My issue is that the reason to switch to renewables is to reduce your carbon footprint. If you aren't reducing your footprint, why are you investing that money?
I should rephrase my statement. They are replacing nuclear with coal AND renewables. But to me the better strategy is to replace coal with renewables first. Then you can reduce your nuclear production. Get to the problem.
The priority should be to reduce the carbon footprint.
> The priority should be to reduce the carbon footprint.
This. After you reach carbon neutrality (or realistically, we're gonna need negative emissions), fine, go ahead and replace those pesky nuclear plants with hamster wheel power, for all I care.
No, reducing carbon footprint is not the only priority. It is an important one, but doesn't top everything else. I don't want emergency responders driving slowly just because its for the environment.
Nuclear, especially the waste management, was an another priority here in Germany. Apparently a priority our politicians (and industry) were unable to solve satisfyingly in another way. So they took the opportunity and boldly went against nuclear, even if overall results won't perfect immediately. Just like they decided to do that plan pushing renewable energy regardless of how imperfect (how crazy is doing solar that far up north?!) and eventually helped jump-start the solar and wind industry for everyone else to benefit from.
But i do understand nuclear enthusiasts having different views/priorities, so we'll probably never agree.
I think there's a big misunderstanding of waste that the public has. Even though it is toxic and radioactive the amount of waste matters. For example, if I throw out a coke can of the most toxic stuff on the planet yearly or throw out train loads of waste daily. That's really the comparison we're making with nuclear waste and coal waste. I always get a little ticked off when people ask "what do you do with the waste" because the answer is the same with what you do with coal waste. You bury it. But in this case we have to bury a lot less material (and remember, coal waste is also radioactive and toxic). Even though there is a danger issue difference, let's call it two orders of magnitude, there's a huge difference in scale (>>2 orders of magnitude). Frankly, that matters.
Some side notes:
In France ~15% of their total power comes just from recycled nuclear waste (remember, their entire grid is ~75% nuclear and they have one of the lowest carbon footprints).
Not all nuclear "waste" is waste. A lot gets used in things like medicine and a bunch of sciences.
I should rephrase my statement. They are replacing nuclear with coal AND renewables. But to me the better strategy is to replace coal with renewables first. Then you can reduce your nuclear production. Get to the problem.
The priority should be to reduce the carbon footprint.