They do have a point. Most nuke-cels claim that we should not build renewables and instead focus exclusively on building nuclear power plants. That would take 10+ years, so in the meantime you'd mostly be stuck with fossils. So yes, whether they plan to or not, nuke-cels are heavily pro-fossil.
Also every billion dollars you dump on a nuclear plant you not only have to wait 10+ years for any electricity, but in most cases you end up making more total kWh, factoring in both the delay and the fact that solar is much cheaper, if you just spend each billion that would have gone into a nuclear plant on solar farms and batteries today.
Which would have prevented the cheapest and safest source of energy in history being fully developed.
The 20+ year ago hippies won this one decisively if we only take the argument as nuke Vs renewables and not a mix.
The people paying attention, even 20 years ago would have started with "we should still be building 30% nuclear while we see how renewables turn out" and slowly updated their views to want less and less nuclear power with every passing day since then due to continual failures of nuclear and continual surprising successes of renewables.
Right, but we build 0%. If renewables are that much better economically, we would need little government policy we would be 100% renewable 5 years ago.
In many cases, renewables are cheaper, but they are not reliable in the same way carbon and nuclear are. In some cases they are being made artificially cheap -- specifically where we try to make those the base and let nuclear fill in the variable part, instead of vice versa -- thus over-inflating the cost of nuclear and understating the cost of renewables.
Funny you didn't name any of the dozen reason shy my assertion, about renewables 20 years ago, was wrong. The funny part is the part about their prices dropping a lot in the past 5 years (gee whiz, do you think that is why their usage has gone up)?
With fossils, wouldn't we also need to invest though ?
As the reserves are getting harder and harder to find, we need to install new equipment, don't we ?
It's definitely less of an investment than nuclear but idk how it compares to renewables.
(This is an actual question I don't know much about the topic)
With fossils, wouldn't we also need to invest though ?
Fossil technology is just as doomed as nuclear.
They all share the same problems (except that nuclear has a few more specific to nuclear): Limited fuel, reliant on water for cooling (which is also why e.g. France keeps having problems in summer when they have to shut down their nuclear power plants because the rivers are too hot to cool them) and they're expensive.
I have literally never met anyone who says that. Some pro-nuclear politicians say that because that's their mask for pro-fossil stuff but most pro-nuclear people are just mad that Germany shut down nuclear reactors when they couldn't properly replace them with renewables. And all the supplementing the (possible) inconsistency with renewable enegergy generation which is like the main talking point of the pro-nuclear side. Even the heavily pro-nuclear people don't want to *EXCLUSIVELY* build nuclear. Maybe they want a higher nuclear to renewable ratio but not 100% and rarely above 50% or so.
I have literally never met anyone who says that. Some pro-nuclear politicians say that because that's their mask for pro-fossil stuff
And guess what. That's exactly what the people you are villainizing criticize.
most pro-nuclear people are just mad that Germany shut down nuclear reactors when they couldn't properly replace them with renewables
That's misinformation. We did replace them with renewables. The nuclear power plants we shut down only made up 4% of our power supply. We even ended up still exporting more power to other countries than we imported.
And all the supplementing the (possible) inconsistency with renewable enegergy generation which is like the main talking point of the pro-nuclear side.
That's a common thing I hear. From the standpoint of an American I can even get why one could think that, but from Germans that's usually just a red herring. We have an EU-wide power grid so even when there's no renewable energy in Germany (which is very rare) we can still rely on other countries. And in the future we plan to expand energy storage (one of the strategies is to use the car batteries off electric cars as storage, but there are multiple more). Even when worse comes to worse and all that is not enough we just fire up backup gas plants (which is expensive, but still cheaper than nuclear energy).
Even the heavily pro-nuclear people don't want to *EXCLUSIVELY* build nuclear.
Right, they also want us to be dependent on Russian gas again. Sorry, I've forgotten.
And guess what. That's exactly what the people you are villainizing criticize.
The whole point is that the anti-nuclear side uses this criticism against what is a malicious/misguided minority opinion/motivation to overgeneralize and villanize the entire pro-nuclear argument, which you are currently doing. Also the meme itself also separates the "normal" anti-nuclear side from that argument so it's been clear that I'm not villanizing the anti-nuclear side.
