Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

On the other hand nuclear was just 6% of the energy mix in its last year.

On the other hand Germany is aiming to building out 13 GW of solar in just 2024 (capacity factors non-withstanding).






> On the other hand nuclear was just 6% of the energy mix in its last year.

And coal is 25-30% currently.

If nuclear was higher, how much lower could have coal have been? How much lower could have emissions be without coal?


Nuclear is a legacy technology which is on the way out. German society didn't want to be stuck with it and footing a tremendous bill for subsidizing and later dismantling the technology in the end. Pretty much all industrialized countries with the exception of China is going in the same direction.

> Nuclear is a legacy technology which is on the way out.

Don't tell that to Ontario-Canada

> Demand for electricity across Canada is forecast to double in the next 25 years, and all the signs from Ontario Premier Doug Ford's government indicate that nuclear energy will supply the biggest portion of the province's additional power needs.

* https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-nuclear-power...

and Poland:

> In December 2021, BWXT Canada signed an agreement, valued at up to $1 billion, to build key components in Ontario to support the deployment of Small Modular Reactors in Poland.

* https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1004711/ontario-lands-maj...

> German society didn't want to be stuck with it and footing a tremendous bill for subsidizing and later dismantling the technology in the end.

Ontario is not dismantling but refurbishing:

* https://www.opg.com/releases/opg-celebrates-the-early-comple...

The bill is such that nuclear is the second-cheapest source of power in Ontario (Table 2):

* https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-2023...


> Nuclear is a legacy technology which is on the way out.

What do you mean by "legacy technology"?

> German society didn't want to be stuck with it and footing a tremendous bill for subsidizing and later dismantling the technology in the end.

Renewables have received 120 billion in subsidies last year.

Germany probably paid much more dearly for the closure of plants that could have operated for another decades.

> Pretty much all industrialized countries with the exception of China is going in the same direction.

Or they do wishful thinking on renewables. It depends on the point of view in the end.


120bn EUR would be more than Germany spends on electricity generation in total (considering that Germany generates a bit less than 600bn kwh p.a. in electricity and wholesale electricity prices were €95.18/MWh in 2023)

Yes, forgive me, I'm talking worldwide.

"A 2020 report by IRENA9 tracked some $634 billion in energy-sector subsidies in 2020, and found that around 70% went to fossil fuels. Only 20% went to renewable power generation, 6% to biofuels and just over 3% to nuclear. “This overwhelming imbalance of subsidies between fossil fuels and clean energy is a drag on us achieving the Paris climate goals,” says Taylor, who wrote the report. The balance of these numbers varies from year to year, because fossil-fuel subsidies swing around depending largely on the price of oil, he adds."

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02847-2#:~:text=A...

Among other things, it is important to note that more than half of that money comes from the EU.


Thank you! Sounds plausible.

China also spends a lot on subsidies for their solar industry (at least this is often mentioned).




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: