6 ms·

Because transitioning over to green technology is a decades-long project, it's not something you can just snap your fingers and make happen, as many countries a

by xienze 4y ago

Because transitioning over to green technology is a decades-long project, it's not something you can just snap your fingers and make happen, as many countries are discovering. You still need non-renewable energy sources to fill in the gaps that renewables currently have.

Krasnol 4y ago
You don't have to transition completely in decades. You can start today. Meanwhile building a single nuclear reactor is a "decade-long" project, you can't start today and in the end you're still left with an old and expensive tech while the green tech moved ahead rapidly during the same time. Germany managed to replace almost half of their generation in 2 decades: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germanys-renewable-power-share-climbs-46-percent-2020-preliminary-data https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germanys-renewable-powe... When they started out the technology was terrible and managed to do all that despite a just recently retired government which did everything to stop further expansion.
- xienze 4y ago
  > You don't have to transition completely in decades. You can start today. Yes, I agree. If you start today, you’ll be done in decades. The boneheaded move is to start a green energy transition and immediately start decommissioning existing nuclear power plants and stonewall creating new ones by throwing up your hands and saying “well it’ll take forever to build them.” By the way, have you ever considered why it takes so long to build nuclear power plants? It’s a political and environmental special interest problem, not a technical one. At the end of the day, when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining, you still have to generate power somehow. Until the day that problem is solved (that’s the “decades” part), you want something like nuclear power to fall back on.
  - Krasnol 4y ago
    I don't know why you're ignoring my reality example. Germany is part of a EU wide market and it just works. Also it's not like you put all your wind on one spot. There is always wind somewhere for example. The idea that it's an "political, environmental and special interest" problem while we're watching several nuclear plants being FAR over budget and over due being constructed in pro-nuclear countries proves that your argument is false. So basically: everything you wrote there is wrong...why are you doing this?
    - trashtester 4y ago
      > There is always wind somewhere for example. There is always wind somewhere. But grid capacity is not free, in fact it is quite expensive. Let's say, on a given day, the only place in Europe with reasonable winds would be west of Cadiz, transporting all that power through Spain, Portugal and France to cover the needs of all of Europe, would require immensive grid capacity expansion. And even with super-high-voltage, the losses before the power reaches Estonia would be huge. Also, if this load causes a brownout in Spain, due to improper maintaince, for instance, all of Europe could go dark, cold and stop moving (in a time after fossil fuels). (I can imagine seeing this from space during some cold winter night around 2045, all the lights in Western and Central Europe disappear at once. Only Norway and parts of Sweden can be seen, since they have their hydro power.) In other words, while a better grid can mitigate _some_ of the variability of renewable supply, you still need massive expansion of storage capacity when you stop using natural gas, especially when you switch heating and transportation to use electricity too. Seen from the outside, it surely looks like the German population has been seriously misled.
      - g8oz 4y ago
        >>Seen from the outside, it surely looks like the German population has been seriously misled. And yet their sacrifice essentially kick-started the global solar industry. The world owes a round of applause to the German tax payer.
      - Krasnol 4y ago
        > There is always wind somewhere. But grid capacity is not free, in fact it is quite expensive. No it's not...as I said several times over: IT'S ALREADY WORKING and has been for years... > Also, if this load causes a brownout in Spain, due to improper maintaince, for instance, This is not the US here. We have the most stable grid on the whole planet. Countries do maintain their networks here. > In other words, while a better grid can mitigate _some_ of the variability of renewable supply, you still need massive expansion of storage capacity when you stop using natural gas, especially when you switch heating and transportation to use electricity too. Sure more storage is nice. Especially if you want to profit locally but it's not something which would make true green energy possible NOW. Because: as I said several times over: IT'S ALREADY WORKING. We have been "pumping" massively energy into storage in the alps. Now with NordLink we do the same in the other direction too. It's all there. > Seen from the outside, it surely looks like the German population has been seriously misled. This must seem so if you're completely uninformed or even misinformed as you have shown here. In fact though as g8oz says: you should be thankful for us showing the world that true green future technology can be made to work and power a high tech and densely populated country. We'll keep on showing you and those countries which WASTE taxpayer money on nuclear just that.
- trashtester 4y ago
  > Germany managed to replace almost half of their generation in 2 decades: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germanys-renewable-powe https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germanys-renewable-powe... Still, only 16% of Germany's total energy consumption comes from renewables: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig10-germany-energy-mix-energy-sources-share-primary-energy-consumption-2021.png?itok=XmYkdZD_ https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g... If Germany wants to replace all uses of fossil fuels for heating, transportation, industrial use, etc, with renewables, HUGE investments remain. In particular, giving up the ability to smooth out variations in production without the use of fossil fuels will be extremely costly, unless the cost comes down by at least a factor or 50.
  - Krasnol 4y ago
    > Still, only 16% of Germany's total energy consumption comes from renewables: Sure but this has nothing to do with nuclear. Germany heats with gas and oil. We don't even have 5% electrical heating here. > In particular, giving up the ability to smooth out variations in production without the use of fossil fuels will be extremely costly, It's not even close to how costly nuclear is and will continue to be for GENERATIONS. Germany is connected to the most stable continental grid on this planet. Something other "developed" countries like the US can only dream of. Germany has been expanding their national grid and will continue to do so. Also we have build up renewable energy for the whole world. Paying for it. So don't worry. We'll manage. It's the rest of the world you have to worry about since they're stuck in the past. Especially France with their single source which is a rotting fleet run by a bankrupt state company eating up taxpayer money with no end in sight.
    - trashtester 4y ago
      Germany, for all it's renewables, let out significantly more greenhouse gases per capita than surrounding countries, such as France. > It's not even close to how costly nuclear is and will continue to be for GENERATIONS. Modern nuclear plants are designed to last for a minimum of 60 years, and can be renewed to last another 40. Modern wind turbines as well as most solar panels have an expected lifetime of around 25 years. > Also we have build up renewable energy for the whole world. Paying for it. