5 ms·

Pitting nuclear against coal is fighting a straw man. The alternative is renewables. With a tiny fraction of the negative side-effects either nuclear or of foss

Pitting nuclear against coal is fighting a straw man. The alternative is renewables. With a tiny fraction of the negative side-effects either nuclear or of fossil energy brings.

cloverich 4y ago
Can renewables realistically cover (near) 100% of our day and night energy needs in the next 20 years? Gates book suggested no and if so thats why the comparison is apt.
zemvpferreira 4y ago
It's most certainly not, since for every kW of installed renewables another kW of gas capacity must be installed to compensate for intermittency. That said, no reason why the original deal can't be extended to renewables, seems perfectly fair. It's to everyone's benefit that all methods of power generation be held accountable for all their costs.
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  > It's most certainly not, since for every kW of installed renewables another kW of gas capacity must be installed to compensate for intermittency. Why? Built geographically decoupled production, look at past weather data and pick how many 9's up-time you want. Then use storage and smart consumers to lower the requirements. For national emergencies keep a fossil reserve or whatever, with that kind of usage power 2 gas should not even matter.
  - zemvpferreira 4y ago
    You can dream every solution you'd care to dream, but right now gas-backed solar is how it's done in europe.
    - xorcist 4y ago
      Nuclear is also "gas-backed" in way. A stable energy grid is not something one can hand wave together.
      - geoduck14 4y ago
        Nuclear is reliable to a fault. It is rock solid. But it doesn't "go up" very fast - that is where you need gas support. Which is quite different from solar and wind, where you can't predict the ups and downs
        adrianN 4y ago
        Have you looked at France's grid recently?
      - orbifold 4y ago
        In Germany it was backed by water power that could take most of the load at night so that the nuclear power plants could run continuously.
- perbu 4y ago
  You know, for the last couple of months we learned quite a bit about the reliability of gas power. It's not really that great.
orbifold 4y ago
If the question is what energy production method should be used it is certainly not. The Green Party in particular did probably more harm to the environment and damaged or geo-strategic position by making us dependent on foreign Gas and by extending the economic viability of open-pit mines. We were leaders in nuclear technology and research and could be energy independent by now.
- Aeolos 4y ago
  The green party who was not in government and could not actually enact any legislation? No, it is not the green party who is at fault. This falls fully on the shoulders CDU who was in power for 16 years.

Pitting nuclear against coal is fighting a straw man. The alternative is renewables. With a tiny fraction of the negative side-effects either nuclear or of fossil energy brings.

cloverich 4y ago

Can renewables realistically cover (near) 100% of our day and night energy needs in the next 20 years? Gates book suggested no and if so thats why the comparison is apt.

zemvpferreira 4y ago

It's most certainly not, since for every kW of installed renewables another kW of gas capacity must be installed to compensate for intermittency. That said, no reason why the original deal can't be extended to renewables, seems perfectly fair. It's to everyone's benefit that all methods of power generation be held accountable for all their costs.

Gwypaas 4y ago
> It's most certainly not, since for every kW of installed renewables another kW of gas capacity must be installed to compensate for intermittency. Why? Built geographically decoupled production, look at past weather data and pick how many 9's up-time you want. Then use storage and smart consumers to lower the requirements. For national emergencies keep a fossil reserve or whatever, with that kind of usage power 2 gas should not even matter.
- zemvpferreira 4y ago
  You can dream every solution you'd care to dream, but right now gas-backed solar is how it's done in europe.
  - xorcist 4y ago
    Nuclear is also "gas-backed" in way. A stable energy grid is not something one can hand wave together.
    - geoduck14 4y ago
      Nuclear is reliable to a fault. It is rock solid. But it doesn't "go up" very fast - that is where you need gas support. Which is quite different from solar and wind, where you can't predict the ups and downs
      - adrianN 4y ago
        Have you looked at France's grid recently?
    - orbifold 4y ago
      In Germany it was backed by water power that could take most of the load at night so that the nuclear power plants could run continuously.
perbu 4y ago
You know, for the last couple of months we learned quite a bit about the reliability of gas power. It's not really that great.

orbifold 4y ago

If the question is what energy production method should be used it is certainly not. The Green Party in particular did probably more harm to the environment and damaged or geo-strategic position by making us dependent on foreign Gas and by extending the economic viability of open-pit mines. We were leaders in nuclear technology and research and could be energy independent by now.

Aeolos 4y ago
The green party who was not in government and could not actually enact any legislation? No, it is not the green party who is at fault. This falls fully on the shoulders CDU who was in power for 16 years.