Are you saying nuclear energy is cheaper than renewable energy? That statement is not based in any reasonable assessment of the facts on the ground.
On the whole renewables couldn't possible power a modern society or the world point. I don't think anyone is saying that they're going to power everything. But even so, that statement is not firmly rooted with the current thinking on renewables.
A number of studies are showing that renewables could power a significant portion of global energy demand. NREL showed how in the US one of the most energy intensive countries in the world could move to a 80% renewable electricity system with current technologies. Even so, if renewables get to 25% of the global energy mix then they would be a significant share of global energy supply. Most conservative low-carbon scenarios assume that this would be the role for renewables.
I ask again though, why are we even talking about this? No one is saying that renewables are going to take over the world. Just that they are going to quickly expand. Splitting hairs about nuclear versus renewables is a navel gazing exercise or a method to sow confusion and delay. We have demonstrable cases of countries quickly expanding renewables with little costs.
Pointing to Germany or Ontario as "failures" just is not rooted in any honest assessment of the data. Ontario's electricity system costs have very little to do with renewables (and a hell of a lot todo with nuclear energy btw). Ask any German if they regret going to renewables and the only people you'd find complaining are shareholders in the large utilities who bet on coal and have seen 80% of their market cap wiped out.
|