9 ms·

I get very frustrated when I see posts on TikTok about nuclear being the magic bullet. They talk about Germany, and they refer to nuclear as the only alternativ

I get very frustrated when I see posts on TikTok about nuclear being the magic bullet. They talk about Germany, and they refer to nuclear as the only alternative to fossil fuels. When you mention renewables, they talk to you like you are an idiot, that renewable technologies are just infeasible, are harmful to the environment or they are too expensive. The same people that would have said that electric cars are impossible, or that climate change is not real 7 years ago, are now environmentalists and are very concerned about lithium battery production. Just endless nonsense. You then have to go on to point out that 50% of Germany's energy mix is from renewables now. And as this article points out, the price of solar just keeps falling, because it can be mass produced and improved at a pace similar to semi-conductors. I tire of what seems to be very opinionated right wing men, not putting together how things work, and after they are proven wrong, say that they have always said that, or that is obvious.

karmakurtisaani 3y ago
There is definitely a use case for nuclear, but the discussion absolutely should not be renewables vs. nuclear, but renewables and nuclear vs. fossile fuels. Nuclear advocates should celebrate every advance in renewables and vice versa.
- stavros 3y ago
  I find it very suspicious that the debate has been framed as "renewables vs nuclear" while we keep burning fossil fuels.
  - karmakurtisaani 3y ago
    I wouldn't be surprised if the FF industry was driving this narrative, but I can also see it happening organically. A lot of the "green" people, especially in Germany are fanatically anti-nuclear. At the same time, the right-wing populists seem to have adopted the position that climate change can only be countered with nuclear power. I'm not sure why that is, probably because it's an easy answer and positions them against the green parties - after all, they cannot agree with their perceived enemies.
    - starwatch 3y ago
      I think the German "green" case (to a degree) comes from the Chernobyl meltdown happening relatively nearby. It is in living memory for those power so it's understandable that they shy away from it. I should add that meaningful advances have been made in nuclear power station design. But unfortunately these advances can't withstand other problems e.g. Russia putting operational power stations at risk as they invade Ukraine.
- Gwypaas 3y ago
  The problem is that renewables and nuclear are economically incompatible. They compete for the slice that is the cheapest and most inflexible, both requiring dispatchable power to fill the gaps. Renewables easily win this battle as the cost for new built renewables are in the same range as operations and maintenance for paid off nuclear plants. For nuclear this inflexibility comes from pure economics. It is economic suicide to build a new plant and operate it at 100%, now try operating it at less than 50% on average.
  - karmakurtisaani 3y ago
    Yep, and that's what we are currently seeing unfold. However, there must be use cases for nuclear as base load or some kind of supplementary power with mini reactors. I only hope these options get considered as viable alternative, rather than being dismissed ideologically.
    - Gwypaas 3y ago
      The ideological perspective would not exist if nuclear was economic. It is simply an easy boogeyman to blame. SMR are not looking that hot either, looks like the prevalent truth from the 70 years of nuclear construction: that bigger is better due to the large fixed costs, stays true even in 2023. https://www.wired.com/story/the-dream-of-mini-nuclear-plants-hangs-in-the-balance/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-dream-of-mini-nuclear-plants...
      - karmakurtisaani 3y ago
        That sounds very reasonable. However, where I've seen this ideological aspect is for example in Finland where the permits for nuclear plants are very difficult to obtain. So once a permit is granted, they want to make as massive plants as possible, leading to big risks in construction (see Olkiluoto 3 for example, one of the most expensive constructions in history).
        pyrale 3y ago
