100% renewables doesn’t equal zero-carbon energy, and the difference is growing

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]