Meeting its targets looks hard

  • letmesleep@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nuclear could actually help to alleviate the integration costs of renewables, though.

    If the plan were to rely on nuclear forever, sure. But that would necessitate new plants. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think it would have been a good idea to keep the plants from the 80s running until the 2050s. But the 2050s is when we could expect new plants to start operating if we started planning right now. If we wanted to build faster we’d to start doing what the CPC does with NIMBYs.

    In other words: If we had decided to replace the nuclear plants in 2000 then we could continue to use nuclear. But right now nuclear is simply no time for that. Coal is supposed to be gone in less than fifteen years and all fossil’s are supposed to be gone from the grid in about 20. With renewables and storage that is ambitious but doable. With new nuclear plants it’s utterly unrealistic.

    • cartrodus@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, Germany is mostly a lost cause for this topic, but some other countries in the EU still have considerable nuclear capacity (and also plans for new plants) and the German government is actively trying to derail that wherever it can, so I still think it’s important to discuss this. Climate change mitigation does not stop in Germany and we are in the Europe community…