Oh, it’s bullshit, don’t get me wrong. But nuclear is not changing that, the UK has less than 10% as well.
Besides, nuclear power station take a minimum of 20 years to construct, so even if we reversed course, we wouldn’t have them running until the 40s. Contrast that with less than 5 for most renewables. Nuclear is also really expensive, so we could instead invest the money into a better and more flexible grid.
Nuclear is not the answer to climate change. Let existing plants run until coal is gone, then shut them off in favor of renewables.
I was using the live data from today, no need to accuse me of lying. It has risen from 9.7% to 12.2% in the meantime, however: https://grid.iamkate.com/
You could have scrolled down and hit the year tab to get a more representative number, which is around 14%. Taking the daily value doesn’t make much sense now does it?
If that’s the level of pedantry you want to argue about, sure. It doesn’t change the fact that nuclear isn’t the backbone of the UK grid, and that it is not feasible to bring it back in Germany, and that it never was and likely never will be economically competitive, especially not with renewables getting cheaper every year.
That is to say nothing about security risks, political dependencies and environmental impacts.
It’s produced more power than coal, biomass, solar, and hydro combined this year and is the third largest behind wind and gas. There are plans to do more. This is in a country that isn’t that into nuclear. In France over 70% is nuclear.
Economically competitive doesn’t mean it’s the best option. Renewables are basically useless without significant investment in energy storage. They also need replacing more often. Add these two together and you have very significant environmental and economic issues with “green energy”. That’s why countries like France and China are invested in nuclear and why everyone wants fusion.
Oh, it’s bullshit, don’t get me wrong. But nuclear is not changing that, the UK has less than 10% as well.
Besides, nuclear power station take a minimum of 20 years to construct, so even if we reversed course, we wouldn’t have them running until the 40s. Contrast that with less than 5 for most renewables. Nuclear is also really expensive, so we could instead invest the money into a better and more flexible grid.
Nuclear is not the answer to climate change. Let existing plants run until coal is gone, then shut them off in favor of renewables.
What are you lying for? It’s around 16% as of 2020. They are building more as well
Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_Kingdom
I was using the live data from today, no need to accuse me of lying. It has risen from 9.7% to 12.2% in the meantime, however: https://grid.iamkate.com/
You could have scrolled down and hit the year tab to get a more representative number, which is around 14%. Taking the daily value doesn’t make much sense now does it?
If that’s the level of pedantry you want to argue about, sure. It doesn’t change the fact that nuclear isn’t the backbone of the UK grid, and that it is not feasible to bring it back in Germany, and that it never was and likely never will be economically competitive, especially not with renewables getting cheaper every year.
That is to say nothing about security risks, political dependencies and environmental impacts.
It’s produced more power than coal, biomass, solar, and hydro combined this year and is the third largest behind wind and gas. There are plans to do more. This is in a country that isn’t that into nuclear. In France over 70% is nuclear.
Economically competitive doesn’t mean it’s the best option. Renewables are basically useless without significant investment in energy storage. They also need replacing more often. Add these two together and you have very significant environmental and economic issues with “green energy”. That’s why countries like France and China are invested in nuclear and why everyone wants fusion.