        > see Olkiluoto 3 for example, one of the most expensive constructions in history Dimensioning of Olkiluoto 3 is unrelated to Finnish regulation, the reactor was designed by France and Germany based on economies of scales, not specifically for a local project.
SanderNL 3y ago
> I get very frustrated when I see posts on TikTok Well, there’s your problem.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
starwatch 3y ago
If I don my tin foil hat [1]... Nuclear is an ideal green solution for the fossil fuel industry. Why? Well, building a power station is super hard because: it's expensive, takes years and no one wants a power station in their backyard. I can imagine fossil fuel execs recognising that the energy grid is going green despite all of their lobbying. So the game then becomes to delay the inevitable as long as you can, so that you can extract as much money as you can from fossil fuels. [1]: I listened to a lot of the Drilled podcast by Amy Westervelt in the early days of the pandemic https://www.drilled.media/drilled-podcast/ https://www.drilled.media/drilled-podcast/
- stavros 3y ago
  And you might as well frame the debate as "nuclear rules, renewables suck" while you're at it, for extra delay from infighting between environmentalists.
- pyrale 3y ago
  > Nuclear is an ideal green solution for the fossil fuel industry. Nuclear proponents use the same claim against the renewable industry. There isn't much to learn about it, besides the fact that the fossil fuel industry is a bogeyman for both. It's not a great point, especially when, rather than donning your tinfoil, you can just look at where funds go.
  - Timon3 3y ago
    > Nuclear proponents use the same claim against the renewable industry. But the claim doesn't make sense against the renewable industry. Just because they make the same claim doesn't make it a good claim. I, as an individual, can deploy solar power and thus produce my own power. I cannot deploy nuclear power and thus produce my own power.
    - pyrale 3y ago
      > But the claim doesn't make sense against the renewable industry. Well, my point is that you just have to see what some major fossil energy producers say and do. You don't need to believe anyone on this. [1]: https://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/new-energies.html https://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/new-energies.htm... [2]: https://www.chevron.com/operations/new-energies https://www.chevron.com/operations/new-energies [3]: https://totalenergies.com/group/ambition/being-world-class-player-energy-transition https://totalenergies.com/group/ambition/being-world-class-p... [4]: https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/what-we-do/gas-and-low-carbon-energy.html https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/what-we-do/gas-and-lo...
melling 3y ago
I hear you. I’ve been telling people we needed nuclear for over 2 decades. Kyoto Climate Deal was 25 years ago. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol The United States took a pass. Instead we kicked the can down the road. China expanded its coal power capacity enormously. So did India. Now we are going to soon reach 1.5C. https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2023/5/17/global-warming-likely-to-breach-1-5c-threshold-for-first-time https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2023/5/17/global-warming-... We’ve basically failed our initial goals and will need many miracles to properly address climate change. Hopefully, our first failure will compel us to come up with something workable before it gets a lot worse. Good luck.
- resolutebat 3y ago
  China is simultaneously the world's largest user of coal, solar and wind power, all at the same time. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-track-hit-new-clean-dirty-power-records-2022-maguire-2022-11-23/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-track-hit-new-... Clean energy share continues to climb though, and they've also made huge strides in air quality. India, on the other hand, seems to be going from bad to worse on both fronts.
  - melling 3y ago
    We need to quit telling ourselves stories, do the math, and find a workable solution that addresses the problem before we reach “too late” At this point we need to address several problems at once. There’s no one solution and we need to be relatively quick. Also, Coal is still the low hanging fruit because it produces 20% of emissions. It needs to go to zero as soon as possible. https://blogs.worldbank.org/voices/its-critical-tackle-coal-emissions https://blogs.worldbank.org/voices/its-critical-tackle-coal-... Maybe gone by 2040?
