4 ms·

Germany spent something like a trillion euro on renewables and still produces much more CO2 per capita per year than France who spent 200 billion on nuclear (an

Germany spent something like a trillion euro on renewables and still produces much more CO2 per capita per year than France who spent 200 billion on nuclear (and whose nuclear industry is forced to bail out competitors now) One would think "green" movements (greenpeace, and modern green parties) have been infiltrated by coal/oil/gas lobbies as so far the only winner out of no nuclear yes wind policy is Vladimir Putin and not the environment

raphaelj 5y ago
Past spending are actually not relevant, as renewable got significantly cheaper, while nuclear got more expensive. Solar is today 5x less expensive than it was in 2010[1]. --- [1] https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2020/Jun/IRENA_Costs_2019_EN.pdf?la=en&hash=BFAAB4DD2A14EDA7329946F9C3BDA9CD806C1A8A https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication...
- steeve 5y ago
  Rain water will always be cheaper than tap water.
- bryanlarsen 5y ago
  And a large part of why it's cheaper is because Germany spent so much, driving the costs down the production learning curve. The whole world, including Germany, will benefit tremendously from that spending.
- thrown_22 5y ago
  Coal is free underground which is in the same league as saying that solar is cheep at noon. That something this simple is never talked about when it comes to renewables is a monument to peoples ability to ignore the obvious.
  - dang 5y ago
    You've been posting comments that get flagged, then deleting and reposting them many times—in one case, over a dozen times! That's abusive, and we ban accounts that do that sort of thing, so if you'd please stop doing it, we'd appreciate it. Also, if you could please stop posting flamewar comments in the first place, that would be good, because it's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - thrown_22 5y ago
      I'd say some going over my account flagging everything they see is abusive. But each to their own.
      - dang 5y ago
        That depends on whether your comments were correctly flagged or not.
- modo_mario 5y ago
  Much of the reason nuclear got more expensive is that there's been such a big dip in construction. Lessons are having to be relearned and we're paying for it. That and so many politicians and contractors getting away with being leeches whilst dragging out projects in some countries. Comparisons of construction projects of the same design in china vs europe would make one cry. Also much of the price reduction for renewables are in things like solar which has other issues like it's shorter lifespan paired with it's recycling being basically a joke/scam. Additionally if you throw a solar panel or windmill in the trash before it's proper and well done the cost of it's energy in the calculation goes up just the same.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    Solar recycling is still rudimentary because the vast majority of PV modules that have ever been produced are still in use. The doubling time of the exponential growth of solar has been much less than the lifespan of PV modules. The shorter lifespan of PV is actually a good thing for solar. In an environment where technology is changing rapidly, long lifespan has little value. Would you think it's a huge negative if your PC fails after 20 years instead of 40? No, because you replace it before then anyway. Pretending that nuclear is better because its value is computed based on a 40 year lifespan is just pretending that its competitors will stop improving (otherwise, the nuclear plant won't even make it to 40 years due to operating costs > full cost of renewables.)
    - modo_mario 5y ago
      >Solar recycling is still rudimentary because the vast majority of PV modules that have ever been produced are still in use. The problems with it's recycling are a bit more inherent than that. >The shorter lifespan of PV is actually a good thing for solar. It's downright silly to say that PV degrading is good for it. The improvements don't stop because they have to be replaced quicker. More people would adopt it if they lasted longer since the ROI is higher, etc I might replace my pc in less than a decade but I'm not jumping to get on a roof again and invest 10's of thousands of euros.
      - 5y ago
- cedricgle 5y ago
  I am perplex. Solar energy for example don't take into account the cost of renewal of the panel (every 20-30 year) and the cost of recycling / storing the toxic photovoltaic liquid [1]. The IRENA projects[2] they can fully recycle this toxic waste and recreate value from it, which is bold imo. [1] https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/23/solar-panel-waste-a-disposal-problem/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/23/solar-panel-waste-a-d... [2] https://www.irena.org/publications/2016/Jun/End-of-life-management-Solar-Photovoltaic-Panels https://www.irena.org/publications/2016/Jun/End-of-life-mana...
willis936 5y ago
Not modern. Greenpeace was founded 50 years ago with an anti-nuclear agenda. They call themselves "green" because a wolf wouldn't dress up as a wolf, but rather a sheep.
- gmm1990 5y ago
  Pretty sure they started out being opposed to live nuclear weapons testing. Not sure what there exact position is currently, but calling them wolves seems unfair.
  - willis936 5y ago
    I disagree. Their influence on policy has directly benefitted the fossil fuel industry and worsened the climate crisis. History will remember them for what they are.
usrbinbash 5y ago
Sadly that won't change as long as the red herring "BUT CHERNOBYL BLEW UP!" still works in public opinion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents#/media/File:Hypothetical_number_of_deaths_from_energy_production,_OWID.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accident...
throwawayffffas 5y ago
From my point of view, it's not about a competition between nuclear and solar/wind/etc. It's about the choices that led to shutting down nuclear instead of coal, oil and the green-lighting of gas projects. If we were serious about our co2 predicament the conservation and refurbishment of nuclear capacity would be as high as a priority as taking fossil fuel plants offline. And then after electricity production related emissions has dropped to virtually zero we could have a great discussion on how to go forward.
fsflover 5y ago
> One would think "green" movements (greenpeace, and modern green parties) have been infiltrated by coal/oil/gas lobbies https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30162474 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30162474

raphaelj 5y ago

Past spending are actually not relevant, as renewable got significantly cheaper, while nuclear got more expensive. Solar is today 5x less expensive than it was in 2010[1]. --- [1] https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2020/Jun/IRENA_Costs_2019_EN.pdf?la=en&hash=BFAAB4DD2A14EDA7329946F9C3BDA9CD806C1A8A https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication...

