4 ms·

What you don’t know is that in the 2010’s the left wing had a agreement with the Green Party to stop all nuclear by 2050. That’s why we stop financing and maint

by ptilt 4y ago

What you don’t know is that in the 2010’s the left wing had a agreement with the Green Party to stop all nuclear by 2050. That’s why we stop financing and maintaining a lot of nuclear plants. It turned out it was a bad idea..

shortcake27 4y ago
While I don’t know anything about that agreement, I assume it would have had been a push for renewables. By 2050 it will be easily possible to power the world using renewables. Ending nuclear at that point doesn’t sound like a bad idea to me.
- goatlover 4y ago
  How do you know it will be possible by 2050 to go full renewable?
  - shortcake27 4y ago
    By using elementary grade extrapolation. Right now in 2023 there are multiple countries generating over 90% of electricity from renewables.
    - Krssst 4y ago
      Which ones? Are we talking 90%, an the entire year, without creative accounting? Disregarding electric dams because, while wonderful, those depend heavily on the country geography and I assume a lot of countries cannot build enough of them. (but we should build as much as we can of those, just don't expect 50% hydroelectricity everywhere)
      - shortcake27 4y ago
        > Which ones? Norway 98% since 2016. Costa Rica 98% since 2015. Scotland 97% in 2020. Uruguay 98% in 2021. New Zealand pushing close to 90%. > Are we talking 90%, an the entire year, without creative accounting? I don’t know what this means. If a country reports that X amount of energy came from a particular source in a particular year, that means the entire year. And if you believe these countries are lying and doing “creative accounting”, then the burden of proof lies with you to prove it, not for me to disprove it.
        Krssst 4y ago
        Norway: large hydro resources, low population. Costa Rica: 80% hydro. Scotland: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-56530424 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-56530424 says that renewable met 97% of energy demand, which does not mean that clean electricity was produced when it was needed in Scotland. Considering that this means the country could run at 97% of its production potential with only RE is what I consider "creative accounting". (the article does not lie but interpreting it that way is mistaken). Uruguay: only 31% hydro, that's more interesting. New Zealand: 55% hydro, 13% geothermal. So except for Uruguay (which does look interesting), most countries mostly use renewable dispatchable sources which are perfect. But not all countries have the hydro potential / population ratio of Norway. We should use hydro as much as we can but we are limited by geography; once everything that can be used is we are stuck with nuclear, wind or solar. Maybe Uruguay could be an example of country that manages somehow with mostly solar/wind; I need to look into it. Thank you.
        shortcake27 4y ago
        Keep in mind it is also possible for countries to export electricity; for the world to be powered by renewables each country needs not produce 100% of it’s own energy demands.
        natmaka 4y ago
        This is of paramount importance. Add storage (V2G...) and clean backup (green hydrogen...). https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-could-provide-more-stable/ https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-...
- natmaka 4y ago
  Some references: https://twitter.com/AukeHoekstra/status/1557466581185224704 https://twitter.com/AukeHoekstra/status/1557466581185224704
natmaka 4y ago
No. The sole closed nuclear plant (Fessenheim) was the oldest one, disputed by neighboring nations Germany and Switzerland (all owning stakes in it!) for seismic-related risks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fessenheim_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Risks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fessenheim_Nuclear_Power_Plant... A new reactor (Flamanville-3, an EPR) was ordered in 2004, work began in 2007 for a delivery in 2012, it is not delivered yet and 6x times over-budget. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan... A huge program (55 to 95 billions euros) aiming at upgrading all existing reactors in order to run them for 60 or even 80 years was launched and runs: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_car%C3%A9nage https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_car%C3%A9nage Governments adopted sustained nuclear R&D budgets. See «Graphique 1», French ahead: https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/energie-recherche-et-developpement https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/energie-recherche-et-developpem... Governments also sold reactors to Finland (running project, way over-budget and delay), China (2 reactors, over-budget and delay, and they stayed offline or at low-power for a full year after an incident) and the U.-K. (this is a running project, already late and over-budget).

by ptilt 4y ago

shortcake27 4y ago

While I don’t know anything about that agreement, I assume it would have had been a push for renewables. By 2050 it will be easily possible to power the world using renewables. Ending nuclear at that point doesn’t sound like a bad idea to me.

goatlover 4y ago
How do you know it will be possible by 2050 to go full renewable?
- shortcake27 4y ago
  By using elementary grade extrapolation. Right now in 2023 there are multiple countries generating over 90% of electricity from renewables.
  - Krssst 4y ago
    Which ones? Are we talking 90%, an the entire year, without creative accounting? Disregarding electric dams because, while wonderful, those depend heavily on the country geography and I assume a lot of countries cannot build enough of them. (but we should build as much as we can of those, just don't expect 50% hydroelectricity everywhere)
    - shortcake27 4y ago
      > Which ones? Norway 98% since 2016. Costa Rica 98% since 2015. Scotland 97% in 2020. Uruguay 98% in 2021. New Zealand pushing close to 90%. > Are we talking 90%, an the entire year, without creative accounting? I don’t know what this means. If a country reports that X amount of energy came from a particular source in a particular year, that means the entire year. And if you believe these countries are lying and doing “creative accounting”, then the burden of proof lies with you to prove it, not for me to disprove it.
      - Krssst 4y ago
        Norway: large hydro resources, low population. Costa Rica: 80% hydro. Scotland: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-56530424 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-56530424 says that renewable met 97% of energy demand, which does not mean that clean electricity was produced when it was needed in Scotland. Considering that this means the country could run at 97% of its production potential with only RE is what I consider "creative accounting". (the article does not lie but interpreting it that way is mistaken). Uruguay: only 31% hydro, that's more interesting. New Zealand: 55% hydro, 13% geothermal. So except for Uruguay (which does look interesting), most countries mostly use renewable dispatchable sources which are perfect. But not all countries have the hydro potential / population ratio of Norway. We should use hydro as much as we can but we are limited by geography; once everything that can be used is we are stuck with nuclear, wind or solar. Maybe Uruguay could be an example of country that manages somehow with mostly solar/wind; I need to look into it. Thank you.
        shortcake27 4y ago
        Keep in mind it is also possible for countries to export electricity; for the world to be powered by renewables each country needs not produce 100% of it’s own energy demands.
        natmaka 4y ago
        This is of paramount importance. Add storage (V2G...) and clean backup (green hydrogen...). https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-could-provide-more-stable/ https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-...
natmaka 4y ago
Some references: https://twitter.com/AukeHoekstra/status/1557466581185224704 https://twitter.com/AukeHoekstra/status/1557466581185224704

natmaka 4y ago

No. The sole closed nuclear plant (Fessenheim) was the oldest one, disputed by neighboring nations Germany and Switzerland (all owning stakes in it!) for seismic-related risks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fessenheim_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Risks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fessenheim_Nuclear_Power_Plant... A new reactor (Flamanville-3, an EPR) was ordered in 2004, work began in 2007 for a delivery in 2012, it is not delivered yet and 6x times over-budget. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan... A huge program (55 to 95 billions euros) aiming at upgrading all existing reactors in order to run them for 60 or even 80 years was launched and runs: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_car%C3%A9nage https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_car%C3%A9nage Governments adopted sustained nuclear R&D budgets. See «Graphique 1», French ahead: https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/energie-recherche-et-developpement https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/energie-recherche-et-developpem... Governments also sold reactors to Finland (running project, way over-budget and delay), China (2 reactors, over-budget and delay, and they stayed offline or at low-power for a full year after an incident) and the U.-K. (this is a running project, already late and over-budget).