3 ms·

What is the difference? If you build something 10 years longer than another option, you need to have another source for the said 10 years. In Poland's case this

What is the difference? If you build something 10 years longer than another option, you need to have another source for the said 10 years. In Poland's case this is coal. People act as if burning coal continuously for 10 years is not a problem, but having it used sporadically as backup is bad for emissions. That's backwards, the CO2 emitted continuously for the next 10 years is a lot worse. The construction of the nuclear plant is effectively backed up with 100% coal. Thus you could have a 75/25% renewables/coal split for the next 40 years and do less damage.

realusername 3y ago
Instead of getting rid of coal, renewables would reduce but insure a long term dependency to coal though which sounds even worse. We need to stop thinking short term which is the reason why we're in trouble in the first place.
- locallost 3y ago
  You can't back this up with anything because you can't see the future. There is a lot of research being done on that, and it's a lot less conclusive than your comment. Think about that. What we know from the past is that nuclear in 70 years hasn't done squat to eliminate the dependency on fossil fuels. This is simply a fact. What we need short-term is decarbonization, and renewables are the cheapest and fastest way to do that. If you can't get rid of coal completely, you can then pick the slowest and most expensive solution that is nuclear. But it needs to be the last, not the first thing you do.
  - realusername 3y ago
    >There is a lot of research being done on that, and it's a lot less conclusive than your comment. Think about that. You can't bet the future on unknown tech which might never exist. That's just R&D. Otherwise we can talk about nuclear fusion which unlike the magical battery tech, we actually know that it exists > What we know from the past is that nuclear in 70 years hasn't done squat to eliminate the dependency on fossil fuels. This is simply a fact. France is the most decarbonized developed country in the world thanks to that. The country is already half way there. Nobody came even close, that's a fact. Talking is cheap, the results regarding renewables just aren't there. > What we need short-term is decarbonization, and renewables are the cheapest and fastest way to do that. Running the coal and gas plants full speed like Germany does in winter isn't a viable decarbonization strategy. They are even worse than nothing because they require tremendous investment upfront and then you are locked up with fossil fuels. There's a reason why the gas producers are lobbying for renewables.
    - locallost 3y ago
      Like I said, people more credible than you have made claims it's possible. Whether or not it's true is a matter of debate, or in the end the proof is in the pudding. That something is not possible, what you're saying is just not the case. You also have a misconception of things that exist and don't exist. Germany does not run coal and gas plants full speed in the winter. Wind energy ticked over coal for the first quarter of 2023 [1]. Even if it did, Poland is currently backing up their nuclear with 100% coal, in the winter and summer, for the next 10 years at least. It will continue to pump co2 into the atmosphere and do as much damage as Germany will do for the next ~30 years, if Germany's coal use does not go down. But it will go down, it's on pace to reach 80% renewables in 2030. Poland is on pace to reach 30% coal in 2040. The damage done by spending money on nuclear first can never be recovered from. It might even be too late for the world by then. Think about that. The world will deploy 400GW of solar this year alone, and the growth will not decelerate any time soon. That is about 60 1GW reactors worth of electricity. Talk really is cheap. [1] https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2023/06/PD23_220_43312.html https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2023/06...
      - realusername 3y ago
        > Like I said, people more credible than you have made claims it's possible. Whether or not it's true is a matter of debate, or in the end the proof is in the pudding. That something is not possible, what you're saying is just not the case. You also have a misconception of things that exist and don't exist. Exactly, the proof is in the pudding and right now well, it's not there. Those magic storage solution don't exist, not even in theory. > Germany does not run coal and gas plants full speed in the winter. Wind energy ticked over coal for the first quarter of 2023 [1]. https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/news/2022/public-net-electricity-in-germany-in-2021-renewables-weaker-due-to-weather.html https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/news/2022/publi... Germany went from 300TWh of fossil fuel production to 200TWh of fossil fuel production which is only a third of the way there. This relatively small decrease has costed around 2x the French nuclear plants in its totality already and took 15 years. Let's just say that the numbers aren't great. And ironically, that's just the start of their problems, since the new renewables have a pretty low durability, they are 0% of the way of their 2050 goals. Everything they installed already will have to be reinstalled again, they will understand the meaning of an exponential curve pretty soon. What they spent is chump change compared to what's coming ahead. There's a reason they are pushing so hard for dodgy financing in the EU, they see themselves the curve ahead. To add even more to this bleak results, they only have 5% electricity heating whereas it's 40% in neighboring France. If they really wanted to catch this up, they would have to make the exponential curve even steeper. > The world will deploy 400GW of solar this year alone, and the growth will not decelerate any time soon. That is about 60 1GW reactors worth of electricity. Talk really is cheap. Well no that isn't because those panels require dirty backups and will only last 1/4 of the lifetime of the plant and I'm being generous. Not to mention the issue of China being close to the single producer, see what happened with Russia, maybe we should learn lessons from the past. Talk is cheap indeed, the results just aren't there. > The damage done by spending money on nuclear first can never be recovered from The damage one by spending money on renewables can never be recovered, the country is then locked to fossil fuels to smooth out the load. Fossil fuels and renewables are two sides of the same coin and go together. That's the reason why all the major gas producers are onto it, it's the same story everywhere.

