German goals to cut greenhouse emissions by 65% by 2030 are likely to be missed, meaning a longer-term net zero by a 2045 target is also in doubt, reports by government climate advisers and the Federal Environment Agency (UBA) show.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
Yes, it could and increasingly is. But that still doesn’t make it true that the nuclear power was replaced by gas.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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
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.