kravietz 🦇 @kravietz@social.privacytools.io

@_1751015 @strypey

Not sure about life-span but I don't see reason why it would reduce it - the only indicator that is impacted is average capacity factor so instead of 95% per year a NPP would get less as it would not operate at full power all the time.

@_1751015 @strypey

I've read that load following was part of design of any plant built since 90's as intermittent sources were expected to be added to the grid. It was rarely used because it's most economically efficient to use NPP at 100% capacity and load following was much cheaper done plants that actually use fuel like gas or coal. But if there was no gas or coal, it could be done with NPP too.

@_1751015 @strypey

> "load following" and the NPP can't do that

They absolutely can - most of the Gen3+ plants now in use in Europe can do it!

@strypey @KevinCarson1 @xair

This article/debate is indeed very interesting and thanks for this, but it's completely unrelated to the topic of Greenpeace. Any organisation who aggressively lobbies based on knowingly misrepresented or outright false data as they routinely do with GMO and nuclear power is a no go for me. In terms of actual policy outcomes, GP is no different from climate deniers.

@strypey @xair

Germany is the textbook example of this: in 2010 they started the Energiewende and declared enormous investments in solar projects like DESERTEC, reduction of CO2 but most importantly - closure of nuclear power plants.

In 2020 the only thing that worked was the last one - CO2 emissions per capita are 2x more than France, energy emissions per kWh are 5x than France, on-shore wind farms have stalled, DESERTEC was abandoned.

In 2018 Greenpeace said we need more fossil gas...

@strypey @xair

But whatever new delusional "strategy" they come up with, they direct 100% resources on aggressive lobbying crying "it has to be done NOW!!!", pouring paint or fake blood and doing all these PR stunts. And some countries do change their energy strategies, start to implement... but then another decade passes, and GP discovers new "wonder tech", dislikes some previous one, and writes a new "strategy" and the whole cycle repeats.

@strypey @xair

They are consistently cherry-picking and misrepresenting scientific data, they're quoting IPCC on climate change but they skip the parts about nuclear power, they fabricate bullshit about GMO. They enthusiastically jump on any early prototype new tech appears out there and build a whole 2050 strategy on it without even knowing any side effects or scaling issues. And they change their "strategies" at least once per decade.

@strypey @xair

And unfortunately this radically anti-scientific bias of both is clearly visible in their policies. In 2001 they liked biomass, in 2010 they liked DESERTEC, in 2018 they liked fossil gas, in 2020 they don't like biomass and declaratively don't like fossil gas but they're doing everything to increase its share in the energy mix because hey - at least it's not nuclear power!