To me that really highlighted the naivety of many environmental activists. They mean well and we need them, but they so often fail to look at the problems holistically and zooms in on single issues.
To me that really highlighted the naivety of many environmental activists. They mean well and we need them, but they so often fail to look at the problems holistically and zooms in on single issues.
I think at the end of the day it comes down to tribalism, sadly. People choose their "side" and pitch in to defend its merits and attack the other "side"'s deficiencies. As with many things, there isn't a whole lot of room left for holistic approaches.
I'm personally not a huge fan of nuclear because I'm a pragmatist, and I think most people are pragmatists at the end of the day, being human. And pragmatists don't make good operators of nuclear power plants. But I definitely don't think any existing nuclear plants should be closed. They should be (safely) continued to run as long as possible to provide the clean energy we desperately need while other safer (and often cheaper) renewables+storages ramp up.
What I really can't stand is the use of fossil fuels in the grid when there is known and effective alternatives, and it gives a bad taste in the mouth that tax money intended for grid stability is used on fossil fuels.
Not to be that guy but it sort of is. Comparing nuclear power to renewables is a lot like comparing a truck to an electric scooter. Sure, both can transport you to your destination and both work equally well in many scenarios, maybe the scooter even has advantages in some places but when it comes to handling the entirety of possible scenarios the truck is the clear choice. That doesn't mean you can't have a truck and a scooter and use each where appropriate, it's just that you'll probably use the truck a lot more.
A new nuclear reactor is being built since 2007, it should have launched a new set of reactors, and this WIP is a disaster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
Nope. We have to take into account consumption-based CO₂ emissions: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/prod-cons-co2-per-capita?...
> that 63% can be easily reduced in France by introducing heatpumps and EVs
Nope, as it is only possible by generating more gridpower, and France tries to do so using nuclear since 2007... in vain as the sole and only nuclear reactor being built in France (which should have started a new batch in 2012) is the 'Flamanville-3' EPR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
> the same is not true in the UK/Germany/Poland without building metric arseloads of zero-carbon power plants.
There is no 'zero-carbon plants', only 'low-carbon plants'.
They all do so, much more efficiently than France (where electricity is already low-carbon but where the plan to pump up more nuclear is stuck) https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-electricity-low-car...
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-change-renewables?...
have you go a source for that? the parent comment seems to contradict that fact
To do so electrifying usages is key.
This in turn imply that more electricity has to be generated.
Each and every nation in the EU27 moves towards this, and France (while chanting 'my electricity is low-carbon, yay!' and neglecting that doesn't do anything about the remaining 63% of final energy consumed in France obtained by burning fossil fuels) is the red lantern: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/environment/article/2022/11/25/ren...
Final energy in France, by source: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89nergie_en_France#%C3%89n...