946
40% of US electricity is now emissions-free (arstechnica.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
229 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 2 years ago (9 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (5 children)

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

    Unrelated and a whataboutism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent