| > Because it wanted to get rid of nuclear first and as fast as possible. And this killed a few thousand persons and rejected MegaTons of CO2 in the atmosphere that could have been avoided. > The next two decades will bring the end of coal-based electricity. This is 30 years later than could have been, and gas instead of coal is not the solution either. Will Germany have 100% renewable in 20 years? > When do you stop going to vacations via airplanes? Stop eating meat? Stop driving a car? I changed my way of living already. I could still do more yes, but the most efficient way would be to convince policy makers to close coals/gas before nuclear. > No, nuclear and renewable are not compatible. Nuclear is centralized monopolistic, mostly state-owned form of energy.
I sucks up huge amounts of investments and corrupts everything around it. Again, the drawbacks of nuclear power are nothing compared to the drawback of climate change, and gas corrupts too. |
Probably yes. They seem to be poised to get there quicker than anybody else.
The inhibition to us achieving this goal earlier wasn't a lack of faith in nuclear power - it was a lack of belief in the importance of dealing with climate change at all.
Moreover (and this is the critical part), it's not like nuclear power is going to get us to 100% renewables any quicker than solar/wind will at this point - not since they broke the cost barrier in 2014.
In the 1980s nuclear was the only way to go zero carbon. 10 years it would have helped us get there quicker. Since 2014, there's no real point to building out nuclear capacity any more - new nuclear can't compete on cost only rickety old plants can.