sicetaitsimple wrote:Personally, I did not talk about going out of nuclear power, I even said the opposite 3 or 4 pages above.
You weren't targeted.
But it is clear, if we want to be "realistic", that there are very few countries that have power plants under construction in the world, and that even projects in development (that is to say in the phase preceding the decision to do) are few. So this is not a short-term solution, since we were talking about a few decades and "emergency".
Indeed, nuclear power takes time, it will not be enough (mainly because of the irrationality of the populations). This is why I think that the developed countries must also become more sober. Especially since in addition to the problem of global warming there is also the problem of resource depletion. But again, for the same reasons, it will not be enough.
Realism should not be mistaken. It's about assessing situations based on facts, not dogmas or uncontrolled fears. But that doesn't guarantee you'll find a quick fix when there isn't a solution.
However, realism makes it possible to understand that we are going faster against the wall of global warming by using only one tool, renewable energies, than by using all the tools at our disposal, including nuclear power. This is what the IPCC proposes:
“In the majority of low carbon stabilization scenarios (around 450 to 500 ppm CO2eq, levels for which it is at least about as likely as not that the warming will be limited to 2 ° C above pre-industrial levels), the share of low-carbon electricity supply (which includes renewables, nuclear energy and CCS, including BECSC) is increasing from the current proportion of around 30% to over 80% in 2050 and 90% in 2100, and power generation from non-CCS fossil fuels is almost completely abandoned by 2100 ”. (IPCC - Climate change 2014 Synthesis report)