realusername 3y ago

Instead of getting rid of coal, renewables would reduce but insure a long term dependency to coal though which sounds even worse. We need to stop thinking short term which is the reason why we're in trouble in the first place.

locallost 3y ago
You can't back this up with anything because you can't see the future. There is a lot of research being done on that, and it's a lot less conclusive than your comment. Think about that. What we know from the past is that nuclear in 70 years hasn't done squat to eliminate the dependency on fossil fuels. This is simply a fact. What we need short-term is decarbonization, and renewables are the cheapest and fastest way to do that. If you can't get rid of coal completely, you can then pick the slowest and most expensive solution that is nuclear. But it needs to be the last, not the first thing you do.
- realusername 3y ago
  >There is a lot of research being done on that, and it's a lot less conclusive than your comment. Think about that. You can't bet the future on unknown tech which might never exist. That's just R&D. Otherwise we can talk about nuclear fusion which unlike the magical battery tech, we actually know that it exists > What we know from the past is that nuclear in 70 years hasn't done squat to eliminate the dependency on fossil fuels. This is simply a fact. France is the most decarbonized developed country in the world thanks to that. The country is already half way there. Nobody came even close, that's a fact. Talking is cheap, the results regarding renewables just aren't there. > What we need short-term is decarbonization, and renewables are the cheapest and fastest way to do that. Running the coal and gas plants full speed like Germany does in winter isn't a viable decarbonization strategy. They are even worse than nothing because they require tremendous investment upfront and then you are locked up with fossil fuels. There's a reason why the gas producers are lobbying for renewables.
  - locallost 3y ago
    Like I said, people more credible than you have made claims it's possible. Whether or not it's true is a matter of debate, or in the end the proof is in the pudding. That something is not possible, what you're saying is just not the case. You also have a misconception of things that exist and don't exist. Germany does not run coal and gas plants full speed in the winter. Wind energy ticked over coal for the first quarter of 2023 [1]. Even if it did, Poland is currently backing up their nuclear with 100% coal, in the winter and summer, for the next 10 years at least. It will continue to pump co2 into the atmosphere and do as much damage as Germany will do for the next ~30 years, if Germany's coal use does not go down. But it will go down, it's on pace to reach 80% renewables in 2030. Poland is on pace to reach 30% coal in 2040. The damage done by spending money on nuclear first can never be recovered from. It might even be too late for the world by then. Think about that. The world will deploy 400GW of solar this year alone, and the growth will not decelerate any time soon. That is about 60 1GW reactors worth of electricity. Talk really is cheap. [1] https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2023/06/PD23_220_43312.html https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2023/06...
    - realusername 3y ago
      > Like I said, people more credible than you have made claims it's possible. Whether or not it's true is a matter of debate, or in the end the proof is in the pudding. That something is not possible, what you're saying is just not the case. You also have a misconception of things that exist and don't exist. Exactly, the proof is in the pudding and right now well, it's not there. Those magic storage solution don't exist, not even in theory. > Germany does not run coal and gas plants full speed in the winter. Wind energy ticked over coal for the first quarter of 2023 [1]. https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/news/2022/public-net-electricity-in-germany-in-2021-renewables-weaker-due-to-weather.html https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/news/2022/publi... Germany went from 300TWh of fossil fuel production to 200TWh of fossil fuel production which is only a third of the way there. This relatively small decrease has costed around 2x the French nuclear plants in its totality already and took 15 years. Let's just say that the numbers aren't great. And ironically, that's just the start of their problems, since the new renewables have a pretty low durability, they are 0% of the way of their 2050 goals. Everything they installed already will have to be reinstalled again, they will understand the meaning of an exponential curve pretty soon. What they spent is chump change compared to what's coming ahead. There's a reason they are pushing so hard for dodgy financing in the EU, they see themselves the curve ahead. To add even more to this bleak results, they only have 5% electricity heating whereas it's 40% in neighboring France. If they really wanted to catch this up, they would have to make the exponential curve even steeper. > The world will deploy 400GW of solar this year alone, and the growth will not decelerate any time soon. That is about 60 1GW reactors worth of electricity. Talk really is cheap. Well no that isn't because those panels require dirty backups and will only last 1/4 of the lifetime of the plant and I'm being generous. Not to mention the issue of China being close to the single producer, see what happened with Russia, maybe we should learn lessons from the past. Talk is cheap indeed, the results just aren't there. > The damage done by spending money on nuclear first can never be recovered from The damage one by spending money on renewables can never be recovered, the country is then locked to fossil fuels to smooth out the load. Fossil fuels and renewables are two sides of the same coin and go together. That's the reason why all the major gas producers are onto it, it's the same story everywhere.