5 ms·

Nuclear energy bad. No fix. Trust me. Must not try again.

by qsdf38100 4y ago

Manuel_D 4y ago
Yep, worked terribly for France. They emit way more carbon dioxide than Germany \s.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  France likes their nukes so well they have no plans to replace them as they age out. Germany is emitting much less CO2 than before they shut down their nukes. They elected to spend what it would have cost, to keep them working, instead on wind turbines. This has yielded much more generation than the refurbished nukes would eventually have offered, but immediately. Germany is actively building out more renewable generating capacity to displace more carbon emissions, but there is a very large amount of work to be done. Building nukes instead would take much longer and yield much less.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    This is misinformation, France 14 more nuclear reactors in the works: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/02/france-to-cut-carbon-emissions-russian-energy-influence-with-14-nuclear-reactors/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/02/france-to-cut-ca... Germany's CO2 emissions are on an upward trend now that there reactivating coal plants to get off of Russian gas. Furthermore, the decision to shut down nuclear plants resulted in greater emissions that what would have occurred had they kept them active.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Ooh, 14 reactors "planned". Of course they will be cancelled when it turns out no one will buy their power at a price they can offer. Germany is burning more coal than last year and less NG, which drove up CO2. That says nothing about what they would be emitting with the nukes and without the wind farms. But we already know that answer.
      - Manuel_D 4y ago
        > Germany is burning more coal than last year and less NG, which drove up CO2. That says nothing about what they would be emitting with the nukes and without the wind farms. But we already know that answer. It absolutely says what they would do: add the nuclear power that was eliminated and subtract the coal. Remember, they didn't need to build new nuclear plants they just needed to not shut down their existing ones.
  - qsdf38100 4y ago
    Why are you framing this as nuclear energy vs renewable? Both are viable, and we should do both. 100% renewables mix is extremely difficult to manage cause we are far from having enough storage. Storage is a big challenge on its own.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Because each dollar spent building a nuke is a dollar not invested building renewables that would displace much more fossil fuel, immediately instead of ten years on maybe. Coal producers lately love nukes because they mean at least ten more years of reliable sales, more if it is cancelled. They know they are doomed, but with enough nuke projects can hang on long enough to retire. If civilization collapses, it probably won't be immediately, and that is good enough for them. We don't have storage because we have not built out storage. Just now, a dollar is much better invested in renewable generating capacity, so we build that. When storage comes to have value, we will build out storage. After storage, carbon capture, but not before, same reason.

Nuclear energy bad. No fix. Trust me. Must not try again.

Manuel_D 4y ago

Yep, worked terribly for France. They emit way more carbon dioxide than Germany \s.

ncmncm 4y ago
France likes their nukes so well they have no plans to replace them as they age out. Germany is emitting much less CO2 than before they shut down their nukes. They elected to spend what it would have cost, to keep them working, instead on wind turbines. This has yielded much more generation than the refurbished nukes would eventually have offered, but immediately. Germany is actively building out more renewable generating capacity to displace more carbon emissions, but there is a very large amount of work to be done. Building nukes instead would take much longer and yield much less.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  This is misinformation, France 14 more nuclear reactors in the works: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/02/france-to-cut-carbon-emissions-russian-energy-influence-with-14-nuclear-reactors/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/02/france-to-cut-ca... Germany's CO2 emissions are on an upward trend now that there reactivating coal plants to get off of Russian gas. Furthermore, the decision to shut down nuclear plants resulted in greater emissions that what would have occurred had they kept them active.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Ooh, 14 reactors "planned". Of course they will be cancelled when it turns out no one will buy their power at a price they can offer. Germany is burning more coal than last year and less NG, which drove up CO2. That says nothing about what they would be emitting with the nukes and without the wind farms. But we already know that answer.
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      > Germany is burning more coal than last year and less NG, which drove up CO2. That says nothing about what they would be emitting with the nukes and without the wind farms. But we already know that answer. It absolutely says what they would do: add the nuclear power that was eliminated and subtract the coal. Remember, they didn't need to build new nuclear plants they just needed to not shut down their existing ones.
- qsdf38100 4y ago
  Why are you framing this as nuclear energy vs renewable? Both are viable, and we should do both. 100% renewables mix is extremely difficult to manage cause we are far from having enough storage. Storage is a big challenge on its own.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Because each dollar spent building a nuke is a dollar not invested building renewables that would displace much more fossil fuel, immediately instead of ten years on maybe. Coal producers lately love nukes because they mean at least ten more years of reliable sales, more if it is cancelled. They know they are doomed, but with enough nuke projects can hang on long enough to retire. If civilization collapses, it probably won't be immediately, and that is good enough for them. We don't have storage because we have not built out storage. Just now, a dollar is much better invested in renewable generating capacity, so we build that. When storage comes to have value, we will build out storage. After storage, carbon capture, but not before, same reason.