[mrweasel]

Danish TV had a documentary about the nuclear opposition in the country in the 60s and 70s. One of the most interesting lines is pretty much a throwaway line by one of the former activists. The interviewer remarks that it's a little strange to be anti-nuclear, when the alternative is burning fossil fuel and the activist interjects with "But we didn't believe/understand that the alternative was coal and oil, we thought it would be solar and wind". That was never going to work, nuclear power was available as an option, wind turbines and solar cells where never going to be able to fulfill the energy requirement at the time, certainly not at a price the country could afford.

To me that really highlighted the naivety of many environmental activists. They mean well and we need them, but they so often fail to look at the problems holistically and zooms in on single issues.

[davedx]

That's very fair. I think it extends to people who care about energy in general though, not just environmentalists. For example on the Internet, there is always a highly vocal pro-nuclear camp to be found. Some of them -- but not all by all means -- will often claim that nuclear is the "One True Solution" to clean energy.

I think at the end of the day it comes down to tribalism, sadly. People choose their "side" and pitch in to defend its merits and attack the other "side"'s deficiencies. As with many things, there isn't a whole lot of room left for holistic approaches.

I'm personally not a huge fan of nuclear because I'm a pragmatist, and I think most people are pragmatists at the end of the day, being human. And pragmatists don't make good operators of nuclear power plants. But I definitely don't think any existing nuclear plants should be closed. They should be (safely) continued to run as long as possible to provide the clean energy we desperately need while other safer (and often cheaper) renewables+storages ramp up.

[belorn]

This might become a discussion about the definition of pragmatism, but I find the most pragmatic solution is to simply ban the use of fossil fuel in the energy grid. Remove the easy, cheap and extremely harmful substance, and people will be forced to find a working solution. If that happen to be nuclear then that is that. If that happen to be renewables + some yet to be developed technology to address grid variability, then lets do that. I have no horse in that race except that hydropower need to get their very old infrastructure fixed so that we don't make eels and other species extinct, and water constructions on the ocean need to be a bit careful around nature reserves and places like the baltic ocean. Ocean based wind farms like to build on shallows for economical reasons, and those places have a tendency to be nurseries for fish and other animals.

What I really can't stand is the use of fossil fuels in the grid when there is known and effective alternatives, and it gives a bad taste in the mouth that tax money intended for grid stability is used on fossil fuels.

[throwaway4aday]

> nuclear is the "One True Solution" to clean energy

Not to be that guy but it sort of is. Comparing nuclear power to renewables is a lot like comparing a truck to an electric scooter. Sure, both can transport you to your destination and both work equally well in many scenarios, maybe the scooter even has advantages in some places but when it comes to handling the entirety of possible scenarios the truck is the clear choice. That doesn't mean you can't have a truck and a scooter and use each where appropriate, it's just that you'll probably use the truck a lot more.

[mrweasel]

Keeping existing plants running is the sensible approach in my mind. We can't build new nuclear power to reduce CO2 emission, it's much to late for that. We want drastic reductions in 5 - 6 years, the first nuclear power plant won't be ready for another 10, 15, 20 years. If we wanted to go nuclear we should have started in 2000. Right now we start reducing consumption, build wind turbines like crazy and close the coal and oil fired power plants first, then gas and nuclear last.

[throwaway4aday]

Speak for your own country because others have built huge numbers of nuclear plants with an average of 4 years for completion. The anti-nuke sentiment from the environmental movement is the only reason the U.S. isn't entirely energy independent. That attitude has probably done more to contribute to climate change than anything else, ironically.

[AdamN]

Countries like France went all-in on nuclear - didn't change much really. Theoretical nuclear is risk free and low carbon but actual nuclear (that was available in the 60s/70s) is neither.

[spi]

Well, nuclear power is literally the reason why in this map: https://app.electricitymaps.com/map France is almost constantly green, while Germany, Poland, and most of the US, are just different shades of brown...

[natmaka]

In France about 63% of the final energy is produced thanks to fossil fuel.

A new nuclear reactor is being built since 2007, it should have launched a new set of reactors, and this WIP is a disaster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...

[MagnumOpus]

And that 63% is far lower than any country/region at that latitude that doesn't have lucky geography for hydro power. And that 63% can be easily reduced in France by introducing heatpumps and EVs, but the same is not true in the UK/Germany/Poland without building metric arseloads of zero-carbon power plants.

[natmaka]

> 63% is far lower

Nope. We have to take into account consumption-based CO₂ emissions: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/prod-cons-co2-per-capita?...

> that 63% can be easily reduced in France by introducing heatpumps and EVs

Nope, as it is only possible by generating more gridpower, and France tries to do so using nuclear since 2007... in vain as the sole and only nuclear reactor being built in France (which should have started a new batch in 2012) is the 'Flamanville-3' EPR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...

> the same is not true in the UK/Germany/Poland without building metric arseloads of zero-carbon power plants.

There is no 'zero-carbon plants', only 'low-carbon plants'.

They all do so, much more efficiently than France (where electricity is already low-carbon but where the plan to pump up more nuclear is stuck) https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-electricity-low-car...

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-change-renewables?...

[lentil_soup]

> In France about 63% of the final energy is produced thanks to fossil fuel

have you go a source for that? the parent comment seems to contradict that fact

[MagnumOpus]

Dude is bringing petrol and heating oil/gas into the discussion in addition to electricity - while ignoring that the EV transition is also greener for France than for the rest of Europe/US which runs their EVs with fossil-generated electricity.

[natmaka]

Emissions are to be reduced. All of them, not only those related to gridpower generation.

To do so electrifying usages is key.

This in turn imply that more electricity has to be generated.

Each and every nation in the EU27 moves towards this, and France (while chanting 'my electricity is low-carbon, yay!' and neglecting that doesn't do anything about the remaining 63% of final energy consumed in France obtained by burning fossil fuels) is the red lantern: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/environment/article/2022/11/25/ren...

Final energy in France, by source: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89nergie_en_France#%C3%89n...