    - _hypx 3y ago
      It's already "too late" for any such solution. We are already at the point where geoengineering is necessary. But of course, environmentalists oppose that too.
hobbescotch 3y ago
I would check out some videos of the Kivu cobalt mines where children work to mine for our cobalt. There are north american mines that are shut in because we chose to instead use child labor in incredibly dangerous mines that frequently have landslides because it’s cheaper. It seems that many only care enough about climate change to greenwash and not think about anything else. There are hopefully new battery compounds on the way but it should be allowed to criticize elements on the energy transition if there are problems. How else do we get nice things without encouraging open discussion? Perhaps it’s an american thing to associate these views with certain labels but I don’t see how it’s related to any political affiliation or gender to have these concerns.
- Gwypaas 3y ago
  Or just use LFP batteries, like Tesla does in the majority of their delivered cars.
  - hobbescotch 3y ago
    Yes 100%
  - _hypx 3y ago
    The solution is to switch to hydrogen cars and avoid all resource intensive materials. Not to mention that LFP comes with major compromises and most US Teslas do not use them.
    - Gwypaas 3y ago
      How is that working out for Toyota? Hydrogen, or synthetic fuels, has a place where energy density, chemical properties, or ease of storage are fundamental requirements. In other words use cases like: long distance shipping, aviation, fertilizer and seasonal energy storage. For all other applications hydrogen is a lost cause pushed by the fossil industry. See the "Hydrogen Ladder" for more information. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/clean-hydrogen-ladder-v40-michael-liebreich/ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/clean-hydrogen-ladder-v40-mic...
audunw 3y ago
I think we should start talking about the possible climate impact of waste heat from nuclear thermal power plants too. I'm definitely pro-nuclear, wherever it makes sense, in the short term. As long as it's never at the expensive of building renewables too. But many nuclear proponents talk as if nuclear is the end-goal for power generation. That we should just replace everything with nuclear. But if we do, it's going to get harder to bring the Earths climate back to equilibrium, since a world on 100% nuclear power would add a lot of heat to planet. Not as bad as greenhouse gases, but significant enough to make reversal harder. Sabine Hossenfelder has a video covering the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vRtA7STvH4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vRtA7STvH4 I think focusing on solar and energy storage will always be a good bet. It will probably be the absolute dominant way to get energy in 100 years, along with geothermal in colder climates. We're just one generational improvement from that being inevitable, and those improvements are arguably already out of the lab and in trial production stage. Given how important solar+storage will be, the amount of R&D flowing into it will be staggering in the coming decades. When we've completed the transition to sustainable solutions (which right now is requiring a lot of mining and energy intensive metal processing, which will mostly be recycled in the future) and the population growth flattens and then reverses, I'd hope that the amount of energy needed for industry will fall dramatically. Edit: I'm also hoping Helions approach to fusion works out. If it's combined with panels that radiate the waste heat to space (there should be much less heat per MWh of electricity generated compared to fission, perhaps so little that radiate cooling is feasible), there should basically be zero downsides to their power plant.
Timon3 3y ago
> The same people that would have said that electric cars are impossible, or that climate change is not real 7 years ago, are now environmentalists and are very concerned about lithium battery production. Just endless nonsense. It is incredibly frustrating, but the realization behind it is infuriatingly simple: they just want to be contrarian. They just want to be right, and to know better than everyone else. The more people have opposite beliefs the better, because it means they are smarter than all of them. This fundamental disposition makes them soak up all of the propaganda, which fossil fuel companies are more than happy to provide. You can challenge them on facts all you want, they will not budge from their positions. This is also why you will never hear them say "honestly, I don't know".
_hypx 3y ago
The problem ultimately isn't about renewables vs. nuclear, it is that countries like Germany tore down their nuclear power plants and replaced them with coal power plants. If we had just old right-wing men as the opponents, then there wouldn't be much of a problem at all. The real issue is that young left-wing men are just as stupid, and this part is completely unacknowledged.
- pjc50 3y ago
  .. in the context of Germany already having been swept over by one power plant failure, Chernobyl, and a second large scale one having just happened in Japan. The risk of CO2 is high (almost a certainty) but over a long period. The risk of nuclear is low, but if a "black swan" failure happens then it potentially wipes out agriculture in a large area for years. (There's also the proliferation risk; is everyone OK with Iran building a lot of reactors to displace their oil usage?)
  - _hypx 3y ago
    Which are entirely troll arguments. Chernobyl is the worst case scenario imaginable and not possible with any Western designed reactor. Fukushima killed zero people for all practical purposes. Not to mention the lack of earthquakes in Germany. Adopting nuclear is an extremely safe solution for Germany.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      Not trolling, political reality. Speaking personally, I'm fine with nuclear power near me as a part of a grid — even despite the high monetary cost — because I'm satisfied of the safety and I think supply diversity is worth paying more. But nuclear is a boogieman, and that means the reactors are slow and expensive to build. The geopolitical risks also mean other countries may look at your reactors as an existential threat — this is also a thing the governments need to care about no matter how sure they are that they're the goodies and everyone else is being silly when raising such concerns. And while an earthquake was the ultimate cause of the Fukushima incident, it wasn't the proximal cause: Germany does get floods from time to time. Of course, if I get to ignore politics then my favourite is a global power grid energised by PV — the maths says that would be great, though it would take a while to build.
KptMarchewa 3y ago
Renewables haven't solved storage in any way. You need to solve for worst case - December, with barely any sun and barely any increase of wind. You can produce 300% or even 3000% of need in the middle of day in June or July and it still does not mean pure renewable fantasy is feasible. Meanwhile France's overall CO2 per capita is small fraction of Germany one and was for decades.
- _hypx 3y ago
  This problem can be solved by making hydrogen. So there is a way to power society with renewables if you are willing accept the need for baseload power. Of course, renewable energy fanatics do not accept this fact, and often are ideologically opposed to hydrogen. This is in spite of the fact that only hydrogen can save renewables from this problem.
  - pjc50 3y ago
    > This problem can be solved by making hydrogen Again, nobody seems to be making hydrogen from renewable energy at scale yet despite there being a real industrial market for it. Including steel reduction, which would be a great use-case! But it's not happening because water cracking to hydrogen has a really high capital cost.
    - _hypx 3y ago
      Again, you are simply unaware of what is happening. It is very similar to how anti-solar analysts simply failed to recognize the widespread deployment of PV panels around a decade ago.
      - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
        A pointer to some documentation about what is happening would be useful - more useful than an analogy about something in history.
        3y ago
Projectiboga 3y ago
I'm not pro-nuclear, but Germany's electric generation carbon intensity has gotten very bad with their switch back to coal from Russian gas. It is so horrible the weapons guys pushed uranium fuel over what the Manhattan Project guys recommended in the 1950s, which was Thorium.

