602
Germany set to miss net zero by 2045 target as climate efforts falter
(www.reuters.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2023
602 points (97.6% liked)
World News
32078 readers
837 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
What’s wrong with nuclear?
Poor track record with safety (not talking about the big issues such as meltdowns, but smaller issues such as minor leaks, and workplace incidents). Nobody's interested in building them unless they've got profit guarantees and subsidies from the government. Nobody's interested in insuring them in full (unless it's the government). Nobody's interested in the eventual decommissioning process, which can take a century, and again, still costs. Renewables will be up and running, and profitable, long before nuclear is constructed.
If you see the environment as just another way to profit, and you assume that we can't save the environment because it costs too much, you are just another shitty fossil fuel executive, but worse because at least the fossil fuel executives get paid for their short-term ideas, you are just supporting them and thereby standing by as hundreds of millions of people are condemned to death, hopefully including yourself, for literally nothing.
So, you're going to spend, billions, to build a nuclear powerplant, that will decarbonise at a slower rate, never turn a profit, be an economic sinkhole megaproject, or, you could just build a solar panel or wind turbine in like, a year, where it'll be functional and working. Profits allow you to reinvest into more projects. Losses, mean you're putting endless amounts of money into less.
Again if you are worried about "turning a profit" you don't give a fuck about the environment and need to leave.
If you're constantly pouring money into a loss-making industry, it means you're not efficiently managing your resources to build more projects. Profits from renewables can be reinvested before a single plant can't be constructed. And that nuclear plant, will never make enough profit to build another.
What the fuck is the point of "making a profit?" The world is burning because of profits. If all fossil fuel plants were taxed at 1,000,000 Million per ton of carbon emissions would you support nuclear then?
The point of making a profit, is so that you can re-invest and allow private industries into the market.
If I made you a loaf of bread, which took 15 mins, and you could sell it for $2 profit. You would be able to sell more pieces of bread correct?
If another person made you a loaf of bread, which took three days to complete, and you make a loss of $10 with each one sold, how many more pieces of bread are you willing to sell?
One feeds your population, the other has to be bailed out by the government, and everyone loses money and investment and time.
This is why China prioritises renewables, renewables are considered superior to nuclear when decarbonising the grid, and the best case scenario for nuclear, according to scientists in academia (as opposed to pro-nuke Youtube videos), requires nuclear to be a minor player in a majority renewables grid (and also be 25% cheaper). Unfortunately making nuclear cheaper, is not ideal.
The pro-nuke argument is literally funded by the mining lobby and the fossil fuels industry. Which is why most of their resources are from lobby groups, YouTube videos, public books, and TED talks... Because they know it's going to be ineffective, and they only need to convince the public. Much like how the whole hydrogen-powered cars narrative is going, or environmentally friendly fuels. It's an expensive distraction.
See the RAB that the UK has for the HPC nuke plant build. Companies are allowed to make a profit even before the powerplant is completed. The government will handle insurance, and decommissioning. Which, happens over a century, at taxpayers expense, and it produces no energy. There's also the storage of radioactive material. All of this, uses money and resources that could otherwise be used for constructing renewables (and the fossil fuels industry loves this plan, because every moneypit nuke plant that is constructed, less renewables are built, and fossils gets to remain in the game because they then become only just one of the underperformers, rather than all), decarbonising the grid (faster, see study), and on top of that, everybody makes money.
But don't worry, renewables are also cheaper and more profitable than fossils in most applications as well, so they'll lose out on future energy projects, besides, like in Germany's case, being used as a backup.
Let me pose you another question. Why do you think, the British Conservatives have invested in making HPC happen (finally agreeing to the demand to allow investing companies to turn a profit even before any energy is produced)? Why have conservatives in South Korea planned to restart a new nuclear industry despite accusations of corruption? Why is it the conservatives in Australia love the idea of nuclear? Is it because they can do the good old-fashioned trope of using the state to make their private company chums some money? Or is it because it's for the goodness of their hearts, and concern for their citizens, while they dismantle the NHS and privatise it, for example?
Ban private industries from the energy market, recognize that the massive externalities from fossil fuels are a net negative for the entire planet. Fine and Jail the former owners for complacency and wanton disregard for human life. Immediately build nuclear plants that are designed to create stable energy for the populace and get over the idea that profit is the purpose of a power grid.
So, you're going to build a powerplant, that people don't want to fund, that governments are reluctant to build? You'll need to create a government agency responsible for the design and planning, another responsible for training new powerplant workers, another one for the decommissioning process, and another for insurance, and another as a safety watchdog, which might come online in a decade if you're lucky, or closer to two decades if you're not, only for it to not be as effective as renewables, be a constant drain on taxpayers, not be entirely reliable, and be more expensive as an energy source than renewables. Sure, good luck with that plan. I wish you well garnering political and academic support with that. In the meantime, universities, companies, and governments will generally avoid it like the plague. Unless or course, there's a nuclear industry that already exists and needs to be subsidised, or a military nuclear requirement to keep the talent and designs ongoing.
You're deliberately going to build nuclear, ignore studies telling you that renewables decarbonise faster. Because you want to decarbonise. Only for your personal opinions, backed by the fossils and mining industry? You're going to give the fossil industry a lot of money over the first 10 years of absolutely nothing happening.
I will add, the election promises the conservative Swedes have made seem to have disappeared. How convenient.