ftr45

>Better solar, wind, etc., has fewer risks than better nuclear tech in the long run.

no https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...

>That has little to do with the decommissioning itself,

yes they cut the main source of green energy

>The worst of the lies about nuclear is that it can somehow help create a carbon-neutral economy.

Of course it wouldn't

nope

> That cost is not reflected in current electric rates

nope ''In fact, the carbon-intensity of French electricity has increased. After years of subsidies for solar and wind, France’s 2017 emissions of 68g/CO2 per kWh was higher than any year between 2012 and 2016.

The reason? Record-breaking wind and solar production did not make up for falling nuclear energy output and higher natural gas consumption. And now, the high cost of renewable electricity is showing up in French household electricity bills.

According to Eurostat, although French households pay 41% less than German households, electricity in France has, over the past decade, been increasing in price much faster than electricity in Germany.''

>Shellenberger has zero credibility.

not an argument , bring proofs he's wrong

>Solar costs have fallen very rapidly.

proof? beacuse using solar and wind bring a rise in the cost of energy https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/02/05...

that's not the only cost of renewables,look at germany and france https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/02/05...

>a sizeable area becomes inhabitable for centuries

Well no, reactors in chernobyl remained operative until 2000 ,and chernobyl is not inhabitable look at all the animals that live there , the level of radiation is low.Regarding fukushima people are already returning in evacuated zones

>Unlike coal or nuclear, renewables are easily scaled down

beacuse they stop working

so the only problems with solar are only caused by idiots who oppose it and regulations

maybe 4 years aren't so relevant,maybe you should bring proof's of what you say

> Your report is from 2015

so ?

>Given how rapidly PV costs have continued to decline (and how major nuclear efforts collapsed with cost explosions since then), that's useless.

you say so, but the one with evidence is me not you

>It's really not a given that we must use high levels of electricity to maintain a high quality of life

this is just an intellectual dishonest excuse to ignore nuclear energy

maybe we can use carbon capture and nuclear to produce carbon neutral fuel

hope people will listen this obvious article , nuclear is cheaper, safer and need less resource's than any other type of energy

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/09/frances-nuclear-clean-...

https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2015/7057-proj-costs-elect...

>Average wind turbine generates = 3 MW

it doesn't work like that , capacity factor of wind is almost half of the capacity factor of nuclear

>I mean, it's half the cost of nuclear

it's not https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2015/7057-proj-costs-elect...

nuclear is the safest and cheapest option https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...

https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2015/7057-proj-costs-elect...

https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2015/7057-proj-costs-elect...

it's actually beacuse storing nuclear waste doesn't create ''radioactive wasteland''

it's pretty obvious ,nuclear is the only avaible solution to climate change, renewables are not