3 ms·
But it is nuclear that cannot replace fossil fuels, because it can only supply base load. Also what are you doing when rivers are too low, too hot or frozen and
by legulere 6y ago
But it is nuclear that cannot replace fossil fuels, because it can only supply base load. Also what are you doing when rivers are too low, too hot or frozen and you cannot get the water needed for nuclear power?
- macspoofing 6y agoHeh. Check out France on this map: https://www.electricitymap.org/map https://www.electricitymap.org/map Imagine if every developed economy invested in nuclear at the same level of France even if you still need to rely on fossil fuel peaker plants - that's a good start no? France, even with fossil-fuel backup has far lower emissions than most other countries (3x lower emissions than the darling of renewable energy, Germany ... which by the way relies on France's nuclear power too) Here's something to get depressed at: Imagine if every developed economy invested in nuclear at the same level as France but in the 70s. Think of the trillions and trillions of tons of CO2 that would not have been emitted into the atmosphere. It would have bought us decades to get global warming under control. When history passes judgment, it won't be the climate-denialists that will take the brunt of criticism, but anti-nuke environmentalists who fucked things up (and continue to do so) for our species.
- redwall_hp 6y agoSome of them already have recanted their previous stance. That's a large part of the Pandora's Promise documentary (a Sundance film): former anti-nuclear activists who reversed their stance.
- legulere 6y agoJust 60% nuclear according the map. Why not 100%? A lot of countries have more than that in renewables: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable...