6 ms·

It's very possible that you are right, that it's too late, that we can't redevelop enough nuclear capacity in time, that we are doomed to see the world burn.

by lelag 4y ago

It's very possible that you are right, that it's too late, that we can't redevelop enough nuclear capacity in time, that we are doomed to see the world burn. That won't prevent me from blaming the anti-nuclear crowd that put us in that situation in the first place. Yes, nuclear is expensive, yes it can be messy but it was our best shot to produce abundant amount of low carbon power. All this talk about switching to wind and solar power omit the inconfortable fact that the current low prices for those technologies are low because we are using fossil fuel to make them. When you have to make advanced renewable tech with only renewable energy, you will see that it's no longer possible to make it economically either.

ncmncm 4y ago
We are not doomed to see the world burn. We know what to do: just build renewables. It is dishonest to claim that using carbon to build them is a problem. The more we build, the less carbon is used on them. When you need falsehoods to make your case, you have no case.
- lelag 4y ago
  Falsehood ? What do you know about building windmills ? I admit that I don't myself know much, but I can tell you that you need at least: - A modern metallurgy industry using coal to make steal - Possibly a chemical industry to make composite material - A logistic industry to move components around the world using petrol (all the solar and wind renewable production is based in china) - Cement to build your fondation (using gas) Remove all this and try to build it locally and see how much they cost you...
  - dane-pgp 4y ago
    > A modern metallurgy industry using coal to make steal Nuclear reactors also require steel (and a chemical industry and cement) but fortunately that doesn't require coal: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/19/green-steel-swedish-company-ships-first-batch-made-without-using-coal https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/19/green-steel-...
    - lelag 4y ago
      Sure but that wasn't the point. The point is that those that claim that we can replace fossils fuel entirely by wind and solar based on the current price of wind and solar production produced by an industry doped with fossil fuels at every stage are deluding themselves.
      - bob29 4y ago
        It's precisely the point for ALL primary energy sources. everything is built with the current fossil fuel powered industry. cement, steel, uranium mining and enrichment all is subsidized by the fossil fuel doped industry. Same with wind and solar. The fact that nuclear power costs more than fossil fuel power is really a reflection that its whole supply chain is consuming more fossil fuel energy than its producing. it is not the magical bullet you think it is. furthermore, as certain installations of solar and wind are actually producing power cheaper than fossil fuels, its contributing to a trajectory where the % fossil fuels in industry can actually diminish.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        lelag 4y ago
        You make it sound like I'm anti-renewable. I'm not at all. I'm all for building as much capacity as we can as long as it makes economical sense and I will selfishly have solar panel and LFP batteries installed on my home as soon as I can and before price goes up as I expect they will. What I'm saying is that we should not put all of our eggs in the same basket hoping that wind and solar are silver bullets that will fix it all (and we know it is not if only for the unsolved energy storage issue). Maybe nuclear is not a silver bullet either, but it's a bullet that we've been successfully leveraged to produced vast amount of predictable carbon-free energy and we should not discard it yet. What I'm saying is that saying solar and wind is cheap by looking at today's price is misleading. I'm sure that building nuclear power plant has a significant carbon footprint. Building windmills and solar panels also. Yet, in all case, they compensate for all the initial emission after a few years of usage at worse. So it does makes sense to build them all. Just don't let us not use nuclear because we need it: compare Germany and France electricity production carbon intensity for proof if you need it convince yourself.

by lelag 4y ago

ncmncm 4y ago

We are not doomed to see the world burn. We know what to do: just build renewables. It is dishonest to claim that using carbon to build them is a problem. The more we build, the less carbon is used on them. When you need falsehoods to make your case, you have no case.

lelag 4y ago
Falsehood ? What do you know about building windmills ? I admit that I don't myself know much, but I can tell you that you need at least: - A modern metallurgy industry using coal to make steal - Possibly a chemical industry to make composite material - A logistic industry to move components around the world using petrol (all the solar and wind renewable production is based in china) - Cement to build your fondation (using gas) Remove all this and try to build it locally and see how much they cost you...
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  > A modern metallurgy industry using coal to make steal Nuclear reactors also require steel (and a chemical industry and cement) but fortunately that doesn't require coal: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/19/green-steel-swedish-company-ships-first-batch-made-without-using-coal https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/19/green-steel-...
  - lelag 4y ago
    Sure but that wasn't the point. The point is that those that claim that we can replace fossils fuel entirely by wind and solar based on the current price of wind and solar production produced by an industry doped with fossil fuels at every stage are deluding themselves.
    - bob29 4y ago
      It's precisely the point for ALL primary energy sources. everything is built with the current fossil fuel powered industry. cement, steel, uranium mining and enrichment all is subsidized by the fossil fuel doped industry. Same with wind and solar. The fact that nuclear power costs more than fossil fuel power is really a reflection that its whole supply chain is consuming more fossil fuel energy than its producing. it is not the magical bullet you think it is. furthermore, as certain installations of solar and wind are actually producing power cheaper than fossil fuels, its contributing to a trajectory where the % fossil fuels in industry can actually diminish.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      - lelag 4y ago
        You make it sound like I'm anti-renewable. I'm not at all. I'm all for building as much capacity as we can as long as it makes economical sense and I will selfishly have solar panel and LFP batteries installed on my home as soon as I can and before price goes up as I expect they will. What I'm saying is that we should not put all of our eggs in the same basket hoping that wind and solar are silver bullets that will fix it all (and we know it is not if only for the unsolved energy storage issue). Maybe nuclear is not a silver bullet either, but it's a bullet that we've been successfully leveraged to produced vast amount of predictable carbon-free energy and we should not discard it yet. What I'm saying is that saying solar and wind is cheap by looking at today's price is misleading. I'm sure that building nuclear power plant has a significant carbon footprint. Building windmills and solar panels also. Yet, in all case, they compensate for all the initial emission after a few years of usage at worse. So it does makes sense to build them all. Just don't let us not use nuclear because we need it: compare Germany and France electricity production carbon intensity for proof if you need it convince yourself.