this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2023
165 points (95.6% liked)
Green - An environmentalist community
5315 readers
1 users here now
This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!
RULES:
1- Remember the human
2- Link posts should come from a reputable source
3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith
Related communities:
- /c/collapse
- /c/antreefa
- /c/gardening
- /c/[email protected]
- /c/biology
- /c/criseciv
- /c/eco
- /c/[email protected]
- SLRPNK
Unofficial Chat rooms:
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We don't need hundreds of new plants. France only has around 50 and it's more than enough. It's also feasible to retrofit existing coal plants with nuclear reactors, for example.
30 years ago it was the same argument. "It takes too long, we needed to have started earlier". Well, here we are now. Let's not have kids 30 years from now saying the same thing.
France regularly imports (renewable) electricity from Germany when they have to shut down some of their reactors due to cooling problems in summer. So 50 are not enough. For a smaller economy.
Every country imports electricity from their neighbours. Germany also imports from France. That's how an interconnected power grid works.
Yes, but for decades Germany has been a net exporter. Which is good for our economy.
Well, so has France. And at a larger percentage. While emitting disproportionately less carbon, which, again, is the whole point of this conversation. I'd rather not sacrifice climate for the sake of economy. Especially because the economy will suffer a lot more if we don't get emissions under control.
You can't just ignore the cost. Why spend €100 on nuclear, when you can generate 3 times as much electricity using wind, with the same amount?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity
Because they fill different roles in the power grid? They don't replace each other. Haven't you been reading what I've been saying all this time or what? Nuclear works WITH renewables. It's fossil fuels we need to phase out, and nuclear can fill their role when renewables can't.
I have been reading what you wrote, but I don't consider your "renewables can't" a valid point. They can.
But I don't think we will ever be able to convince each other. Can we agree on that?
In many places, a lot of the time, they can. But not everywhere, all of the time.
The problem is that if even fellow environmentalists like yourself keep thinking of nuclear like a boogeyman, or just not knowing how a power grid works, then we stand no hope of decarbonising power generation. Did you know fossil fuel use is growing worldwide in electricity generation while nuclear is stagnating? The way to decrease that that brown area is by increasing all the other colours in similar proportion. There are circumstances where a fully renewable grid is possible, but those conditions aren't the same everywhere, and those niches will continue to be filled by fossil fuels until we stop being afraid of the much better alternative. The fact is countries with higher percentages of nuclear in their power mix have much lower emissions per GDP per capita than their neighbours. So I may not be able to convince you, but I'm going to keep trying to educate anyway.
Tell me, then, how can you have a stable grid with renewables alone in places where (or when) pumped hydro isn't feasible or can't provide enough power by itself? Or in countries prone to lengthy droughts, like my own? I'm not asking this to argue, but because our disagreement may come from a misunderstanding of the base working principles of the power grid.