For several decades, nuclear energy was the topic scientists were too shy to talk about and politicians too aware of its sensitive nature. In political science terms, nuclear energy was "outside the Overton window". Yet lately public perception started to evolve as a consequence of several factors, the first and most important being the need to effectively fight climate change.
But the fight against climate change would not have been sufficient as a strong anti-nuclear lobby long maintained that renewable energies (solar and wind) were enough and there was no need for nuclear. Lately, with the surge in the price of gas, coal and oil leading to sustained increases in the price of energy in general and electricity in particular, the inanity of those claims was laid bare: the numbers simply cannot add up, renewables will not be able to take over from fossil fuels fast enough for humanity to avoid a climate catastrophe ... unless we agree to "degrow", i.e. to "revise down" our standards of living to a 18th century, pre-industrial level ... a political non-starter ...
Therefore, here I propose my "Climate change trilemma"
I posit policy makers can choose any two of the above, but not all three:
- You can effectively fight climate change WITH no nuclear energy ... provided you agree to decreasing standards of living ... or
- You can maintain or improve standards of living WITH no nuclear energy ... provided you give up on effectively fighting climate change... or
- You can effectively fight climate change WHILE maintaing or improving standards of living ... but then you need nuclear energy
Corollary
The most significant policy decision Europe can make is to overturn the hapless 2011 Merkel's decision and turn Germany's nuclear reactors back on.
Germany has not faced any notable issues with nuclear issues to date, so I believe it would have been safe for it to keep the nuclear reactors on in all this time. Especially as it has one of the world's biggest economies. It can make all the efforts to keep it safe, and still running.
Especially since, for every year Germany's nuclear power plants stay mothballed, this "one of the world's biggest economies" is not idling but rather burning lignite, the worst-of-the-worst type of coal, to keep the lights on and the machines powered, emitting in the process between 300 and 500 Million tonnes of CO2 MORE than they would have with nuclear.
And there is only ONE "CO2 budget" for the whole planet - no matter where it is emitted, it's that much less the planet as a whole can afford and still stay within the 1,5° or even 2°
I cannot agree more. By the way, I have read a very nice recent thread on this subject (follow the links): ~~~ embed:1185511759521767424. Sorry, for French reading people only 🇫🇷 twitter metadata:UGFydGlQaXJhdGV8fGh0dHBzOi8vdHdpdHRlci5jb20vUGFydGlQaXJhdGUvc3RhdHVzLzExODU1MTE3NTk1MjE3Njc0MjQuIFNvcnJ5LCBmb3IgRnJlbmNoIHJlYWRpbmcgcGVvcGxlIG9ubHkg8J+Hq/Cfh7d8 ~~~
Excellent thread, it's worth learning French to read it! 😄
Congratulations @sorin.cristescu! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s):
Your next target is to reach 32000 upvotes.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCheck out the last post from @hivebuzz: