7 ms·
People constantly raise the "coAl poLLuTiON!" argument and always do so with a false choice between nuclear and fossil fuel, completely ignoring any renewables
by KennyBlanken 4y ago
People constantly raise the "coAl poLLuTiON!" argument and always do so with a false choice between nuclear and fossil fuel, completely ignoring any renewables like solar, wind, or hydro.
If you're accusing people of not learning to count, maybe you should look at the cost of solar, wind, and energy storage systems - and realize that nuclear is being phased out because it's too expensive, and that's despite nearly a century of heavy government subsidization.
It is, in fact, getting more expensive, while wind and solar get less expensive.
- shakow 4y ago> a false choice between nuclear and fossil fuel That's not a false choice, there is also hydro (unfortunately my country is more or less saturated there), solar (OK if you're a really sunny country and only need electricity during the day, not so great otherwise) and wind (30% average load factor, risible cost efficiency, huge surface required, needs to be rebuilt every ~10 years). > maybe you should look at the cost of solar, wind, and energy storage systems - and realize that nuclear is being phased out because it's too expensive, Tell me then, is that why Germany, after sinking dozens of billions over dozens of billions of euros in renewable, is still producing electricity with carbonation level closer to Bulgaria & Poland than France or Belgium, AND has to buy them electricity whenever there is no wind, and sell it at low price when there is too much wind? But yes, please, show me these numbers.
- natmaka 4y ago> 30% average load factor Offshore is way better, up to .6 > risible cost efficiency This is not true, see the LCOE: > huge surface required Offshore solves this and also offers quasi-sanctuaries to our over-exploited seas. > needs to be rebuilt every ~10 years https://www.tvindkraft.dk/en/history/the-first-40-years https://www.tvindkraft.dk/en/history/the-first-40-years Moreover the are more and more efficiently recycled.
- natmaka 4y agoFrance does not further reduces its emissions related to electricity production since 2002, when its newest nuclear reactor, Civaux-2, started. Germany nowadays reduces its emissions faster than France, while losing its industry at a way slower pace. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart&time=1999..latest&country=FRA~DEU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?t...
- shakow 4y agoI do hop they reduce their emissions faster, because God knows they have a long path to go down https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iNLUw70c8Yw/VuCyTjcOxQI/AAAAAAAAAeI/92RiMMlZcqk/s1600/CO2-intensity-electricity-FR-DE-compared.jpg https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iNLUw70c8Yw/VuCyTjcOxQI/AAAAAAAAA... With an average at 560 gCO2/kWh vs. 47 gCO2/kWh, the opposite would be surprising.
- natmaka 4y agoElectricity is only part of the challenge (about 25%). CO2 emissions per capita: France 5.82t Germany 10.14t https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/prod-cons-co2-per-capita?country=~FRA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/prod-cons-co2-per-capita?... https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/prod-cons-co2-per-capita?country=~DEU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/prod-cons-co2-per-capita?...
- shakow 4y agoAll I see is that France is doing much better than Germany in electricity production and in the rest, so I'm not sure what your point is.
- kilotaras 4y ago> Germany nowadays reduces its emissions faster than France Comparing derivative doesn't make much sense if the starting point is wildly different. When do you think Germany's emissions per capita will be lower than France?
- RealityVoid 4y agoSure, let's close fossil fuel power generation and let's see what direction we will take. It's not an nuclear OR solar, it's an AND over there. As it stands, I would leave the markets, since apparently they're sooo effective, choose what power source would fill in the gaps.