EU Is Warned Green Label for Gas Would Be ‘Disastrous’ Mistake

Post by drran » Sat, Sep 25, 2021, 4:53 PM UTC

masklinn wrote: post #108

Manuel_D wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hydroelectricity has inflicted orders of magnitude more damage. Yet nobody seriously proposes removing hydroelectric plants, they are by far the most effective form of renewables. Nuclear contamination can be cleaned. The majority of the Fukushima exclusion zone has been cleaned and reopened. There's no motivation to do this in Chernobyl because the town of Chernobyl only existed to support the nuclear power plant.

> Nuclear contamination can be cleaned. The majority of the Fukushima exclusion zone has been cleaned and reopened. There's no motivation to do this in Chernobyl because the town of Chernobyl only existed to support the nuclear power plant. And somewhat oddly he Chernobyl Exclusion Zone literally shows that nuclear accidents are good for the environment, as human activity turns out to be way worse for wildlife than e…

Post by pyrale » Sat, Sep 25, 2021, 5:13 PM UTC

epistasis wrote: post #118

pyrale wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 7 years is way too long. What's a good timeline then, and what technology not emitting co2 supports it? The countries that have started wind&solar policies a decade ago are nowhere close to a clean electricity mix. In fact, fossil plants and infrastructures are still being built in these countries.

There's a big contradiction in your two assessments here. You seem to think that nuclear can scale from almost nothing to the hundreds of reactor per year that we need in a suitable amount of time. However, even with renewable's exponential growth to hundreds of GW deployed every year today, with exponential growth continuing from today, you seem to think it's not enough. If you plot out the growth of wind and solar…

Post by a9h74j » Sat, Sep 25, 2021, 5:17 PM UTC

jopsen wrote: post #86

criley2 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing cheaper and easier and more scalable than nuclear for baseload gigawatt generation, especially when you actually account for the insane amount of batteries required to make wind/solar/etc viable as a baseload technology. People point at solar panel progress and always conveniently stay silent on the big battery problem (the mining problem, the scalability problem, the toxicity problem, etc) Nuclear d…

Cost at scale is hard to predict. I think a bigger question is, do we have enough "political capital" to pay for nuclear energy? Even if our politicians all agreed to it, across counties even, what are the odds that they would get ousted before the reactors are built and delivering cost efficiency energy.

Post by hakfoo » Sat, Sep 25, 2021, 6:44 PM UTC

epistasis wrote: post #76

panick21 wrote: post #22

Its sadder everyday that somehow humanity has failed to become a nuclear society. All our problems could have been solved decades ago but we are still nowhere near a solution.

We are really really close to a solution, and for the one thing that nuclear is hyped to provide--clean electricity--we have cheaper and easier and more scalable solutions than nuclear. The challenges we have now with decarbonization are not solved by cheap electricity. The challenges I'm talking about are industrial and chemical processes, transitioning transport quickly enough, freight, aviation, agriculture, etc.…

Post by pjc50 » Sat, Sep 25, 2021, 7:25 PM UTC

keewee7 wrote: post #90

willis936 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Green Parties the world over are anti-nuclear and have been since the 80s. Considering how much harm to the environment has come by the hand of green parties, I'm beginning to wonder if they aren't lobbied by fossil fuel companies.

>I'm beginning to wonder if they aren't lobbied by fossil fuel companies. They are. The mass hysteria about Fukushima was fueled by "environmentalists" who were being funded by the Australian coal lobby.