Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

tdc_ t1_itiwnsi wrote

Reply to comment by quellerand in A city in China is planning an offshore wind farm so big that it could power all of Norway by quellerand

How so? Right now they are purely expanding energy production, i.e. still opening new coal plants in China. This is in no way replacing fossil fuels as far as I'm aware. Still a nice project though.

10

Hawk---- t1_itiyp4i wrote

The Coal is a temporary measure to shore up Energy supply while they bring on the only actual solution for zero emissions - Nuclear Energy.

China is currently one of about 3 or 4 nations actually investing in expanding Nuclear energy, and the only nation currently heavily investing it. Their plan is to supply most of their energy through Nuclear power, then to use renewables as small scale auxiliary supplies - something akin to what France currently does.

Imo the sheer brutal success of this method is best seen in the carbon loading difference between Germany, who's gone all in on Solar and Wind renewables, and France, who uses predominantly Nuclear. Germany averages between 300 to as much as 400 grams of Carbon per kw hour more than France, with at one point Germany producing about 500 grams of Carbon to Frances 7 grams.

Imo the proof is beyond question, as is the immense amounts of science and research into this. Solar and Wind are not solutions, only small, local scale solutions that are being stretched into a role they were never designed to fill, let alone come close to filling. Without Nuclear to back renewables up, it is literally impossible to reach net-zero emissions.

18

tdc_ t1_itizyz0 wrote

> Germany, who's gone all in on Solar and Wind renewables

Nice wall of text but as a German your central example is absolutely laughable to me. I mean if you love your nuclear energy, I don't care but hope you have fun storing the trash for a few thousand years. No, but what is absolutely absurd is claiming Germany had gone "all in" on solar and wind. When did this happen? Under Merkel with CDU and their absurd 3-H restrictions in Bavaria? What are you talking about?

Because as far as I'm aware we've been razing villages all the time for coal and been happily burning that. Where and when did that non-existing renewable all-in happen?! Or are you just using Germany as a staw man since we shut off all but 3 nuclear plants?

6

borisperrons t1_itkpm0y wrote

I mean, a nuclear power plant during its lifetime produces orders of magnitude less nasty stuff than a coal plant. More dangerous, yes, but also easier to stock somewhere safe.

8

6ixpool t1_itkgyhj wrote

Lots of emerging tech in nuclear power that promises to help address the spectre of nuclear waste. Things like thorium and small modular reactors are very promising near future tech. Doesn't really speak much to how France is able to supply most of their power via nuclear, but it does address the main concern about nuclear power namely the perceived significant negatives of nuclesr waste.

1

OotTheMonk t1_itlruaq wrote

Radioactive materials are going to radioact, why does it matter if it’s done deep in the earth, or extracted, used productively, and stuck back into a hollowed out mountain in the middle of nowhere?

1

PM-ME-DEM-NUDES-GIRL t1_itj02sg wrote

what are the countries investing in nuclear energy?

3

Hawk---- t1_itjutwv wrote

As far as I'm currently aware of?

China, Japan maybe since they've committed to restarting already built plants and say they'll build more (but not much has happened since), France, and the U.K. on a technicality with SMR's, and Poland I believe.

There might be some more actively investing in the industry, but I am not at this time aware of those nations. (Also, before someone gets confused, there's a difference between maintaining and investing)

1

philipp2310 t1_itk9lwo wrote

Yeah, this is just wrong. Germany never went full solar. The proof is the now non existent solar industry in Germany that still existed 15 years ago. In the same time coal still got billions in subsidies. Germany went full sideways with some solar and wind sprinkled in. Not proofing any failure but the one of German politicians.

Just another nuclear shill jumping in a thread about a renewable success story.

−1

Hawk---- t1_itl08n7 wrote

I never said they went full Solar. I said they've committed to full Solar and Wind. It might not sound like that much of a difference, but I assure you there is a massive difference between saying Germany went full Solar and me saying they committed to going full Solar and Wind. Which is true.

Last I checked their energy shares on paper was around a low 50%, high 40% in terms of Solar and Wind. A sizeable share, yet it's been struggling to expand thanks to the innate flaws of Renewables that forced Germany into heavy reliance on Russian Natural Gas.

1

philipp2310 t1_itl2i8s wrote

It's still WRONG. No matter if you bring wind into it or not.

Germany did not COMMIT to anything. They talked a lot about going to "100%" solar/wind but they failed. They only managed to go half way and still subsidized coal. 2.4 Billion€ in 2020 for RWE coal. And yet for example Schott Solar closed its plants during the same time coal got money, because it is not financially useful to build solar in Germany(2012).

The massive difference is, it didn't fail because of any shortcomings of renewables. It failed because NIMBY wind in Bavaria, NIMBY high voltage power lines and stupid coal/gas lobby.

I know for the current nuclear lobby it is such a beautiful image of a failing Germany because of "renewable flaws", but it is just wrong. Germany never pushed with the force towards renewables, that it would allow any considerations (like that).

Imagine Germany would have gone towards NPPs with the same mentality. Do you really think just ONE NPP would have been able to start production with all the bureaucracy and coal lobby in the last 20 years? Just look at the search for a final waste storage in Germany. 50 Years of search, and we got only one failed attempt, billions of wasted money and the "hope" to find a solution in 2032. And TONS of NIMBY in that area as well.

Neither nuclear nor renewables had a chance against the coal/gas lobby in the last 20 years. Lets just hope they learned their lesson, and in another 20 years we will see 100% nuclear in France, 100% renewable in Germany and a wonderful mixture of energy across Europe, just like it has to be to work at all, because "no" 100% solution covers all flaws.

1