• @Meowoem
    010 months ago

    That’s a taking point that wasn’t very true in the 70s and certainly isn’t close to true now, there are endless methods of balancing a renewables grid for constant power involving endless options for continuous generation methods (solar thermal especially) or battery storage (chemical, gravity, etc) and load balancing using at-peek tied industry (especially e-fuel manufacture)

    There’s also a lot of stuff like tidal generation which is hugely promising and drastically underfunded, certainly compared to nuclear.

    • @[email protected]
      10 months ago

      All technologies you’ve mentioned are in R&D, not ready to use as you seem to imply. Great investment is still required to implement them at-scale. What I’d agree on is that It’s in our best interest to invest heavily in them, and they are probably underfunded given their importance in the survival of humanity.

      The idea that we can transition from fossil fuels to traditional renewables (solar, wind, etc) while refusing to rely on nuclear power seems wishful thinking to me. In the short and mid-term (10-20 years) we only have nuclear as a realistic alternative for clean energy. In this transition, we can develop those promising methods of energy storage and also build the necessary infrastructure they require.

      Just to provide a real case scenario: Germany vs. France.

      Both Germany and France want to reach zero emissions by 2050.

      We know how Germany opted to phase out nuclear power already in the year 2000 and completed its ‘nuclear exit’ in April 2023. Compare that to France that since 1974 has been heavily investing in nuclear power with the goal of producing most of its energy from it (Messmer Plan (Wikipedia)).

      The results for me are apparent:

      Greenhouse gas emissions 2021 in Germany: 665.88 megatonnes (8.0 tonnes/capita)

      Greenhouse gas emissions 2021 in France: 302.33 megatonnes (4.5 tonnes/capita)

      Source: How energy systems and policies of Germany and France compare .

      I’d take a real reduction in green house emissions any day before the “wish” of reducing them while refusing to make any compromise.

      Without being disrespectful, I think it is a big mistake to refuse prioritize nuclear power to replace fossil fuels in the near future if the goal is to reduce greenhouse emissions.