I'm all for renewable energy. In fact, I own/operate a 200kWp solar plant. I put my money where my mouth is.
Having said that, in the mid-term I'm also pro-nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is one of the greenest, least polluting energy sources right now. It's the only technology that emits zero CO2 and can be used as baseload. All other technologies, be it CCGT/natural gas, fuel cells using natural or bio gas, coal powered plants, etc. produce CO2 and other GHG. As much as I wish the world run entirely on wind, water and sunlight, we are very far from this happening. Nonetheless I think it will be possible.
The main issue with renewable energy right now is its production volatility: the wind blowing, the sun shinning, dams to 100% capacity, etc. The need for a stable, non-CO2 emitting, energy production is nuclear. No doubt doubt about it.
When you negatively say
> billions spent decommissioning nuclear reactors around the planet
implying that the cost of decommissioning is a big downside, let me clarify a few things:
1. decommissioning (from cleaning to storage) costs are priced in the energy cost, still making it far cheaper than oil and gas sources even without CCS technologies.
2. the cost of decommissioning is provisioned by the company running the plant, meaning that decommissioning is no extraordinary cost to the operator/consumer/citizen.
3. today's nuclear technology is nowhere as archaic as it was in the 70's/80's, when many errors were made trying out different technologies. Many people make the mistake of brining up the case of Chernobyl, but people are unaware that this plant was an R&D plant, built for the production of nuclear weapons, and not built for energy production.
4. the environmental impact of running nuclear plants today is extremely small (if not insignificant) compared to running the same energy capacity and production on fossil fuels, where CO2 and other harmful gasses are causing increase in temperatures, melting of icecaps, decimating thousands of species, and the list goes on.
I do agree that with you on
>The reason the world continues to pollute more than necessary for the energy we desire has much more to do with the irrationality of people than the physics of energy production.
There is plenty of educating still to be done on energy, its consumption and user behaviour, and I hope the anti-nuclear sentiment focuses more on the bigger picture, rather than blaming nuclear for the sake of sounding environmentally friendly.
The "cost" of decommissioning is in the destruction of production capacity. If you decommission a plant that has 20 years at 800MW lifetime yet, it's not the fixed amount to actually demolish the plant that's the problem (this money is, as you correctly say, already set aside for this purpose), it's the cost of getting those 20y x 800MW from somewhere else, both in purely financial terms, but also environmental: The only way Germany can replace their nuclear capacity is with coal and gas.
You are 100% correct. My comment did focus on the financial cost, but your "cost" implying a change in the generation mix towards CO2 emitting technologies is probably a far bigger one. Thanks for bringing this up.
The nice thing about this place is that you don't have to be arguing to reply to a post. We sometimes have discussions where participants agree with one another, or even change their minds about things.
It's a unique feature, so don't feel bad if it takes a while to get used to.
I'm not feeling bad, in fact, it seems that I had two more weeks of getting used to than you, looking at when our accounts were created, :)
The post to which I replied has been edited. Where it now says "I do agree" it used to say "However, I disagree with you on..." or something similar, and also in other places.
In that case, I apologize - I possibly misread "do agree" as "disagree" the first time, based on which I had a mental image of what the post said, and on a second, more careful reading it seemed changed.
Having said that, in the mid-term I'm also pro-nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is one of the greenest, least polluting energy sources right now. It's the only technology that emits zero CO2 and can be used as baseload. All other technologies, be it CCGT/natural gas, fuel cells using natural or bio gas, coal powered plants, etc. produce CO2 and other GHG. As much as I wish the world run entirely on wind, water and sunlight, we are very far from this happening. Nonetheless I think it will be possible.
The main issue with renewable energy right now is its production volatility: the wind blowing, the sun shinning, dams to 100% capacity, etc. The need for a stable, non-CO2 emitting, energy production is nuclear. No doubt doubt about it.
When you negatively say > billions spent decommissioning nuclear reactors around the planet
implying that the cost of decommissioning is a big downside, let me clarify a few things:
1. decommissioning (from cleaning to storage) costs are priced in the energy cost, still making it far cheaper than oil and gas sources even without CCS technologies.
2. the cost of decommissioning is provisioned by the company running the plant, meaning that decommissioning is no extraordinary cost to the operator/consumer/citizen.
3. today's nuclear technology is nowhere as archaic as it was in the 70's/80's, when many errors were made trying out different technologies. Many people make the mistake of brining up the case of Chernobyl, but people are unaware that this plant was an R&D plant, built for the production of nuclear weapons, and not built for energy production.
4. the environmental impact of running nuclear plants today is extremely small (if not insignificant) compared to running the same energy capacity and production on fossil fuels, where CO2 and other harmful gasses are causing increase in temperatures, melting of icecaps, decimating thousands of species, and the list goes on.
I do agree that with you on
>The reason the world continues to pollute more than necessary for the energy we desire has much more to do with the irrationality of people than the physics of energy production.
There is plenty of educating still to be done on energy, its consumption and user behaviour, and I hope the anti-nuclear sentiment focuses more on the bigger picture, rather than blaming nuclear for the sake of sounding environmentally friendly.