3 ms·

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 wi

by 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.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    They are silver bullets -- really, golden geese -- that are fixing it all, as fast as we spend to build them out. We could be building out much faster, if not for societal inertia and corrupt lobbying. Each dollar spent on nukes is a dollar not spent on radically more productive renewables. Thus, each diverted to nukes brings climate catastrophe nearer.
    - lelag 4y ago
      > Each dollar spent on nukes is a dollar not spent on radically more productive renewables. Thus, each diverted to nukes brings climate catastrophe nearer. Unfortunately, it seems we have a fundamental and irreconcilable disagreement on this point as I feel exactly the opposite. At least, I'm glad to live in a country where the government mostly share my view on the topic.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        And, it is fortunate that what will actually be built and operated will be dictated more by actual costs. Any nukes built will be mothballed long before their design life is over as they utterly fail to compete; except where their much more expensive output is forced on users by politics.
  - logifail 4y ago
    > [nuclear has] produced vast amount of predictable carbon-free energy We really can't describe a commercial nuclear power plant as "carbon-free". Sure, responsible for much less carbon than coal or gas per kW/h, but taking into account the lifecycle, almost certainly way more carbon than renewables.([0] and other sources): "Mark Z. Jacobson, director of the Atmosphere / Energy Program at California's Stanford University, calculated a climate cost of 68 to 180 grams of CO2/kWh, depending on the electricity mix used in uranium production and other variables" [0] https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-nuclear-energy-good-for-the-climate/a-59853315 https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-nuclear-energy-good-for-...

by lelag 4y ago

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.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  They are silver bullets -- really, golden geese -- that are fixing it all, as fast as we spend to build them out. We could be building out much faster, if not for societal inertia and corrupt lobbying. Each dollar spent on nukes is a dollar not spent on radically more productive renewables. Thus, each diverted to nukes brings climate catastrophe nearer.
  - lelag 4y ago
    > Each dollar spent on nukes is a dollar not spent on radically more productive renewables. Thus, each diverted to nukes brings climate catastrophe nearer. Unfortunately, it seems we have a fundamental and irreconcilable disagreement on this point as I feel exactly the opposite. At least, I'm glad to live in a country where the government mostly share my view on the topic.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      And, it is fortunate that what will actually be built and operated will be dictated more by actual costs. Any nukes built will be mothballed long before their design life is over as they utterly fail to compete; except where their much more expensive output is forced on users by politics.
- logifail 4y ago
  > [nuclear has] produced vast amount of predictable carbon-free energy We really can't describe a commercial nuclear power plant as "carbon-free". Sure, responsible for much less carbon than coal or gas per kW/h, but taking into account the lifecycle, almost certainly way more carbon than renewables.([0] and other sources): "Mark Z. Jacobson, director of the Atmosphere / Energy Program at California's Stanford University, calculated a climate cost of 68 to 180 grams of CO2/kWh, depending on the electricity mix used in uranium production and other variables" [0] https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-nuclear-energy-good-for-the-climate/a-59853315 https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-nuclear-energy-good-for-...