• p1mrx@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    You have to look back a few decades to see the whole picture. If we’d kept investing in nuclear technology since the 1980s, with a focus on passive safety and cost reduction, we’d never have needed all that gas in the first place.

    By “we”, I mean the entire western world, not Germany specifically. The fossil fuel companies allegedly encouraged anti-nuclear sentiment during that era, and nobody had the organization and foresight to fight back, so we’re all paying the price today.

    • Arcturus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      That doesn’t make any sense. That’s like, going to a mechanic and giving them a few million to start an auto business vs going to some random guy, and giving them billions to start an auto business. Sure, eventually it would work out, just by sheer volume of investment, but it’s just not feasible. Otherwise governments and private industry would’ve just done it. That’s like saying we should’ve had the foresight to invest in hydrogen powered cars. Why prioritise that when batteries are easier and cheaper?

      • p1mrx@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        If your goal is reliable carbon-free power, it’s not obvious that renewables will work out. We basically have to build these enormous continent-spanning machines in order to maintain uptime regardless of weather conditions.

        It might be possible in the US and Europe, large regions that will hopefully remain politically stable, but it’s never been done before. By comparison, we have built reliable nuclear power plants. Is it really so obvious who is the mechanic and who is the random guy?

        • Arcturus@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          It is, I’ve not seen a single academic study show otherwise. Not the west, nor China, have shown scepticism towards renewables. But there’s plenty of that when it comes to the nuclear question. Just look at HPC and SWC in the UK. Companies won’t touch it unless the UK government guarantees they make a profit. Not a long term profit. A profit before the project is completed. They want an advance. Then there’s the US, over-budget and delayed. Finland, over-budget and delayed. France, over-budger and delayed. EDF prefer their renewables investments than their nuclear ones, mainly because half their nuclear plants are unreliable, and nobody wants to waste more money on them.

          • p1mrx@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I agree that building wind/solar is currently profitable and reduces emissions. Incremental progress is politically easy.

            I remain skeptical that following this strategy will ever eliminate fossil fuels, because people will turn to them whenever renewables are underperforming. They’ll see the price uncertainty and stick with gas because it works. We won’t demolish the power plants because they’re still needed 10 days a year. The fossil infrastructure will keep on chugging, just at a reduced scale. We’ll eliminate 80% of CO2, and continue to cook ourselves with the last 20%. It’s human nature to lose interest when the problem gets hard. Look how long it’s taking to deploy IPv6, and that’s relatively easy.

            We should invest in the hard problem now, so fission can actually take us carbon-negative in 30 years. Maybe fusion will save the day, but that’s a gamble, and it’s really not that much better than Gen IV fission.

            • Arcturus@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Fusion, has been a promise made by nuclear for decades, much like the car industry’s promise of green fuels. In the meantime, the university of Stanford semi-regularly updates a paper showing a transition to 100% for the world. It’s made possible now, particularly with the innovations done by renewables companies improving efficiency in production, recycling, and AI made available for demand prediction. And we have been investing in nuclear, for many decades. A small kickstart in the renewables industry has built a giant global realistic renewables push. Everyone’s happy with renewables. Governments, energy companies, insurance companies. Nuclear will remain a promise and a giant drain on resources.

    • Uranium3006@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Anti-nuclear is anti environmentalism and the failure to act sooner is on the shoulders of the people who continue to expand fossil fuels and refuse to invest in alternatives

    • ValiantDust@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t really know why you are trying to start a discussion with me because I never argued against any of that. You are right, we could be a lot farther if we had done a lot of things earlier. And it sucks that we aren’t. All of that doesn’t change that the comment I replied to was factually wrong. We could have replaced gas (or coal*) with electricity by using electricity based heating. We did not replace nuclear power with gas.

      Edit: * I wrote coal, I meant oil.