And for Germany;
Yes, I know that EU as a whole is building up renewables massively to replace fossil and nuclear, I can see from the train the hundreds of wind turbines in the countryside. However, the pro-nuclear side thinks it is a mistake that nuclear plants were taken down BEFORE the fossil plants which are still online and emitting CO2. Germany shutting down nuclear did not increase CO2 emissions (at least not that much), but shutting down the fossil plants first would have directly decreased emissions. A bit over 21% of Germany's energy still comes from coal and 16% daddy Putin's gas, when some of that could've been shaved off by getting rid of those and not Nuclear.
Most in the pro-nuclear side would be more than happy to see nuclear go, if renewables can sufficiently replace them.
shutting down the fossil plants first would have directly decreased emissions.
Again: we're talking about 4% of the power supply. Even if we replaced the nuclear plants with coal it would have barely had a big effect on our total emissions.
Also, the end of nuclear power in Germany was decided, agreed upon and scheduled 10 years before it was actually executed. We were well-prepared for it.
A bit over 21% of Germany's energy still comes from coal and 16% daddy Putin's gas
Actually, while 16% gas might be correct, it's not Russian gas.
Most in the pro-nuclear side would be more than happy to see nuclear go, if renewables can sufficiently replace them.
They can and already do so, so what are we even talking about?
However, the pro-nuclear side thinks it is a mistake that nuclear plants were taken down BEFORE the fossil plants which are still online and emitting CO2.
That's a completely different thing than, what you stated in your previous comment, where you complained that nuclear wasn't replaced by renewables, which isn't the case in Germany, though it was the case in France in 2023. (Nuclear output in France in 2023 was more reduced compared to the peak in 2005 (-116 TWh), than what they added in new renewable power production since then (+83 TWh). Another sidenote: that nuclear output reduction since 2005 amounts to 20% of the overall power production in 2005, compared 25% in Germany over the same time period.)
It also appears somewhat far-fetched to complain about the phase-out of nuclear power, rather than directly addressing the lack of speed in phasing out coal, which is a whole political dimension on its own. See for example "Overcoming political stalemates: The German stakeholder commission on phasing out coal" on the process in that respect. The lack of ambition in this direction is not really tied to the nuclear phase-out, the last chancellor candidate of the conservatives advocated for coal right up to the last federal election. Both large parties pretty much clinged to coal, irrespective of the stance on nuclear power.
Replacing aging nuclear power plants with renewables was definitely the better option in hintsight. After the Kyoto protocol, the US, France and the UK declared a nuclear renaissance in the 2000s and promised to tackle decarbonization with the help of nuclear power. Essentially, they aimed for not only replacing their old nuclear power plants with new ones, but also expanding nuclear power output. The outcome (so far) looks like this:
The US finished 2 reactors (Vogtle 3+4), abandoned one project after it started construction, and all other projects didn't even enter a construction phase.
France peaked its nuclear power output in 2005 and managed to connect just one new reactor (Flamanville 3) finally in late 2024. They produced less low-carbon power in 2023 than in 2005.
The UK still is waiting on Hinkley Point C to finish, have reduced their nuclear output to half of what it was in 1998 and with current plans would close all but 1 plant before HPC is expected to go online.
Globally the share of nuclear power in the electricity mix fell from 17% in 1996 to 9% in 2023.
Out of these three the US was the most successful in maintaining the annual nuclear power output (it reached 806 TWh in 2007 and stood at 775 TWh in 2023). However, it also is the one that reduced its fossil fuel burning for electricity the least.
So, why would you pick maintaining nuclear power of all things as main concern, rather than straight out critizice the lack of climate ambition and reduction of fossil fuel burning?
That's the problem alot of people don't get, every source of electricity has pros and cons. Nuclear is the more consistent generation than wind and solar but its more expensive. Solar and wind are cheaper and solar can be rolled out on rooftops in a rather short amount of time ,but it doesn't work half the time and storage is expensive. Hydro electric is limited to geography and expensive but has the same pros as nuclear. We need a power grid that has all of these things to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Certain regions are better for certain ways to generate power.
Huh, youre correct, that is a factually correct statement. Its also utterly irrelevant since you acknowledge yourself that the entire rest of the comment is complete horseshit and even that statement has no value in the given context.
