this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2023
598 points (97.6% liked)
World News
32326 readers
997 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
yeah sure, nuclear powerplants finished in the late 40th are gonna solve our current problems (if that's the approach you are talking about)
Sure as fuck better than setting targets you know you're not going to hit and then acting all shocked when you don't
The targets got missed by construction (some small part) and transport (mainly)... and again like clockwork the brain-washed nuclear brigade storms in lying about electricity production.
Is it though? You'd need to cut the price of nuclear by about 1/4. Even then, renewables are faster at decarbonisation. Not that nuclear represented a large amount of the German grid in the first place. Best case scenario for Germany, is extending the lifespan of their plants not more than a few years.
Sitting here and complaining about how long it'll take once we start, and as such never actually starting, is exactly how we got here.
Best time was 40 years ago, second best time is now.
It's actually the worst time to get started on nuclear. Costs keep going up. There's a reason why countries overwhelmingly prefer to invest in renewables over nuclear. This includes nuclear companies. EDF is one of the largest investors in renewables, and it's actually the profitable side of the business. It's going to be the taxpayer that's going to pay for nuclear, and they're not going to get their money's worth, as opposed to renewables.
This just in, when you arbitrarily raise the barrier of entry to a market, the price goes up.
You can't go cheap on nuclear. Otherwise you're looking at a myriad of political corruption and safety concerns, which in part will cost you a government, where you'll eventually have to start all over again. Or you could just invest in renewables. Like what China is overwhelmingly doing.
But that's excactly not was it happening. Keeping the remaining reactors alive (they provided ~2,6% of the generated electricity btw...) just for the sake of keeping them would have slowed down renewables (as those old reactors are definitely not fit to adapt to fluctuations well) and would also have bound a lot of money then missing for renewables and infra-structure (why upgrade the grid to better renewable fluctuations when the reactors can't anyway).
So they actually start right now and massively so to build up renewables and the matching infra-structure. Unlike countries with alleged nuclear plans, that all still plan to start building soon™ and in most cases not even close to the actual required numbers for the projected demand in two decades+. Because completely decarbonising transport, industry and heating means a massive increase in electricity demand as we basically shift all primary energy demand over to electricity. Yes, in some cases electrity will be more efficient and will save some energy. But we are still talking about all primary energy, with electricity today often only making up 20-25% of the primary energy demand in most countries today.
PS: But yes, if you want to build nuclear. Start today. But do it on a scale that you will be actually able to cover the minimal required base load of your projected electricity demand in 2050+... Fun fact: No country actually does. They all just pretend and actually sit the problem out for someone else by loudly planning nuclear but not in amounts that make sense mathematically. France is basically the only country with a somewhat reasonable plan. When they scrap the "8 optional reactors" bullshit and build the bull set of 14. That's their required baseload. And they will need to keep their aging fleet functional until the majority of them are build. They will also not be trivial.