> Nope. Nuclear never produced (worldwide) more than ~17% of the electricity
This statement doesn't mean anything and feel disingenuous - we both agree it currently does not produce most of the world electricity. This statistics does not prove or disprove anything.
You have not provided any reasoning or logic to why my counterfactual would be impossible.
> Nope. France never enjoyed a zero-carbon grid: each year between 6% and 12% of electricity is produced by burning fossil fuel
So you are complaining that it's 94% carbon free, better than any major Industrialised economy, by year 1970? What do other countries aim for, 2035 in case of UK? that's 65 years later, you think that's a success? I will take the French deal, thank you very much.
> Nope. You are confusing 'electricity' with 'energy consumed'.
I am familiar enough with the difference to know that you are again and on purpose using a misleading statistic. Most fossil 'energy' consumed is wasted, as combustion based machines are only 30-40% efficient. Replacing Petrol car with electric car cuts energy 'consumption' by a factor of 3. This argument is a farse
Secondly, expected impact from climate change is over 100 million people displaced. One third or one quarter of the emissions is from electricity generation. So millions is accurate.
Thirdly, renewables are worse in this regards because we could have nuclear powered container ships and, if we really wanted, nuclear powered airplanes. You can't have solar/wind powered ships unless you are going back to sails.
Nope. Take it into account all facts described in my previous answer. Short version: to produce at most 17% (and now 9%) of the electricity we built reactors. We therefore now need about 10 times more reactors to have 100% nuclear-produced electricity. Then we need about twice as much to replace most of fossil fuels. Therefore 20x reactors are needed.
Known accessible uranium reserves (~130 years for the existing reactor fleet, and therefore about 6 years for the needed 20x fleet) are not sufficient to sustain this. It was not considered as a challenge as we know of a way (breeding) to close the uranium cycle, thus obtaining x100 more energy. However our numerous and very expensive attempts to industrialize breeding all failed flat ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Notable_reacto... ).
If it is not clear please allow me to avoid wasting my time trying to explain it more clearly.
> you are complaining that it's 94% carbon free
Nuclear is NOT carbon-free (even a 100% nuclear electricity emits, mainly due to uranium mining and enrichment), moreover it needs fossil fuel backup. I'm not complaining, just showing that your statement ("We could have had zero-carbon grid 50 years ago, in the 70’s") isn't accurate (to put it with a friendly tone).
> I am familiar enough with the difference
> This argument is a farse
No. It is not about primary/final energy ( https://ourworldindata.org/energy-definitions ). You wrote "Now millions of people will be displaced or dead by climate change and that could have been prevented" and I showed that is a farce.
> we could have nuclear powered container ships
I doubt so. Think insurance, to begin with. Civilian nuclear exists only because all nations using it neglect to insure it properly, as an exception. How exactly would such a ship be competitive if they cannot access to many (more and more nations are phasing-out nuclear) territorial waters and ports?
Moreover all existing nuclear ships are exploited by military personal (yes, even ice-breakers), that is to say in a context where the TCO is way (way!) higher than in a commercial ship.
The amount of available uranium is also a challenge: all those new reactors will deplete the reserves and lead to some crisis.
To begin with...
> if we really wanted, nuclear powered airplanes.
Source?
> You can't have solar/wind powered ships unless you are going back to sails
> Known accessible uranium reserves (~130 years for the existing reactor fleet, and therefore about 6 years for the needed 20x fleet) are not sufficient to sustain this.
And?
Or do you not understand the terminology of "known reserves" and why no one would bother "proving" known inferred resources to become known proven reserves when there's 130 years worth already.
If you're implying that current JORC reserves* are all that exist and nothing else exists other than that which has had money spent being drilled and modelled and queued up ready to mine then you might need a refresher course on mineral exploration.
* whether uranium, lithium, iron ore, copper, bauxite, oil, gas, etc.
... and no one will invest into nuclear plant which are to be amortized in (best case) 40 years, along with all the megastuff needed to operate them (formation, fuel processing, waste disposal...) if they are not pretty sure to be able to exploit them for at least 40 years. Note: currently all planed nuclear plants replace (at global scale) existing ones and therefore do not cause pressure over fuel (because there are very few of them), and their amortization plans are done upon 60 years.
> If you're implying that current JORC reserves* are all that exist
Nope, however massive prospection since the 1940's largely bumped up after the bubble (nearby 2007 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_bubble_of_2007#Impact ) didn't lead to disruptive reserves discoveries, therefore this evaluation (about 130 years for the current fleet, at current conditions) is realistic. Who exactly will invest tens of billions of USD to build many nuclear plants (and their auxiliaries) on such a bet?
If there are other ways to obtain enough nuclear fuel at realistic conditions the burden of proof weights on you. Please state at least one.
Bonus: lowering uranium ore grade leads to more emission, threatening the 'low-carbon' qualification for nuclear. Scientific studies are clear: M. Lenzen ("between 10 and 130 g CO2-e/kWhel, with an average of 65 g") and E. Warner et G. Heath ("9 to 110 g CO‐eq/kWh by 2050") https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222817608_Life_cycl...
This statement doesn't mean anything and feel disingenuous - we both agree it currently does not produce most of the world electricity. This statistics does not prove or disprove anything.
You have not provided any reasoning or logic to why my counterfactual would be impossible.
> Nope. France never enjoyed a zero-carbon grid: each year between 6% and 12% of electricity is produced by burning fossil fuel
So you are complaining that it's 94% carbon free, better than any major Industrialised economy, by year 1970? What do other countries aim for, 2035 in case of UK? that's 65 years later, you think that's a success? I will take the French deal, thank you very much.
> Nope. You are confusing 'electricity' with 'energy consumed'.
I am familiar enough with the difference to know that you are again and on purpose using a misleading statistic. Most fossil 'energy' consumed is wasted, as combustion based machines are only 30-40% efficient. Replacing Petrol car with electric car cuts energy 'consumption' by a factor of 3. This argument is a farse
Secondly, expected impact from climate change is over 100 million people displaced. One third or one quarter of the emissions is from electricity generation. So millions is accurate.
Thirdly, renewables are worse in this regards because we could have nuclear powered container ships and, if we really wanted, nuclear powered airplanes. You can't have solar/wind powered ships unless you are going back to sails.