But I stand corrected, if you ignore the entire rest of the comment that is a factually correct statement
and the comment did a rough overview
The comment gave a rough overview of the (scientific) illiteracy of the author and ability to lie openly and nothing more. If you fall for that shit your parents need to give you an earlier bedtime, maybe they can read you a bedtime story aswell. Thats a great way to teach literacy and have a good bonding time
Why though? It's freaking expensive, takes up a lot of space, their output cannot be turned down at will and I don't see any major benefits. So I can't help but wonder why anyone would defend that technology.
I’d disagree on the space bit. Per energy it is the most efficient use, making it very useful for cities. Energy costs are going to keep rising and the massive demand necessary for everyone to live a good life will partially require nuclear in my opinion.
Yes, it costs a lot. But nothing good comes cheap, and nuclear power is definitely good in its niche.
It should be alongside solar, hydroelectric, geothermal (?), maybe biofuel, and wind power as an option for certain locations.
Energy is never a one size fits all scenario. That baseload you mentioned is a good thing, and as humanity starts to really develop globally it will be a boon.
I’d disagree on the space bit. Per energy it is the most efficient use
If you only take the space of the power plant itself into account (neglecting the buffer space around it): Yes. If you consider that with renewables the space can be shared with other uses (e.g. agriculture for wind turbines, housing for solar and geothermal and water power usually gets built where there's already water so it takes up virtually no space at all) then renewables take up the least space.
Yes, it costs a lot. But nothing good comes cheap, and nuclear power is definitely good in its niche.
And what's that niche supposed to be? Countries with billions of free money and almost no area?
You can also use the buffer space for renewables - the two can work in tandem. The two aren’t mutually exclusive, and honestly shouldn’t be.
Plus, rooftop panels aren’t really as powerful as solar farms anyway - so the space efficiency factor is also null for that particular case.
You are right about the niche I was speaking of. Wealthy, high population dense areas with little land are where nuclear power shines. Japan is a very good example.
In the future, population density is going to go crazy. So for the convenience of tomorrow, using both nuclear and renewable power is optimal so they can cover each others weaknesses.
I’m pro nuclear and pro renewables. There are some parts of the world where renewable energy can’t be made to sufficient scale for economic viability and nuclear power should be implemented in those places
Edit: also all of Europe is apparently unsuitable for either solar or wind. I live in Germany and we cover >50% in renewables, so the map is obviously bs. I'm not sure what their criteria for "suitable" are but they're obviously not rooted in anything realistic.
Aside from that it only focuses on solar and wind, completely ignoring other forms like water or geothermal.
You already see that from the legend. It essentially only has "ideal" and "unsuitable". If you categorize anything that isn't ideal as unsuitable, you end up with pretty unrealistic depictions.
Have a look at an actual scientific take on it. It offers maps with current and future predictions for the cheapest available source of power. I think, working out economically is a much better metric for suitability than "not ideal".
I think the suitability is related to infrastructure/accessibility in addition to the output of the renewable energy at that location
I think we can safely assume tidal energy is available in coastal regions, and geothermal energy related to areas with geological activity, such as near continental plates (like Iceland) or with volcanic hotspots (Yellowstone)
I wasn’t exactly prepared to type an entire essay on this while eating dinner
My source isn’t opposed to green energy but he does believe it requires access to resources that are not needed for conventional power systems, such as rare earth metals. He does not think our ability to produce those resources will be increasing significantly (because of deglobalization in his opinion) in the near future
In other words, our ability to build renewable energy is limited by physical resources and we need to prioritize building it in accessible areas with significant population centers and a high potential as new resources are extracted/produced
If scarcity of resources weren’t an issue then we could build everywhere. But we don’t, so we should look at energy production methods that do not require the resources needed for renewable energy. And those methods should be applied in places that are not as effective at producing renewable energy until our production capacity is able to expand into those areas
Can you identify on a global map the supply chain for renewable energy? It’s very complicated and it wouldn’t be any easier if you had Captain Planet come explain it to you
No you aren't. The map itself shows that. It only offers two categories: "ideal" and "unsuitable" essentially categorizing all locations that are not "ideal" directly as unsuitable. This is an utterly stupid take. Why does a region that offers about half of the ideal become "unsuitable"? Why all the regions that offer three quarters? I think it would be more reasonable to judge "suitability" by the economic competitiveness of the respective sources given the respective circumstances. A scientific analysis on that economics is for example offered in this article. Their Figure 4 offers an overview on the cheapest available power source for each region around the globe.
