Derzeit macht Gas etwa 38 % des verfügbaren Stroms aus, was 76 % der gesamten CO2-Emissionen ausmacht, während Kernkraft 32 % ausmacht und nur 0,64 % ausmacht. Und doch gibt es in unserer Regierung immer noch Atomkraftgegner. Sorgen Sie dafür, dass es einen Sinn ergibt.

Wind and solar energy are nowhere to be found, by the way.

The problem with nuclear is that, in practical terms, it isn’t a serious option anymore. Permitting, timeframe, build cost (and massive cost overruns). It just makes no practical and financial sense anymore.

Massive renewables + grid level storage is the way to go.

We need low CO2 power NOW, not in 20-25 years. Building a nuclear power plant in less than 10 years is utter fantasy.

By the way the co2 emissions are related to the total emissions for energy production, not the total co2 emissions for the country

I an ideal world, I wished we could find a way to do without nuclear.

In a context of needed energy decarbonation, I don’t see how we could do that without nuclear energy. To me we should use nuclear, while making serious plan to replace it 100% in 30 to 40 years (which we didn’t in the past, we only said “yeah, we’ll go out of nuclear”). We already got nuclear waste to deal with for 300 000 years, I don’t see a problem with making it 300 030, at this point.

But that ask to invest money and long term polical view, so it won’t happen.

I personally am not for or against nuclear.

But what needs to be understood is simple: politicians decide stuff based on lobbying and their campaign promises.

Some energy experts love nuclear, some don’t.

If you go ask an expert, he will tell you “right now nuclear is cool because of this and that”, but he will also tells you this:

– it takes years or decades to build new facilities, and the current ones are really effin old

– the cost per GW will remain stable for nuclear for decades. Build nuclear now, and it’s as if you were pinning a 300€/gw price forever. The bulk of the cost is the infrastructure and even if we stopped using nuclear, the price of energy will have to include that cost.

Letting nuclear decay, making up with gas meanwhile, and enjoying a 200/100/50/… €/gw price for when renewables will scale is not a bad bet per se.

I am sorry but I believe that people “for” nuclear are either misinformed either lobbying for engi or whatever.
(Engi that would benefit from subsidising the construction of nuclear facilities by the government and privatise the benefits).

Everyone else would just say “ugh, I don’t know, tough choice, is it?”

But again, I am not for, and I am not against, because pros and cons are really weird and hard to balance.

It s just you can’t pick one stat right here right now and make your decision like that.

it’s not just in government, there are loud idiots here among us who hold the same opinions