• TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It isn’t an opposition, but a matter of priority.

    The goal is to switch off fossil fuels as quickly as possible. Nuclear takes a long time, renewables can be done quickly - very quickly.

    If we spend money on nuclear, that’s money that could have been spent on renewables, money that could have turned off fossil fuel generation more quickly. Thus it makes more sense -right now- to spend money on renewables. Once we have an excess of renewables and have reached net zero, then nuclear builds should come into play. While the nuclear is being built, rotating stabilisers can be installed to provide voltage & frequency stability.

    • bouh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s been 20 years that Germany decided to stop nuclear energy. They’re burning coal and gas since then, and it got us an energy crisis last year. It’s not faster to deploy renewable.

      Mean time to build a nuclear power plant is 7.5 years btw. Not 20. But I’m sure 20 is a lot better for the narrative.

      • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You’re deliberately trying to conflate the time from before-site-selection to a finished plant with the time for finishing a particular reactor after ground breaking. An analogy would be claiming the average time for a solar plant is three minutes because screwing one panel on takes that long.

        • bouh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Or maybe there are actual studies considering all nuclear power plants built so a mean actually means something. But anti-nuclear people never were about actual facts I guess.

          • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Which are just as legit as all the studies that show how great oil, coal and gas are, and are peddled by the same peoe using the same methods.

            Show me your study showing that the average time for a gen III or later plant is finished in 7.5 years from the time where sites are being assessed.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Switching off nuclear early is a mistake (excluding any technical concerns driving a shutdown). In my opinion, shutdown of a nuclear plant should be staged with completion of a new power plant on the same site. Half the regulatory paperwork is already there if it’s already a nuclear site.

        Sweden are targeting 10 plants by 2045, in just over 20 years. Those 10 plants are probably already proposed and partially designed.

        In 7.5 years you could build and energise a shit ton of renewables, and the infrastructure needed to connect it from various remote locations, using less than a quarter of the money they’re proposing here.

        From what I can tell the biggest hurdle in Sweden is transmission infrastructure to make use of renewable capacity and potential. For Germany, pulling a guess out of my ass, I’d wager it’s more of a “Not In My BackYard” situation that’s clogged up development of onshore wind.