this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2023
85 points (97.8% liked)
Europe
8324 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe ๐ช๐บ
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, ๐ฉ๐ช ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out [email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Good strawman where did I say build coal or gas instead? How are you saving the planet when 1 reactor takes 20 years?
Because that's what's happening. Countries are building and reopening fossil fuel plants.
In 20 years that reactor can make up for thousands of tons a year of CO2. That's the same argument people have been using for 60 years, and here we are now. That it takes time is no excuse not to start.
Which country? Country's are investing in renewables you know the energy source that's cheaper and quicker to deploy than nuclear.
Nuclear is bad for your grid it's not flexible. Look at Germany since they stopped using nuclear they where able to use way more solar and wind which previously had to be turned off because nuclear is not flexible.
Well, Germany, since you mention them. In their anti-nuclear hysteria, they're having to reopen fossil fuel plants after relying on russian natural gas for years. Germany is phasing out nuclear and it's proven a disaster politically and economically. But more importantly, a disaster for the environment.
No, that is exactly wrong and shows how little you understand about the power grid. Nuclear is useful exactly because of that, as it provides stable and predictable power, complementing renewables, and making up for what they can't. They go hand in hand if you're serious about decarbonising the grid, which Germany has proven they're not.
Nuclear is therefore competing with coal, gas, and oil in the power grid. Which is why we've been disinformed for decades by the fossil fuel megacorp's antinuclear propaganda. The slower we take up nuclear, the longer they can keep selling countries their dirty fuels.
Yeah, start calling people names when you don't know what you're talking about. I literally went to school for this shit. Do you even know what duck curves and grid base load are?
Germany is building new fossil fuel plants with public funding. Meanwhile, its emissions per capita are 50% higher than France's, and more than double those of Sweden. We need nuclear to speed up decarbonisation. You can fuck right off with your fossil fuel disinformation propaganda.
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/german-talks-with-eu-power-plant-subsidies-progressing-econ-ministry-2023-08-01/
Looool maybe read your own source. Germany wants to build hydrogen peeker plants. Germany is not building new coal plants they are shutting them down. Europe's industrial powerhouse has higher carbon emissions than France and Sweden? I am shocked.
You keep mentioning France yet not even France is building nuclear at the rate they are decommissioning their old plants.
It takes 20 years for a nuclear reactor by that time Germany will already be climate neutral. This year Germany will add mor than 10gws of new solar even at only 20% usage that's more than 1 new reactor a year at a fraction of the cost and no fuel needed. The target rate will cap at about 20 GW which Germany is on track to beat.
Energy isn't used evenly throughout the day. Nuclear makes 0 sense and again just looking at Germany's numbers they used no new coal to compensate the loss of nuclear just more solar and wind.
https://www.zeit.de/energiewende-daten-visualisierungen
Since the decommissioning the energy got cleaner and cheaper. That's a simple fact you can't deny.