4 ms·

I'm not "suggesting" anything, I just let us remember that France plans to considerably reduce its nuclear power capacity. If my assertions aren't clear or if a

I'm not "suggesting" anything, I just let us remember that France plans to considerably reduce its nuclear power capacity. If my assertions aren't clear or if a proof is missing please feel free to ask. FYI I'm French. > France has one of the lowest CO2 emissions per capita Apples and oranges... France has wayyyy less factories than Germany, however it imports goods produced elsewhere. CO2 emitted in order to produce those goods is to be accounted for! Real CO2 emission: France: 6.92t/year/capita in 2017 Germany: 10.83t/year/capita in 2017 Source: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/prod-cons-co2-per-capita?year=latest&time=2017&country=~DEU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/prod-cons-co2-per-capita?... https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/prod-cons-co2-per-capita?year=latest&time=2017&country=~FRA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/prod-cons-co2-per-capita?... Moreover Germany is richer than France (=> more equipment => more CO2 emitted). GDP per capita (PPP): 52.4k€/capita versus 47.6 At this point from your data 9.13/5.2 (1.75) ratio we are back to 9.74/6.92 (1.4) Germany's climate is much colder (=> more heating => more CO2 emitted). Heaters in Germany are massively oil-based systems because there was an historic low taxation on heating oil. Sadly I can't find solid data. Food for thought. > Not diversifying your energy portfolio is a terrible idea. Yes, indeed. However it doesn't imply that we must use each and every energy source, without any consideration for all its characteristics. Nuclear plants and their waste are dangerous, and contrary to a common belief they cannot solve the climate challenge while letting us avoid changing our habits. > You will not find pro-nuclear supporters upset with France's decision to reduce their dependence on nuclear Some, in France, think that we should go full nuclear, and they fight for it. Example: https://www.enviscope.com/lassociation-des-ecologistes-pour-le-nucleaire-porte-plainte-contre-la-fermeture-de-fessenheim/ https://www.enviscope.com/lassociation-des-ecologistes-pour-... Other think that we may have to chose a "100% renewables" option. Example: https://www.ouest-france.fr/environnement/nucleaire/nucleaire-ou-renouvelable-pour-barbara-pompili-la-france-devra-choisir-apres-2035-6915983 https://www.ouest-france.fr/environnement/nucleaire/nucleair... In 2010 in the US 8.4% of the energy comes from nuclear plants, and renewables (hydro included) produce approx 6% Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#Energy_consumption_by_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#En... That is to say in order to only 'decarbonate' the energy sector (there are other sectors to decarbonate!) thanks to nuclear power the US should deploy ~11 times more nuclear power capacity than it already has, and adapt or retrofit all energy-consuming equipment in order to have it use gridpower (or to embark some nano-reactor). This seems completely unrealistic, from many perspectives. Even a mix (nuclear + renewables) with 3 to 5 times more nuclear seems unrealistic. 'CO2-clean' energy production as a whole isn't possible. Electricity production accounts for 27% of CO2 emissions, and 63% (of the electricity) is produced by fossil fuel, and 20% by nukeplants). Source: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... => quickly reducing CO2 emission by 27% by producing all gridpower does not imply any adaption/retrofit of any existing stuff, however it implies a 5-fold increase of nuclear capacity or a balance with renewables (taking into account the baseload) and would not be a decisive progress as the GIEC invites us to "fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching 'net zero' around 2050". Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Report_on_Global_Warming_of_1.5_%C2%B0C https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Report_on_Global_Warmi... Therefore, indeed, "the proof is sitting right there, all you have to do is look": in order to reduce emissions we have to consume wayyyyy less energy and stuff. > What we are arguing for IMHO the sole realistic option is "let's drastically reduce our energy & stuff needs", or even "degrowth". Even an "all-nuclear gripower" plan, which is completely out-of-reach, cannot fix the climate problem: gridpower offers only about 25% of the consumed energy in advanced countries, and beyond energy-production many human activities emit huge amounts of CO2 in ways we cannot modify, or at best cannot modify quickly (agriculture comes to mind, as in the US it produces ~10% of the emitted CO2, and feeding cows with gridpower may prove to be difficult). > _today_ we have the technology We don't know, _today_, how to make a fool-proof nuclear plant nor how to effectively dispose of its waste. We don't know how to solve the NIMBY challenge. Financing a nuclear plant becomes more and more difficult. Even building it is a major ordeal (see the EPR projects). And even if we fix all this there is no all-nuclear approach able to tackle the challenge (dividing CO2 emissions by 3).