karmakurtisaani 3y ago

There is definitely a use case for nuclear, but the discussion absolutely should not be renewables vs. nuclear, but renewables and nuclear vs. fossile fuels. Nuclear advocates should celebrate every advance in renewables and vice versa.

stavros 3y ago
I find it very suspicious that the debate has been framed as "renewables vs nuclear" while we keep burning fossil fuels.
- karmakurtisaani 3y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if the FF industry was driving this narrative, but I can also see it happening organically. A lot of the "green" people, especially in Germany are fanatically anti-nuclear. At the same time, the right-wing populists seem to have adopted the position that climate change can only be countered with nuclear power. I'm not sure why that is, probably because it's an easy answer and positions them against the green parties - after all, they cannot agree with their perceived enemies.
  - starwatch 3y ago
    I think the German "green" case (to a degree) comes from the Chernobyl meltdown happening relatively nearby. It is in living memory for those power so it's understandable that they shy away from it. I should add that meaningful advances have been made in nuclear power station design. But unfortunately these advances can't withstand other problems e.g. Russia putting operational power stations at risk as they invade Ukraine.
Gwypaas 3y ago
The problem is that renewables and nuclear are economically incompatible. They compete for the slice that is the cheapest and most inflexible, both requiring dispatchable power to fill the gaps. Renewables easily win this battle as the cost for new built renewables are in the same range as operations and maintenance for paid off nuclear plants. For nuclear this inflexibility comes from pure economics. It is economic suicide to build a new plant and operate it at 100%, now try operating it at less than 50% on average.
- karmakurtisaani 3y ago
  Yep, and that's what we are currently seeing unfold. However, there must be use cases for nuclear as base load or some kind of supplementary power with mini reactors. I only hope these options get considered as viable alternative, rather than being dismissed ideologically.
  - Gwypaas 3y ago
    The ideological perspective would not exist if nuclear was economic. It is simply an easy boogeyman to blame. SMR are not looking that hot either, looks like the prevalent truth from the 70 years of nuclear construction: that bigger is better due to the large fixed costs, stays true even in 2023. https://www.wired.com/story/the-dream-of-mini-nuclear-plants-hangs-in-the-balance/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-dream-of-mini-nuclear-plants...
    - karmakurtisaani 3y ago
      That sounds very reasonable. However, where I've seen this ideological aspect is for example in Finland where the permits for nuclear plants are very difficult to obtain. So once a permit is granted, they want to make as massive plants as possible, leading to big risks in construction (see Olkiluoto 3 for example, one of the most expensive constructions in history).
      - pyrale 3y ago
        > see Olkiluoto 3 for example, one of the most expensive constructions in history Dimensioning of Olkiluoto 3 is unrelated to Finnish regulation, the reactor was designed by France and Germany based on economies of scales, not specifically for a local project.

SanderNL 3y ago

> I get very frustrated when I see posts on TikTok Well, there’s your problem.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

starwatch 3y ago

If I don my tin foil hat [1]... Nuclear is an ideal green solution for the fossil fuel industry. Why? Well, building a power station is super hard because: it's expensive, takes years and no one wants a power station in their backyard. I can imagine fossil fuel execs recognising that the energy grid is going green despite all of their lobbying. So the game then becomes to delay the inevitable as long as you can, so that you can extract as much money as you can from fossil fuels. [1]: I listened to a lot of the Drilled podcast by Amy Westervelt in the early days of the pandemic https://www.drilled.media/drilled-podcast/ https://www.drilled.media/drilled-podcast/

stavros 3y ago
And you might as well frame the debate as "nuclear rules, renewables suck" while you're at it, for extra delay from infighting between environmentalists.
pyrale 3y ago
> Nuclear is an ideal green solution for the fossil fuel industry. Nuclear proponents use the same claim against the renewable industry. There isn't much to learn about it, besides the fact that the fossil fuel industry is a bogeyman for both. It's not a great point, especially when, rather than donning your tinfoil, you can just look at where funds go.
- Timon3 3y ago
  > Nuclear proponents use the same claim against the renewable industry. But the claim doesn't make sense against the renewable industry. Just because they make the same claim doesn't make it a good claim. I, as an individual, can deploy solar power and thus produce my own power. I cannot deploy nuclear power and thus produce my own power.
  - pyrale 3y ago
    > But the claim doesn't make sense against the renewable industry. Well, my point is that you just have to see what some major fossil energy producers say and do. You don't need to believe anyone on this. [1]: https://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/new-energies.html https://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/new-energies.htm... [2]: https://www.chevron.com/operations/new-energies https://www.chevron.com/operations/new-energies [3]: https://totalenergies.com/group/ambition/being-world-class-player-energy-transition https://totalenergies.com/group/ambition/being-world-class-p... [4]: https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/what-we-do/gas-and-low-carbon-energy.html https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/what-we-do/gas-and-lo...

melling 3y ago

I hear you. I’ve been telling people we needed nuclear for over 2 decades. Kyoto Climate Deal was 25 years ago. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol The United States took a pass. Instead we kicked the can down the road. China expanded its coal power capacity enormously. So did India. Now we are going to soon reach 1.5C. https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2023/5/17/global-warming-likely-to-breach-1-5c-threshold-for-first-time https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2023/5/17/global-warming-... We’ve basically failed our initial goals and will need many miracles to properly address climate change. Hopefully, our first failure will compel us to come up with something workable before it gets a lot worse. Good luck.

