that there are cracks in the walls everywhere and the house is only worth 120k. I’d be throwing that 40k down the drain and it won’t increase the value even a cent.

    2) This country is as flat as can be, so hydro isn’t viable. Our winters are cloudy and cold, so solar panels are almost useless (I know from experience). That leaves wind turbines. We don’t have a lot of land so we need to install roughly 18.000 in the north sea. On days without much wind that’s not going to be enough, so we need to generate more than we use and then store in somehow. With hydrogen you lose 75% and there isn’t really a good large scale alternative, so this is just hopeless.

    3) nuclear isn’t renewable but at least generates a stable and reliable amount of energy. Issue: it takes 8-10 years to build a power plant. That is if we don’t reinvent the wheel and use a design that is available. If we try to “improve” the design along the way it will take longer and costs much more (look at France).

    4) So we need to work together. That leaves us with a similar dependency we have now with Russia.

    This is going to be a long term thing and i hate the fact that we know this for decades and never really begin with it.

12. You can’t go fully renewable/nuclear. You need a way to store the electricity and we don’t have such technology yet. Until we figure a way to store electricity we need some conventional power source like natgas or coal.

    PS: At the moment our best bet seems to be the Alexandroupolis Independent Natural Gas System which will eventually provide Europe with US liquefied natural gas.

    https://www.thenationalherald.com/pyatt-welcomes-milestone-in-lng-station-project-for-alexandroupolis/

    Edit: a better solution would be if Greece, Turkey and Cyprus could cooperate. But that would be bad for some European states: better to sell guns to Greece and Turkey than buying natural gas from them. 🙁

13. I would prefer a more global solution. There are many places around the world that receive a lot more sun than germany or france. solar panels should go there. There are extreme winds near ocean, while we get very little in Turkey. Wind turbines should go there.

    Same with the nuclear. The only real concern to me is the possibility of catasthrope. It’s fine if its placed in a remote corner of the world. You know, just in case.

14. Bruh.

15. Pretty sure manhattan project was the project to build a nuclear bomb but ok

16. The Manhattan project doesn’t make sense as a comparison, most of the tech and science already exists, a huge science project isn’t what’s needed (although obv the tech could always become better). What’s needed is the implementation of that tech and science which just means funding the building of more and more windfarms and solar panels as well as nuclear power plants.

17. as much as i support renewables due to their relative independence regarding resources.
    electricity is only a “small” part of total energy consumption rest to being used for industrial, commercial or household heat production, or as a motor fuel .
    While i agree that renewable energy targets could be more strict to speed up transition, i also have a hard time believing that “EU” can produce cohesive vision on how future energy mix should look like, that would also take into account varying geography of specific member states. which, as i mentioned would also focus on renewable/non-carbon heat production

18. Wasn’t the Manhattan Projekt about the developement of nuclear missiles?

19. Do you mean [“The Marshall Plan”](https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/marshall-plan-1) rather than “The Manhattan Project”?

    If so, then yes I do support that.

20. Absolutely. If the war doesn’t end soon, the economy will collapse due to lack of petrol.

21. Well, France is already using mostly nuclear. My only issue is that it might change because of dumb political decisions despite nuclear being the way to go as of today in terms of being quite independent from other countries in terms of energy and also being way better than gas when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions.
    Germany made a huge mistake on that one for example.

    Renewable is way too much trouble right now. Everyone would prefer renewable but that does not seem realistic to me, we can’t recycle most of the solar panels or wind turbines, we can’t store the energy produced and we don’t have any solution for the moment when there is no wind nor sun.

22. Yes, definitely!

    But I don’t think corrupt politicians really want it.

    I’m sure that there are some renewable sources that we have not discovered yet or we have not researched enough to increase the efficiency of the current ones, like for solar panels.

23. You would first have to convince Germans and Austrians, that nuclear energy is not dangerous and that it’s clean.

24. The technology is available and the business case makes sense. What is not to like?

    NIMBY maybe?

    Well, a recent study in Germany made clear that the NIMBY syndrome vanished in thin air when the people impacted by the installation of wind turbines, were allowed to profit from the operation of the turbines.

    Time and time again it is proven that successful wind turbines projects on land (within the visual range of residents) are organised as private + citizens co-operations were the revenues are shared by everyone involved (not just the investors).

25. If you mean ” a science program that is backed by nearly unlimited government funds”, then yes.

26. Only if it produces a weapon of mass destruction as an unintended side effect.