For aging nuclear power plants, keeping them running becomes more and more costly. So the question becomes, if we need to invest a big chunk of money, what should we invest in to reduce CO2 emissions the most.
And the answer is that building out wind/solar and insulating buildings is at the moment way more effective than keeping old nuclear power plants running.
Well, it's not really, if it was just about money all the research that went into renewables could be invested in other things and we could just keep burning cheap available coal. It's about stopping CO2 emissions and we need every drop of capacity we can get if we are to shutdown fossil fuel plants. Trying to eliminate both fossil fuel usage and nuclear at the same time is insane, and we are going to miss our already lax emission targets because we are taking on a handicap for no reason.
> And the answer is that building out wind/solar and insulating buildings is at the moment way more effective than keeping old nuclear power plants running.
This is already what we have been doing, and that's including that we can "make do" with energy savings.
It just doesn't close the gap. Nordics/northern europe need nuclear or equivalent power source to close the gap, or a revolution in energy storage.
I think we need more energy in the future, for all the green technology, not less. Energy is the currency, even more so than already, of the future economy.
The problem we have is that in the past decade fossil fuel was way to cheap. This has now changed, but ramping up production of solar and wind takes a while.
Fossil fuels are still way too cheap compared to storage of electricity. So there are lots of ways we could store electricity. But if you can't compete with a gas powered plant next door, it is not going to be built.
At the same time, if you look at power consumption of data centers, it is amazing that so much of that can be ad supported.
The proof is that nobody is investing in keeping old nuclear power plants open. All over Europe. When those plants stay open it is governments paying for it.
In contrast, companies are now paying money to rent a piece of sea to put a wind farm in.
Agree 100%, but this isn't in the context of one or the other, it's in the context of doing the maximum of both.
Sites that want nuclear and have the extra money for it should go forward full steam ahead, but current construction capability in both the US is extremely low. Even at maximum build capacity, neither the US nor Europe will be able to build at the pace they had in the 1970s. And as the 1970s-era reactors reach natural end of life, we won't be able to replace them as quickly as they leave the grid.
In contrast, renewables and storage deploy quickly, on time, and on budget, and the capacity for production is at least an order of magnitude larger than what we can do with nuclear.
This isn't an either/or, it's a "yes and" but it turns out that nuclear's contribution will be fairly small in comparison.
> In contrast, renewables and storage deploy quickly, on time, and on budget, and the capacity for production is at least an order of magnitude larger than what we can do with nuclear.
Yet EU energy crises keep getting worse. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Could you be a bit more clear about your implication here?
Do you think the EU energy crisis is because of renewables somehow? If so, how did you come to that conclusion, and in what way?
Renewables don't generate any energy when they aren't connected to the grid. And natural gas shortages for heating don't really get solved by renewables unless people start installing lots of heat pumps, which they definitely should.
This is not a fight between wind/solar and nuclear. This is a fight against coal. You should reduce the coal first, not nuclear.