7 ms·

Do you know what the German protesters are proposing as an alternative? Germany banned nuclear, brown lignite is bad, extensive mining destroys forests, wind po

by lake99 7y ago

Do you know what the German protesters are proposing as an alternative? Germany banned nuclear, brown lignite is bad, extensive mining destroys forests, wind power destroys forests and is bad for birds, Germany is not a good candidate for solar, and so on. So what's next?

bubblewrap 7y ago
They believe in a fairy tale of green energy without any side effects. I don't think they have a clear concept of a viable solution. The irony is that they blame their parents, whose generation protested against nuclear power. Presumably the only alternative that would have stood a chance to reduce climate change.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  > I don't think they have a clear concept of a viable solution. Do you have a clear concept of a viable solution? (Hint: Killing the ecosystem that sustains humans is not it.)
  - fzort 7y ago
    > Do you have a clear concept of a viable solution? Nuclear. Solar farms take 450 times more land than nuclear to produce the same amount of energy (source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/08/we-dont-need-solar-and-wind-to-save-the-climate-and-its-a-good-thing-too/#2501e084e4de https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/08...)
    - reacweb 7y ago
      I think nuclear is the best current solution, but it is too late to build nuclear plant now because it requires 40 years to be cost effective. I hope that solar will become better than nuclear in less than 10 years.
      - kalium-xyz 7y ago
        Solar less space efficient even at maximum capacity.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
      Sorry, but that's just a dumb comparison. For one, solar farms don't use land the same way nuclear power plants do, in terms of effects on the environment/ecosystem (you potentially can even do agriculture on the same land ...). Then, you can't install nuclear power plants on rooftops, but you can put solar panels there, thus using no land at all. And finally, you avoid a lot of losses and don't need as much distribution infrastructure when you have solar panels within the city where the energy is being used. Also, I don't see how you could build sufficient nuclear capacity in time to sufficiently reduce carbon emissions without compromising safety (after all, nuclear energy is inherently extremely dangerous--the fact that we so far have been able to operate it very safely does not mean that that is an inherent property of the technology that we could maintain if we tried building hundreds of gigawatts in a decade). Nuclear (fission) energy might have been a sensible route in the past, but it doesn't seem so right now.
  - bubblewrap 7y ago
    I'm not the one claiming there is an easy solution. I think Bill Gates also said the people claiming there is an easy solution is the biggest problem with fighting climate change, so maybe read his essays on the topic.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
      But you claimed that protesters demanding a solution were a problem, or that they were unjustified because they couldn't offer a solution. Why would people have to present a solution in order to demand for their future to not be destroyed? After all, "solving climate change" is technologically a solved problem. Humanity has all the technological knowledge to switch to carbon-free energy production. The problem are the costs of that switch based on current technology. But if we can't reduce the costs further, that still does not invalidate the demand of protesters who don't want to be stuck with paying the massive price of having to deal with a broken ecosystem later. It's still a perfectly justified demand that current generations pay in order to avoid costs for future generations.
      - bubblewrap 7y ago
        No I said the protestors claiming there is an easy solution is the problem. They believe everything could just be switched over to renewables at no cost, in fact, they think it would be cheaper to do so. You do the same. You claim it is "technically a solved problem". It really isn't. You are just naive about "renewable energy".
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
        > No I said the protestors claiming there is an easy solution is the problem. Source? > They believe everything could just be switched over to renewables at no cost, Source? > in fact, they think it would be cheaper to do so. So, how do you know that is not the case? (And no, pretending that climate change won't cause any costs is not how this works. If your stance is that climate change won't have any costs, that's on you to demonstrate.) > You do the same. You claim it is "technically a solved problem". It really isn't. So, which part of it is not technically solved?
- someguydave 7y ago
  Indeed, nuclear fission is the only viable known technology to bring the world a first-world level of available energy. It’s too bad that ignorance and fear keeps it off the table.
Kliment 7y ago
Germany is actually an excellent candidate for solar (though not nearly as much as places like Spain). It has an enormous solar installed base that produces a sizeable amount of energy, and had the buildout incentives not been cut a couple years back solar would be the second biggest electrical energy component today. Meanwhile coal is still heavily subsidized, to the tune of 4 billion euros yearly.
- bubblewrap 7y ago
  Solar apparently hasn't become viable after years of subsidization. And the problem of storing energy is still not solved. There is no solar power at night. Subsidization of coal would of course be equally wrong.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
    > Solar apparently hasn't become viable after years of subsidization Whether that is true or not: How do you expect it to become viable when coal is subsidized? > And the problem of storing energy is still not solved. Source?
    - DocTomoe 7y ago
      > Whether that is true or not: How do you expect it to become viable when coal is subsidized? Cutting subsidies to coal and/or increasing subsidies to solar just raises the cost of energy for end users, which does not affect the average HN user, but will affect the average citizen. Germans already paying a ridiculous amount of money per kilowatt hour (in fact, we are the first world country with the highest electricity price, 40 US cents as compared to 12 US cents you would pay in the States). Raising subsidies is an antisocial move that will lead to increased public unrest, at a time when we see right-wing politics raising it's ugly head again. In the end, the pot goes to the spring till it breaks.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
        > Cutting subsidies to coal and/or increasing subsidies to solar just raises the cost of energy for end users Source? And does that include the future costs of the environmental impact for the end users that will still be alive by then? > Germans already paying a ridiculous amount of money per kilowatt hour What exactly is ridiculous about a price that reflects the actual costs? > (in fact, we are the first world country with the highest electricity price, 40 US cents as compared to 12 US cents you would pay in the States). If you are paying 40 US cents per kWh for electricity in .de, then that's because you chose to, not because that's the market price. > Raising subsidies is an antisocial move that will lead to increased public unrest, at a time when we see right-wing politics raising it's ugly head again. So ... we should implement right-wing politics so that right-wing politics doesn't win? What's even the point of that argument?