steeve 5y ago
Rain water will always be cheaper than tap water.
bryanlarsen 5y ago
And a large part of why it's cheaper is because Germany spent so much, driving the costs down the production learning curve. The whole world, including Germany, will benefit tremendously from that spending.
thrown_22 5y ago
Coal is free underground which is in the same league as saying that solar is cheep at noon. That something this simple is never talked about when it comes to renewables is a monument to peoples ability to ignore the obvious.
- dang 5y ago
  You've been posting comments that get flagged, then deleting and reposting them many times—in one case, over a dozen times! That's abusive, and we ban accounts that do that sort of thing, so if you'd please stop doing it, we'd appreciate it. Also, if you could please stop posting flamewar comments in the first place, that would be good, because it's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - thrown_22 5y ago
    I'd say some going over my account flagging everything they see is abusive. But each to their own.
    - dang 5y ago
      That depends on whether your comments were correctly flagged or not.
modo_mario 5y ago
Much of the reason nuclear got more expensive is that there's been such a big dip in construction. Lessons are having to be relearned and we're paying for it. That and so many politicians and contractors getting away with being leeches whilst dragging out projects in some countries. Comparisons of construction projects of the same design in china vs europe would make one cry. Also much of the price reduction for renewables are in things like solar which has other issues like it's shorter lifespan paired with it's recycling being basically a joke/scam. Additionally if you throw a solar panel or windmill in the trash before it's proper and well done the cost of it's energy in the calculation goes up just the same.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  Solar recycling is still rudimentary because the vast majority of PV modules that have ever been produced are still in use. The doubling time of the exponential growth of solar has been much less than the lifespan of PV modules. The shorter lifespan of PV is actually a good thing for solar. In an environment where technology is changing rapidly, long lifespan has little value. Would you think it's a huge negative if your PC fails after 20 years instead of 40? No, because you replace it before then anyway. Pretending that nuclear is better because its value is computed based on a 40 year lifespan is just pretending that its competitors will stop improving (otherwise, the nuclear plant won't even make it to 40 years due to operating costs > full cost of renewables.)
  - modo_mario 5y ago
    >Solar recycling is still rudimentary because the vast majority of PV modules that have ever been produced are still in use. The problems with it's recycling are a bit more inherent than that. >The shorter lifespan of PV is actually a good thing for solar. It's downright silly to say that PV degrading is good for it. The improvements don't stop because they have to be replaced quicker. More people would adopt it if they lasted longer since the ROI is higher, etc I might replace my pc in less than a decade but I'm not jumping to get on a roof again and invest 10's of thousands of euros.
    - 5y ago
cedricgle 5y ago
I am perplex. Solar energy for example don't take into account the cost of renewal of the panel (every 20-30 year) and the cost of recycling / storing the toxic photovoltaic liquid [1]. The IRENA projects[2] they can fully recycle this toxic waste and recreate value from it, which is bold imo. [1] https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/23/solar-panel-waste-a-disposal-problem/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/23/solar-panel-waste-a-d... [2] https://www.irena.org/publications/2016/Jun/End-of-life-management-Solar-Photovoltaic-Panels https://www.irena.org/publications/2016/Jun/End-of-life-mana...

willis936 5y ago

Not modern. Greenpeace was founded 50 years ago with an anti-nuclear agenda. They call themselves "green" because a wolf wouldn't dress up as a wolf, but rather a sheep.

gmm1990 5y ago
Pretty sure they started out being opposed to live nuclear weapons testing. Not sure what there exact position is currently, but calling them wolves seems unfair.
- willis936 5y ago
  I disagree. Their influence on policy has directly benefitted the fossil fuel industry and worsened the climate crisis. History will remember them for what they are.

usrbinbash 5y ago

Sadly that won't change as long as the red herring "BUT CHERNOBYL BLEW UP!" still works in public opinion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents#/media/File:Hypothetical_number_of_deaths_from_energy_production,_OWID.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accident...

throwawayffffas 5y ago

From my point of view, it's not about a competition between nuclear and solar/wind/etc. It's about the choices that led to shutting down nuclear instead of coal, oil and the green-lighting of gas projects. If we were serious about our co2 predicament the conservation and refurbishment of nuclear capacity would be as high as a priority as taking fossil fuel plants offline. And then after electricity production related emissions has dropped to virtually zero we could have a great discussion on how to go forward.

fsflover 5y ago

> One would think "green" movements (greenpeace, and modern green parties) have been infiltrated by coal/oil/gas lobbies https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30162474 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30162474