2 ms·
Renewable generation in Germany has quadrupled in the last decade (c.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_p
by ajross 4y ago
Renewable generation in Germany has quadrupled in the last decade (c.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Germany). You're framing it differently, but your argument is mostly just about "nuclear" and will devolve into the same tired arguments. So I'll give my standard statement, I guess:
Nuclear is failing not because of resistance from hippies or whatever. It's failing because it's far, far, far too expensive, by more than an order of magnitude vs. other renewable choices. There's zero value in spending Euros on a reactor when we could build a bazillion wind turbines and hydro pumps and battery farms for that cash. Nuclear might have a home at the very end of the process when we're trying to wind down the last of the gas peaker plants. But no, nuclear will never represent a significant fraction of renewable power generation. Never. No one wants to write that check.
- bamboozled 4y agoI'm making a different point. We're already in serious trouble due to climate change, and our future looks increasingly bleak due to it becoming worse. It's a big enough issue that the whole world should really be at war with burning fossil fuels right now, our best minds should be focused on solving this issue, yesterday. What this article proves proves is that we're capable of solving really hard problems in very short amounts of time, "if the inventive is there". Clearly it was, I can't help but feel it has a little bit to do with profits and political motivations, which is why moving to renewables is happening (because it makes economic sense), but is the political drive and will to do more there? I don't think so.
- ljlolel 4y agoit's too expensive because of resistance from hippies who constantly interfere with more regulations and changing regulations and requirements. They can be built safely and cheaply and mined with local swedish uranium if not for all of the ever shifting regulations from the political resistance tactics.
- xg15 4y agoAnd yet the pro-nuclear argument is that nuclear power is safe thanks to regulations. That's circular reasoning.
- ajross 4y agoIf that were true then there would be a reactor somewhere in the world beating wind power on cost, and there isn't. Even Chinese reactors, constructed under a regime that criminalizes hippies and regulates only for the benefit of the party leaders, are reliably late and over budget. Ex: Fangchenggang-3 is a new unit of an existing design on an already-operating site. It began construction 8 years ago, was supposed to be operational two years ago, and hasn't reached criticality yet. It just doesn't work. You can blame your political enemies if you want, but that's not going to make a reactor appear.