@kravietz @themactep Pretty sure nobody reasonable claims we can (at the moment) run purely on solar? Sounds a bit like a strawman argument. Either way current consumption levels are impossible to sustain especially at scale, even if we radically increase nuclear share (which im not fundametaly against, but the radical centralisation is also a problem in such a scenario). Every solution has its pros and cons.
@harce @themactep@fosstodon.org
> centralisation
Economy of scale 🤷 We want state-run NHS and public transport because they're the cheapest to run at scale, so why at the same time insist on decentralised energy production, if it's the least effective and most expensive?
@kravietz
@themactep Cuz its a single point of fail, which NHS or public transport dont have. Ie. less countries mine uranium than produce oil.
@harce @themactep@fosstodon.org
But if there's like ~20 nuclear fuel suppliers worldwide then how can we even talk about "single point"?
Most of Eastern Europe for decades had just a single oil and gas supplier, only in 2000's countries like Poland obtained maybe 1-2 additional sources and that was already massive step towards diversification.
Ukraine faced this problem in 2014 after Crimea as it obtained 100% of nuclear fuel from Russia. Since 2015 they have also Sweden and this is diversification.
@kravietz
@themactep
OK, wording defeated my argument; as for a SPoF I was comming back to the centralisation argument: if there's one-two reactors powering a country it takes 1-2 "incidents" to turn off all power. Same is true for coal in Poland btw since Bełchatów iż something over 40% of power IIRC.
@harce @themactep@fosstodon.org
In this you are 100% right, but I don't think any country (maybe for very small ones) plans to rely on *literally* single large power plant. UK has 7 of nuclear and dozens of gas/coal spread across the whole island.
Poland is far from that but this is the preference of the society - we at least have plenty of churches to pray in case of an actual blackout 🤷
