• @FooBarrington
    link
    English
    111 month ago

    We’ve heard this for years, yet countries that have denuclearized have not been able to go full renewables, they have become more dependent on fossil fuels.

    Which countries are you referring to? Germany for example denuclearized and replaced them with renewables, they didn’t become more dependent on fossil fuels (even if people like to say that).

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#/media/File%3AGermany_electricity_production.svg

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      6
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Japan for one, whose coal and natural gas consumption has gone up significantly: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Japan

      Germany has stayed fairly steady, fair enough. Imagine if they had just focused on replacing fossil fuels instead of nuclear, they would be nearly carbon free by now.

      I have no problem with the majority of funding going to renewables and making progress right now, but I also don’t see why we can’t break ground on new 4th generation nukes and continue investment in nuclear research at the same time. We can hedge our bets, make progress on both. If the 100% renewables + storage plan pans out, cool, we stop the nukes. If they don’t, then cool, we have our carbon free baseload production and we aren’t a decade behind on it when we need it.

    • redfellow
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 month ago

      Fyi Germany has reintroduced coal plants because of the storage issues.

      They also relied on Russian gas until Gazprom was ordered to cut over half of the gas flow because of Germany aiding Ukraine.

      • @FooBarrington
        link
        English
        11 month ago

        I don’t think that “reintroduced” is fair wording here. Even if we hadn’t denuclearized, new coal plants would still have been opened. The proportion of coal power to other power also didn’t increase, even in spite of the challenges posed due to Russias war.