• SirIrius@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    Nuclear has been at that supply level since the 1970s. Other parts of the world have much higher renewable mixes in their energy inputs. For example, Germany:

    https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-likely-pass-50-mark-renewable-power-this-year-minister-2023-09-18/

    Nuclear is not necessary to meet climate change targets. In fact, it’s so damned expensive to deploy and maintain, it will harm meeting those targets.

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      https://www.destatis.de/EN/Press/2023/03/PE23_090_43312.html

      And because they shut down their nuclear plants, they had to start burning coal again, which is about as bad an energy source you can get when it comes to emissions and pollution. Their coal use % went up from 2021 to 2022. They may have a higher renewable mix, but they’ve also increased their emissions. Not to mention, they also significantly reduced their energy imports from France – the majority of which is generated by nuclear energy. They are replacing clean energy with coal.

      France is actually a significant counterpoint as well. They’ve got 65%+ nuclear energy, and renewables just add to the percent of clean energy sources. Considering they’re doing much better than Germany in terms of not using fossil fuels, I believe they are an example to follow over Germany – which means nuclear is critical to meet our climate goals.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        since we’re talking about france, it’s important to mention that frances nuclear infrastructure is a mess right now, pretty much all of it is EOL and a handful have found serious structural issues. Maintenance is important kids, remember to perform it, otherwise your PWR main loop might explode. and everyone will laugh at you.

        Also the EPR reactor being built thats like n times over budget and x years behind commission, 90% of it is fabrication skill issues though. The EPR is also just immensely complex compared to better designs.

        infrastructure is a universal issue though, you just HAVE to maintain things unless you want them to disintegrate. And you need to have a plan in place to keep things going into the future, when things inevitably reach EOL.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          Yeah I don’t see this so much as a nuclear problem but a universal problem. Everything requires maintenance, from oil refineries to solar farms.

      • SirIrius@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        10 months ago

        And because they shut down their nuclear plants, they had to start burning coal again…

        Unrelated and a whataboutism.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          It’s completely relevant to a discussion about renewable energy and meeting emission targets. What’s the benefit of having a higher renewable mix if your total GHG emissions are consistently going up?

          Germany has generated more CO2 than it would have if it had kept nuclear technology, and that’s an indisputable fact.

          • SirIrius@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            That’s like arguing why take chemo if it only makes you sicker in the short run. 🤔

            • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              To use your analogy, we don’t know if this chemo will actually cure them. It could make them just a little better, but it needs to be worth the suffering.

              Our goal at the end of the day is to reach 0 emissions as soon as possible. If the increased coal and gas that Germany is using now because of eliminating nuclear energy results in zero emissions much quicker, I’ll happily agree with you. As it stands however, Germany has not proven out a reduction in carbon higher than their recent increases.

              There is no climate justification for cutting out nuclear energy. If there was, we’d see a net detriment in France and a net positive in Germany with regards to the justification. If that exists today, I’d be more than happy to read about it. If you’re going to argue that it’ll exist tomorrow, you’ll need projections that are made on reasonable assumptions and that show the difference. Again, I’d be happy to look at those.