No, gas is only green if it used to as a stepping stone for wind or solar.
There is nothing prohibiting investing in nuclear energy, but you shouldn't be able to label that investment as green.
You can argue all day if nuclear is green or not, but most people on the street will not think of nuclear if I ask them what a green, safe and sustainable energy source is.
At least in Germany, which of course represents the interest of their people.
So if you include nuclear in that label, for most people it will become meaningless and will fail to draw more investment.
Exactly. My point is that the problem is systemic, caused by decades of media brainwashing. Hopefully the present situation is a “shock” that wakes people up.
> they suggest the alternative Wind+Solar, not gas.
Storage technology to support an industrialized nation with pure Wind+Solar does not exist, necessitating gas. Advocating for Wind+Solar but not gas is like advocating for building with lumber but not cutting down trees. One inescapably implies the other.
You don't need to build new gas or increase production to beat nuclear in cost whilst reducing total emissions to netnzero levels, so you are still lying. Additionally nuclear necessarily demands gas in exactly the same way because it is cost/capacity limited so a 100% nuclear grid would cost 300-500€/MWh.
That was my first comment in this discussion thread, you have evidently confused me with the other. Read the usernames if you're going to throw around shade like that. And "build more gas" is a claim you introduced to this discussion, not me. Solar+Wind necessitates gas, that is a fact. Whether it's building new gas turbines or using existing ones, Germany needs those gas turbines either way. Germany cannot run off solar and wind alone.
There is this thing called storage in the form of batteries, hydro, and electrolysers. Stop pretending it does not exist, that it is not dropping in price (and use of scarce minerals) so fast it will be a complete replacement before a single new reactor would be finished and that renewables must work without it. Stop pretending that replacing 20% of the gas with nuclear is as useful as replacing 80% of it with pure renewables.
If our bar is 90€/MWh or wherever you want to set it, then it is far closer to true that the technology to replace coal and gas with nuclear does not exist.
Here is a model using no fossil fuels, no batteries and fairly pessimistic costings of real existing currently being built technology
See how it is about 10% less than the energy from falamville 3 even when including much more generous discount rates?
Additionally with the lower initial capital you could replace it when it wears out with something that is a quarter of the price rather than locking in 110€/MWh for energy that won't start being produced for 10-20 years and you won't get all of for 50-70 years. Energy from a nuclear reactor still needs backup for the 10% of the time it is off (or 30% in France's case) and overprovision or peaking (which will either drive the cost up to 200€/MWh or require gas)
In fact, in the 1970s, the German Green Party proposed replacing nuclear with more coal power plants.
They were anti-nuclear first, the whole CO2 thing only ever started to get traction with them when they won their first Atomausstieg and needed a new topic to terrorise children into next-generation voters with.
What was a bigger issue in 70s, 80s and 90s? Nuclear power, Chernobyl just happened as did the Pershing deployment, the Ozone layer or climate change? To answer the question, climate cjange only recently got the traction it deserves. Assuming you believe global warming is an actual problem, and not just something evil Greens and environmentalists are scaring our youth with.
Oh, I believe both. Things can both be a real problem to be tackled and the basis for ultimately useless fear-mongering. Usually, the evil Greens focus on the latter.
This is the reality of institutional stupidity at the highest EU political levels.