resolutebat 3y ago
China is simultaneously the world's largest user of coal, solar and wind power, all at the same time. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-track-hit-new-clean-dirty-power-records-2022-maguire-2022-11-23/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-track-hit-new-... Clean energy share continues to climb though, and they've also made huge strides in air quality. India, on the other hand, seems to be going from bad to worse on both fronts.
- melling 3y ago
  We need to quit telling ourselves stories, do the math, and find a workable solution that addresses the problem before we reach “too late” At this point we need to address several problems at once. There’s no one solution and we need to be relatively quick. Also, Coal is still the low hanging fruit because it produces 20% of emissions. It needs to go to zero as soon as possible. https://blogs.worldbank.org/voices/its-critical-tackle-coal-emissions https://blogs.worldbank.org/voices/its-critical-tackle-coal-... Maybe gone by 2040?
  - _hypx 3y ago
    It's already "too late" for any such solution. We are already at the point where geoengineering is necessary. But of course, environmentalists oppose that too.

hobbescotch 3y ago

I would check out some videos of the Kivu cobalt mines where children work to mine for our cobalt. There are north american mines that are shut in because we chose to instead use child labor in incredibly dangerous mines that frequently have landslides because it’s cheaper. It seems that many only care enough about climate change to greenwash and not think about anything else. There are hopefully new battery compounds on the way but it should be allowed to criticize elements on the energy transition if there are problems. How else do we get nice things without encouraging open discussion? Perhaps it’s an american thing to associate these views with certain labels but I don’t see how it’s related to any political affiliation or gender to have these concerns.

Gwypaas 3y ago
Or just use LFP batteries, like Tesla does in the majority of their delivered cars.
- hobbescotch 3y ago
  Yes 100%
- _hypx 3y ago
  The solution is to switch to hydrogen cars and avoid all resource intensive materials. Not to mention that LFP comes with major compromises and most US Teslas do not use them.
  - Gwypaas 3y ago
    How is that working out for Toyota? Hydrogen, or synthetic fuels, has a place where energy density, chemical properties, or ease of storage are fundamental requirements. In other words use cases like: long distance shipping, aviation, fertilizer and seasonal energy storage. For all other applications hydrogen is a lost cause pushed by the fossil industry. See the "Hydrogen Ladder" for more information. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/clean-hydrogen-ladder-v40-michael-liebreich/ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/clean-hydrogen-ladder-v40-mic...

audunw 3y ago

I think we should start talking about the possible climate impact of waste heat from nuclear thermal power plants too. I'm definitely pro-nuclear, wherever it makes sense, in the short term. As long as it's never at the expensive of building renewables too. But many nuclear proponents talk as if nuclear is the end-goal for power generation. That we should just replace everything with nuclear. But if we do, it's going to get harder to bring the Earths climate back to equilibrium, since a world on 100% nuclear power would add a lot of heat to planet. Not as bad as greenhouse gases, but significant enough to make reversal harder. Sabine Hossenfelder has a video covering the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vRtA7STvH4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vRtA7STvH4 I think focusing on solar and energy storage will always be a good bet. It will probably be the absolute dominant way to get energy in 100 years, along with geothermal in colder climates. We're just one generational improvement from that being inevitable, and those improvements are arguably already out of the lab and in trial production stage. Given how important solar+storage will be, the amount of R&D flowing into it will be staggering in the coming decades. When we've completed the transition to sustainable solutions (which right now is requiring a lot of mining and energy intensive metal processing, which will mostly be recycled in the future) and the population growth flattens and then reverses, I'd hope that the amount of energy needed for industry will fall dramatically. Edit: I'm also hoping Helions approach to fusion works out. If it's combined with panels that radiate the waste heat to space (there should be much less heat per MWh of electricity generated compared to fission, perhaps so little that radiate cooling is feasible), there should basically be zero downsides to their power plant.

Timon3 3y ago

> The same people that would have said that electric cars are impossible, or that climate change is not real 7 years ago, are now environmentalists and are very concerned about lithium battery production. Just endless nonsense. It is incredibly frustrating, but the realization behind it is infuriatingly simple: they just want to be contrarian. They just want to be right, and to know better than everyone else. The more people have opposite beliefs the better, because it means they are smarter than all of them. This fundamental disposition makes them soak up all of the propaganda, which fossil fuel companies are more than happy to provide. You can challenge them on facts all you want, they will not budge from their positions. This is also why you will never hear them say "honestly, I don't know".

_hypx 3y ago

The problem ultimately isn't about renewables vs. nuclear, it is that countries like Germany tore down their nuclear power plants and replaced them with coal power plants. If we had just old right-wing men as the opponents, then there wouldn't be much of a problem at all. The real issue is that young left-wing men are just as stupid, and this part is completely unacknowledged.

pjc50 3y ago
.. in the context of Germany already having been swept over by one power plant failure, Chernobyl, and a second large scale one having just happened in Japan. The risk of CO2 is high (almost a certainty) but over a long period. The risk of nuclear is low, but if a "black swan" failure happens then it potentially wipes out agriculture in a large area for years. (There's also the proliferation risk; is everyone OK with Iran building a lot of reactors to displace their oil usage?)
- _hypx 3y ago
  Which are entirely troll arguments. Chernobyl is the worst case scenario imaginable and not possible with any Western designed reactor. Fukushima killed zero people for all practical purposes. Not to mention the lack of earthquakes in Germany. Adopting nuclear is an extremely safe solution for Germany.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    Not trolling, political reality. Speaking personally, I'm fine with nuclear power near me as a part of a grid — even despite the high monetary cost — because I'm satisfied of the safety and I think supply diversity is worth paying more. But nuclear is a boogieman, and that means the reactors are slow and expensive to build. The geopolitical risks also mean other countries may look at your reactors as an existential threat — this is also a thing the governments need to care about no matter how sure they are that they're the goodies and everyone else is being silly when raising such concerns. And while an earthquake was the ultimate cause of the Fukushima incident, it wasn't the proximal cause: Germany does get floods from time to time. Of course, if I get to ignore politics then my favourite is a global power grid energised by PV — the maths says that would be great, though it would take a while to build.

KptMarchewa 3y ago

Renewables haven't solved storage in any way. You need to solve for worst case - December, with barely any sun and barely any increase of wind. You can produce 300% or even 3000% of need in the middle of day in June or July and it still does not mean pure renewable fantasy is feasible. Meanwhile France's overall CO2 per capita is small fraction of Germany one and was for decades.

_hypx 3y ago
This problem can be solved by making hydrogen. So there is a way to power society with renewables if you are willing accept the need for baseload power. Of course, renewable energy fanatics do not accept this fact, and often are ideologically opposed to hydrogen. This is in spite of the fact that only hydrogen can save renewables from this problem.
- pjc50 3y ago
  > This problem can be solved by making hydrogen Again, nobody seems to be making hydrogen from renewable energy at scale yet despite there being a real industrial market for it. Including steel reduction, which would be a great use-case! But it's not happening because water cracking to hydrogen has a really high capital cost.
  - _hypx 3y ago
    Again, you are simply unaware of what is happening. It is very similar to how anti-solar analysts simply failed to recognize the widespread deployment of PV panels around a decade ago.
    - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
      A pointer to some documentation about what is happening would be useful - more useful than an analogy about something in history.
      - 3y ago

Projectiboga 3y ago

I'm not pro-nuclear, but Germany's electric generation carbon intensity has gotten very bad with their switch back to coal from Russian gas. It is so horrible the weapons guys pushed uranium fuel over what the Manhattan Project guys recommended in the 1950s, which was Thorium.