The Czech government is investing in nuclear energy as a means to decarbonisation.
Archived version: https://archive.ph/6BxG0
I wish we had one in my country.
Slow, expensive, more carbon emissions than renewables. Either nuclear weapon proliferation or corruption, there is no other reason to build reactors…
Nuclear power is literally the most green energy on the planet. It has the same levels of CO2 emissions as wind, which is better than solar and hydro.
Even taking into account the life-cycles, it still comes out as one of the best options.
Study: Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modellingThere isn’t a perfect energy source, that all countries can use to transition to green energy. Not all countries have access to great conditions to harness solar or wind efficiently or have easy access to hydro. Europe is investing heavily into interconnectivity to take advantage of each country geographical strengths.
And nuclear energy is on a rise. SMRs negates all the downsizes of the old, sketchy nuclear plants, and companies are already buying into them.
I am sorry, but reality says otherwise. And SMRs are vaporware, if ever realized likely more expensive than already expensive NPPs.
You linked the same study that doesn’t even pose the hypothesis for which energy source is more green. All that study did was linked high GDP with lower emissions overall, and low GDP with higher emissions overall and suggested that nuclear and renewables are incompatible, which is pure bullshit. Look at Norway, Sweden, France, Paraguay, Iceland, and Nepal who manages ~90% of total energy production via renewables and nuclear.
If countries want to reach 100% renewable energy throughout the full year in-house, they will have to use multiple sources due to how cyclical it can be. At least until energy storage gets completely reinvented.
Sometimed I am astonished that people post in a forum without being able to comprehend text
We find that larger-scale national nuclear attachments do not tend to associate with significantly lower carbon emissions while renewables do.
It’s you who can’t read. The whole correlation is flawed by design, hence ignored by me. If you read the limitations section, they explain how they lack specific data for a comprehensive comparison, so they aggregate the data and ignore “economic costs, integrated resource planning, reliability, lifecycle impacts, risk profiles, waste management, and ecological, political and security impacts”. Which are important factors to ignore, which completely changes the results when incorporated by other studies.
I only accept data that supports my worldview is a nice argument. Have fun not learning stuff.
I fucking love that you write “one of many many many sources” and then link a singular source twice.
Its really easy to find this sources but I really dont know what you want to know. Maybe about being expensive? Slow?. There is literally tons of material out there… The other guy took the one thing that could maybe be argued about, CO2 emissions.
Idiots.
Care to expand on that?
Nuclear is basically the only viable large scale replacement for base load generation to replace carbon fuels like coal and natural gas.
Things like solar and wind are great, when they can generate, and grid scale batteries can help with balancing and peaks to an extent, but the base load is an issue that they just cannot address.
I don’t talk to conspiracy theorists. Either inform yourself or go away.
What are you blathering about?
I think they’re calling you a conspiracy theorist for understanding that nuclear is more consistent and safer energy than renewables. Which is an interesting reach.