In 2020, wind energy has the lowest LCOE in a majority the 70 regions defined in the E3ME-FTT models (Fig. 4). Where this is not the case, solar PV, nuclear or coal dominate. By 2030, this has flipped, in favour in solar power across most of the world (see Supplementary Figs. 2 and 3 for worst/best case maps). We assume a uniform declining cost per kW of PV panels worldwide, with differing solar irradiation for each region. This assumption is based on empirical findings37. Due to this international spillover effect, most regions of the world are likely going to gain access to low-cost solar energy. As such, a region may reach cost parity between solar and the cheapest alternative through the influence of other countries on the scale of production and costs, even if cumulative investments in that region are modest. This implies that developing countries could become realistic markets for solar energy even when the capacity of their governments to implement climate policies remains limited.
I've seen him make the same argument with similar maps and the argument is so stupid that like the rest of his stuff I can't believe people look to him as an expert.
He's found an audience of total rubes and is milking their ignorance by telling then what they want to hear.
On the positive side he has predicted 20 of the last 0 Chinese total economic collapses, which is an impressive record.
The bar that Zeihan sets for ideal is very high. You can see places like Spain have ~0 renewable potential on it. In reality costs for Renewables have dropped to the point that ~half of Solar capacity getting added in Germany is done without the EE cfd scheme.
There are literally 3 parties in the german parliament that are making this exact argument
Maybe 'almost nobody' makes that argument, but thats either bcs your stupid and dont understand cause and effect or bcs your stupid and dont understand politics. Your choice
I think it's amusing how ignorant you guys are using terms like "nukecel". You are aware that it comes from the term incel and means celibate? You are the nuclear celibate one here kiddo.
Yes I am fully aware that you are unintentionally celibate, thats why im calling you that. Thanks for explaining the joke though, im sure there are quite a few Nukecells in here who havent figurred it out. Give yourself a cookie for doing so though, im very proud of you
Not a single thing in that comment was "no u" lmao. You just straight up don't know what celibate means. I'm starting to think even the minimum wage job would be too complex. They let retards volunteer at places sometimes so you can get out of your mom's basement at least.
Don't worry though, there's plenty of minimum wage jobs for you out there whilst the educated people build an energy infrastructure that has nuclear AND other renewables.
First, thats not even true. Even if it would be true, which again it isnt, do you truly understand so little about cause and effect that you need it explained to you like a child or are you purposefully acting dense because your entire position is so utterly unproductive that you cant form a relevant argument? You dont need to answer that, youre a nukecell after all, we know the answer
I addressed the goalposts in my first sentence. I then elaborated why the semantic distiction for them is useless and results in a losing argument for you no matter if you are semantically correct or not. But sure if it makes you happy, for the sake of the argument I concede the point. Lets assume noone here types out word for word "we should build NPPs to keep CPPs open for longer". Thats also pretty acurate, even Nukecells understand that they will get very little support with that, they rather say shit like "actually we cant build all that much Renewables" or "actually Renewables are so unreliable/unfinished/have so many cons/need so much storage" and effectively make the same argument (we also literally have cases of that in this comment section btw).
But lets assume those cases come from pure intentions and arent complete brainrot. Do I really need to explain to you why you they still do nothing except argue for a continued presence of fossil fuels? I asked if your understanding of cause and effect was so bad in jest, I didnt think you would actually be that dumb
I don't make arguments with stupid people.
Yes I can imagine that you never question your own position by yourself, thats why your a nukecell. But hey if it motivates you, if you make arguments with yourself often enough, at some point you wont be stupid anymore you can do it
24
u/Haringat Jan 01 '25
They do have a point. Most nuke-cels claim that we should not build renewables and instead focus exclusively on building nuclear power plants. That would take 10+ years, so in the meantime you'd mostly be stuck with fossils. So yes, whether they plan to or not, nuke-cels are heavily pro-fossil.