godelski 6y ago
> Apples and oranges... I can change that to CO2eq/capita/kWhr and it is still true ([1] above shows that). > Nuclear plants and their waste are dangerous, I'm not trying to dismiss that. But you also shouldn't dismiss the impacts of other resources. There is no free lunch here. For example, heavy metal contaminants are stable and stay toxic forever. We likely have to deal with these contaminants similarly to nuclear (put them in giant sealed holes in the ground that won't ever have access to the groundwater). > Some, in France, think that we should go full nuclear, and they fight for it. I am happy to explicitly call them dumb (as opposed to my previous implicitness). They are clearly uninformed on the matter. > Other think that we may have to chose a "100% renewables" option. This relies on two things happening (one of, or a combination). 1) The grid is massively overbuilt, 2) battery storage massively improves. These things are possible. The argument for nuclear is, again, based on what we have right now and saying that we shouldn't bet too much on future technologies. It is too risky of a bet. This isn't a big problem for France because you are starting at a very good emission rate, but in other countries it is important because every day we continue to argue we use more coal and oil. Unlike France, we are a much larger nation that is much less population dense and that massively eats into our efficiency of our grid. As for France, I hope you can get to 100% renewable. Like I said in the previous comment, we will be cheering you on. France is what many of us envy. Where we wish we could have started from. Following that path 50 years ago the situation today would be much different. I hope we can get to 100% renewable. I do. I'm just not willing to put all my eggs in one basket. > That is to say in order to only 'decarbonate' the energy sector (there are other sectors to decarbonate!) thanks to nuclear power the US should deploy ~11 times more nuclear power capacity than it already has I'm really frustrated at how many times I've said "nuclear __+__ renewables" and you ignore the "+" and assume a "-". I'm sure there are those out there that believe it. I have implicitly and explicitly called them dumb. But if you believe that I am one of those people I would ask you to read my comments again or stop responding if you will not discuss in good faith. I have been extremely clear on the issue. The issue was the thesis of my previous comment. > Electricity production accounts for 27% of CO2 emissions, Even though this isn't where you were going with it, this is a topic I'm __majorly__ concerned about. In the public discourse we only discuss electricity and transportation. As per your source, that accounts for a little under 60% of the total problem. Worse, the US is only 15% of the problem (I remember a presidential candidate this year getting booed for saying that we need to do more because of this). 25% of this is land use and agriculture. Another 25% is electricity and heat. And 21% is industry. We can do a lot in many of these sectors, but we still need new technologies. Gates wrote a good article about the subject matter[0] (actually if you dig there are a few). I actually also heavily advocate for CC and sequestration, again because I don't want to bet too much on things going just perfect. And in fact we need negative emissions, not 0. If you listen to many of the climate scientists, you will hear this from them when they feel like they can speak freely. This is why they often talk gloom and doom, because what they can say without pissing a ton of people off is far from where we need to be. > in order to reduce emissions we have to consume wayyyyy less energy and stuff. The genie is out of the bottle. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. So maybe CC&S. Costly, but it can work. [0] https://www.gatesnotes.com/energy/my-plan-for-fighting-climate-change https://www.gatesnotes.com/energy/my-plan-for-fighting-clima...

godelski 6y ago

> Apples and oranges... I can change that to CO2eq/capita/kWhr and it is still true ([1] above shows that). > Nuclear plants and their waste are dangerous, I'm not trying to dismiss that. But you also shouldn't dismiss the impacts of other resources. There is no free lunch here. For example, heavy metal contaminants are stable and stay toxic forever. We likely have to deal with these contaminants similarly to nuclear (put them in giant sealed holes in the ground that won't ever have access to the groundwater). > Some, in France, think that we should go full nuclear, and they fight for it. I am happy to explicitly call them dumb (as opposed to my previous implicitness). They are clearly uninformed on the matter. > Other think that we may have to chose a "100% renewables" option. This relies on two things happening (one of, or a combination). 1) The grid is massively overbuilt, 2) battery storage massively improves. These things are possible. The argument for nuclear is, again, based on what we have right now and saying that we shouldn't bet too much on future technologies. It is too risky of a bet. This isn't a big problem for France because you are starting at a very good emission rate, but in other countries it is important because every day we continue to argue we use more coal and oil. Unlike France, we are a much larger nation that is much less population dense and that massively eats into our efficiency of our grid. As for France, I hope you can get to 100% renewable. Like I said in the previous comment, we will be cheering you on. France is what many of us envy. Where we wish we could have started from. Following that path 50 years ago the situation today would be much different. I hope we can get to 100% renewable. I do. I'm just not willing to put all my eggs in one basket. > That is to say in order to only 'decarbonate' the energy sector (there are other sectors to decarbonate!) thanks to nuclear power the US should deploy ~11 times more nuclear power capacity than it already has I'm really frustrated at how many times I've said "nuclear __+__ renewables" and you ignore the "+" and assume a "-". I'm sure there are those out there that believe it. I have implicitly and explicitly called them dumb. But if you believe that I am one of those people I would ask you to read my comments again or stop responding if you will not discuss in good faith. I have been extremely clear on the issue. The issue was the thesis of my previous comment. > Electricity production accounts for 27% of CO2 emissions, Even though this isn't where you were going with it, this is a topic I'm __majorly__ concerned about. In the public discourse we only discuss electricity and transportation. As per your source, that accounts for a little under 60% of the total problem. Worse, the US is only 15% of the problem (I remember a presidential candidate this year getting booed for saying that we need to do more because of this). 25% of this is land use and agriculture. Another 25% is electricity and heat. And 21% is industry. We can do a lot in many of these sectors, but we still need new technologies. Gates wrote a good article about the subject matter[0] (actually if you dig there are a few). I actually also heavily advocate for CC and sequestration, again because I don't want to bet too much on things going just perfect. And in fact we need negative emissions, not 0. If you listen to many of the climate scientists, you will hear this from them when they feel like they can speak freely. This is why they often talk gloom and doom, because what they can say without pissing a ton of people off is far from where we need to be. > in order to reduce emissions we have to consume wayyyyy less energy and stuff. The genie is out of the bottle. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. So maybe CC&S. Costly, but it can work. [0] https://www.gatesnotes.com/energy/my-plan-for-fighting-climate-change https://www.gatesnotes.com/energy/my-plan-for-fighting-clima...