The military coup in Niger has raised concerns about uranium mining in the country by the French group Orano, and the consequences for France's energy independence.
Which country? Country’s are investing in renewables you know the energy source that’s cheaper and quicker to deploy than nuclear.
Nuclear is bad for your grid it’s not flexible.
Look at Germany since they stopped using nuclear they where able to use way more solar and wind which previously had to be turned off because nuclear is not flexible.
Well, Germany, since you mention them. In their anti-nuclear hysteria, they’re having to reopen fossil fuel plants after relying on russian natural gas for years. Germany is phasing out nuclear and it’s proven a disaster politically and economically. But more importantly, a disaster for the environment.
Nuclear is bad for your grid it’s not flexible.
No, that is exactly wrong and shows how little you understand about the power grid. Nuclear is useful exactly because of that, as it provides stable and predictable power, complementing renewables, and making up for what they can’t. They go hand in hand if you’re serious about decarbonising the grid, which Germany has proven they’re not.
Nuclear is therefore competing with coal, gas, and oil in the power grid. Which is why we’ve been disinformed for decades by the fossil fuel megacorp’s antinuclear propaganda. The slower we take up nuclear, the longer they can keep selling countries their dirty fuels.
Yeah, start calling people names when you don’t know what you’re talking about. I literally went to school for this shit. Do you even know what duck curves and grid base load are?
Germany is building new fossil fuel plants with public funding. Meanwhile, its emissions per capita are 50% higher than France’s, and more than double those of Sweden. We need nuclear to speed up decarbonisation. You can fuck right off with your fossil fuel disinformation propaganda.
Looool maybe read your own source. Germany wants to build hydrogen peeker plants. Germany is not building new coal plants they are shutting them down.
Europe’s industrial powerhouse has higher carbon emissions than France and Sweden? I am shocked.
You keep mentioning France yet not even France is building nuclear at the rate they are decommissioning their old plants.
It takes 20 years for a nuclear reactor by that time Germany will already be climate neutral.
This year Germany will add mor than 10gws of new solar even at only 20% usage that’s more than 1 new reactor a year at a fraction of the cost and no fuel needed.
The target rate will cap at about 20 GW which Germany is on track to beat.
Energy isn’t used evenly throughout the day. Nuclear makes 0 sense and again just looking at Germany’s numbers they used no new coal to compensate the loss of nuclear just more solar and wind.
Which country? Country’s are investing in renewables you know the energy source that’s cheaper and quicker to deploy than nuclear.
Nuclear is bad for your grid it’s not flexible. Look at Germany since they stopped using nuclear they where able to use way more solar and wind which previously had to be turned off because nuclear is not flexible.
Well, Germany, since you mention them. In their anti-nuclear hysteria, they’re having to reopen fossil fuel plants after relying on russian natural gas for years. Germany is phasing out nuclear and it’s proven a disaster politically and economically. But more importantly, a disaster for the environment.
No, that is exactly wrong and shows how little you understand about the power grid. Nuclear is useful exactly because of that, as it provides stable and predictable power, complementing renewables, and making up for what they can’t. They go hand in hand if you’re serious about decarbonising the grid, which Germany has proven they’re not.
Nuclear is therefore competing with coal, gas, and oil in the power grid. Which is why we’ve been disinformed for decades by the fossil fuel megacorp’s antinuclear propaganda. The slower we take up nuclear, the longer they can keep selling countries their dirty fuels.
Removed by mod
Yeah, start calling people names when you don’t know what you’re talking about. I literally went to school for this shit. Do you even know what duck curves and grid base load are?
Germany is building new fossil fuel plants with public funding. Meanwhile, its emissions per capita are 50% higher than France’s, and more than double those of Sweden. We need nuclear to speed up decarbonisation. You can fuck right off with your fossil fuel disinformation propaganda.
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/german-talks-with-eu-power-plant-subsidies-progressing-econ-ministry-2023-08-01/
Looool maybe read your own source. Germany wants to build hydrogen peeker plants. Germany is not building new coal plants they are shutting them down. Europe’s industrial powerhouse has higher carbon emissions than France and Sweden? I am shocked.
You keep mentioning France yet not even France is building nuclear at the rate they are decommissioning their old plants.
It takes 20 years for a nuclear reactor by that time Germany will already be climate neutral. This year Germany will add mor than 10gws of new solar even at only 20% usage that’s more than 1 new reactor a year at a fraction of the cost and no fuel needed. The target rate will cap at about 20 GW which Germany is on track to beat.
Energy isn’t used evenly throughout the day. Nuclear makes 0 sense and again just looking at Germany’s numbers they used no new coal to compensate the loss of nuclear just more solar and wind.
https://www.zeit.de/energiewende-daten-visualisierungen
Since the decommissioning the energy got cleaner and cheaper. That’s a simple fact you can’t deny.