News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:100% renewables doesn’t equal zero-carbon energy, and the... by DennisP on Saturday May 25, 2019 @10:15PM (#20012727)
And yet, France converted their grid to 80% nuclear in twenty years. Maybe we should do whatever they did.
Re:100% renewables doesn’t equal zero-carbon energy, and the... by Jedd on Sunday May 26, 2019 @01:05AM (#20013262)
And yet five years ago the French government committed to dropping their nuclear power generation from 75% to 50% by 2025.

Last year this was revised out by ten years -- same target, though, but aiming for 50%.

So one country briefly had three quarters of their power coming from nuclear, and this country's typically held up as the poster child of nuclear fission, and they're moving away from it.

Re:100% renewables doesn’t equal zero-carbon energy, and the... by petre on Sunday May 26, 2019 @01:38AM (#20013333)
50% nuclear is enough to achieve 100% clean energy today. It wasn't enough 50 years ago when renewables were expensive. Basically it has to provide base load power which is supplemented with renewables and peaker plants.
Re:100% renewables doesn’t equal zero-carbon energy, and the... by godelski on Sunday May 26, 2019 @05:19AM (#20013967)
Exactly! This is what we want to do with nuclear. Pro-nuclear isn't anti-renewable (we want diversified energy portfolios, not a single source. That'd be ridiculous). It is about load balancing. If we can load balance with renewables and cheaper than nuclear options, then let's do it. Let's just not load balance with fossil fuels.
Re:100% renewables doesn’t equal zero-carbon energy, and the... by jjoonathan on Saturday May 25, 2019 @10:25PM (#20012749)
The US is 20% nuclear, maybe we should do whatever we did.

Congrats to solar, btw, for finally breaking into the single digit percentages.