by lake99 7y ago

bubblewrap 7y ago

They believe in a fairy tale of green energy without any side effects. I don't think they have a clear concept of a viable solution. The irony is that they blame their parents, whose generation protested against nuclear power. Presumably the only alternative that would have stood a chance to reduce climate change.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
> I don't think they have a clear concept of a viable solution. Do you have a clear concept of a viable solution? (Hint: Killing the ecosystem that sustains humans is not it.)
- fzort 7y ago
  > Do you have a clear concept of a viable solution? Nuclear. Solar farms take 450 times more land than nuclear to produce the same amount of energy (source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/08/we-dont-need-solar-and-wind-to-save-the-climate-and-its-a-good-thing-too/#2501e084e4de https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/08...)
  - reacweb 7y ago
    I think nuclear is the best current solution, but it is too late to build nuclear plant now because it requires 40 years to be cost effective. I hope that solar will become better than nuclear in less than 10 years.
    - kalium-xyz 7y ago
      Solar less space efficient even at maximum capacity.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
    Sorry, but that's just a dumb comparison. For one, solar farms don't use land the same way nuclear power plants do, in terms of effects on the environment/ecosystem (you potentially can even do agriculture on the same land ...). Then, you can't install nuclear power plants on rooftops, but you can put solar panels there, thus using no land at all. And finally, you avoid a lot of losses and don't need as much distribution infrastructure when you have solar panels within the city where the energy is being used. Also, I don't see how you could build sufficient nuclear capacity in time to sufficiently reduce carbon emissions without compromising safety (after all, nuclear energy is inherently extremely dangerous--the fact that we so far have been able to operate it very safely does not mean that that is an inherent property of the technology that we could maintain if we tried building hundreds of gigawatts in a decade). Nuclear (fission) energy might have been a sensible route in the past, but it doesn't seem so right now.
- bubblewrap 7y ago
  I'm not the one claiming there is an easy solution. I think Bill Gates also said the people claiming there is an easy solution is the biggest problem with fighting climate change, so maybe read his essays on the topic.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
    But you claimed that protesters demanding a solution were a problem, or that they were unjustified because they couldn't offer a solution. Why would people have to present a solution in order to demand for their future to not be destroyed? After all, "solving climate change" is technologically a solved problem. Humanity has all the technological knowledge to switch to carbon-free energy production. The problem are the costs of that switch based on current technology. But if we can't reduce the costs further, that still does not invalidate the demand of protesters who don't want to be stuck with paying the massive price of having to deal with a broken ecosystem later. It's still a perfectly justified demand that current generations pay in order to avoid costs for future generations.
    - bubblewrap 7y ago
      No I said the protestors claiming there is an easy solution is the problem. They believe everything could just be switched over to renewables at no cost, in fact, they think it would be cheaper to do so. You do the same. You claim it is "technically a solved problem". It really isn't. You are just naive about "renewable energy".
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
        > No I said the protestors claiming there is an easy solution is the problem. Source? > They believe everything could just be switched over to renewables at no cost, Source? > in fact, they think it would be cheaper to do so. So, how do you know that is not the case? (And no, pretending that climate change won't cause any costs is not how this works. If your stance is that climate change won't have any costs, that's on you to demonstrate.) > You do the same. You claim it is "technically a solved problem". It really isn't. So, which part of it is not technically solved?
someguydave 7y ago
Indeed, nuclear fission is the only viable known technology to bring the world a first-world level of available energy. It’s too bad that ignorance and fear keeps it off the table.

Kliment 7y ago

Germany is actually an excellent candidate for solar (though not nearly as much as places like Spain). It has an enormous solar installed base that produces a sizeable amount of energy, and had the buildout incentives not been cut a couple years back solar would be the second biggest electrical energy component today. Meanwhile coal is still heavily subsidized, to the tune of 4 billion euros yearly.

bubblewrap 7y ago
Solar apparently hasn't become viable after years of subsidization. And the problem of storing energy is still not solved. There is no solar power at night. Subsidization of coal would of course be equally wrong.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  > Solar apparently hasn't become viable after years of subsidization Whether that is true or not: How do you expect it to become viable when coal is subsidized? > And the problem of storing energy is still not solved. Source?
  - DocTomoe 7y ago
    > Whether that is true or not: How do you expect it to become viable when coal is subsidized? Cutting subsidies to coal and/or increasing subsidies to solar just raises the cost of energy for end users, which does not affect the average HN user, but will affect the average citizen. Germans already paying a ridiculous amount of money per kilowatt hour (in fact, we are the first world country with the highest electricity price, 40 US cents as compared to 12 US cents you would pay in the States). Raising subsidies is an antisocial move that will lead to increased public unrest, at a time when we see right-wing politics raising it's ugly head again. In the end, the pot goes to the spring till it breaks.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
      > Cutting subsidies to coal and/or increasing subsidies to solar just raises the cost of energy for end users Source? And does that include the future costs of the environmental impact for the end users that will still be alive by then? > Germans already paying a ridiculous amount of money per kilowatt hour What exactly is ridiculous about a price that reflects the actual costs? > (in fact, we are the first world country with the highest electricity price, 40 US cents as compared to 12 US cents you would pay in the States). If you are paying 40 US cents per kWh for electricity in .de, then that's because you chose to, not because that's the market price. > Raising subsidies is an antisocial move that will lead to increased public unrest, at a time when we see right-wing politics raising it's ugly head again. So ... we should implement right-wing politics so that right-wing politics doesn't win? What's even the point of that argument?