Comment on nuclear fear-mongering is a ploy by Big oil
Forester@yiffit.net 2 months agoI’m not saying Germany can’t produce solar energy. I’m saying Germany can’t run on nothing but solar energy which is why we need something dependable to take up the base load. That is not fossil fuel based.
ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 2 months ago
If you Google “is a nuclear baseload required” you’ll find plenty of articles clearly demonstrating why this isn’t true. Renewables + storage solutions can provide the base load just fine. The biggest issues have been worked out already, it just needs to be built (which is expensive, but so would nuclear be).
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Yeah, OP keeps using the lack of current investment in renewables as an argument that it can’t be done at scale. It’s a really weird lack of logic whether they’re aware of it and arguing in bad faith or just fundamentally confused…
woelkchen@lemmy.world 2 months ago
OP calling you a “dipshit” and others “fucking shills” is clear evidence OP knows he/she is losing the argument and gets emotional about it.
What’s funny is that nuclear apologists sweep other renewables like geothermal under the rug and only proclaim that wind and solar depend on the elements. Wind and solar do but others like geothermal don’t. Hydropower is also less dependent on flukes of nature.
Also France needs to lower their nuclear energy output in summer because the cooling water from rivers gets too hot.
Forester@yiffit.net 2 months ago
That’s not my argument. Dipshit.
My argument is that it has taken us 30 years to reach 16% of global power generated by renewables. And every year we seem to add about two more percentage to that. We don’t have the fucking time scale to keep that rate going. We need to drastically cut oil yesterday and the only thing you can vially replace that much oil with is nuclear on a 5-year time scale.
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Mainly because of the fossil fuel and nuclear lobbies bribing politicians, not any deficiency inherent to renewables as you keep implying.
True, but the solution is to increase the investment in renewable energy generation at a faster rate, not giving up and pivoting to the slower, less effective and more dirty transition to nuclear.
Speaking of not having time, nuclear is already getting less effective and less safe due to climate change, a tendency that’s going to get much worth in the several years, probably decades, it would take to transition from fossil fuels to nuclear.
Meanwhile, a major solar array or wind turbine park can be built in a matter of months and doesn’t have those problems OR the waste disposal issues you keep downplaying.
Again, absolutely true.
Absolutely 100% categorically false.
Except for repeatedly suggesting that nuclear is a much better option, which it isn’t.
Except for the fact that a combination of the myriad types of renewables is a faster, cheaper, and cleaner way to get off fossil fuels.
Nuclear is the coal of low to no carbon energy generation: it’s an obsolete method that is still used in spite of much better modern technology being available, chiefly because of rich lobbyists bribing politicians and gaslighting regular people.
Forester@yiffit.net 2 months ago
Please tell me your plans for renewable storage to meet 84% of our power needs in the next 5 years
msage@programming.dev 2 months ago
Please remind me how long it takes to build new nuclear plants?
Forester@yiffit.net 2 months ago
That depends entirely on what design you go with. Ideally we would be looking at municipal level power generation with modern proven light water Small modular reactor designs reliant on passive safety features we can pump them out of factories at a rate of approximately two per day if we can look at the average aerospace industry rate of construction for jumbojets for a comparable engineering project in size and scope to most SM reactors.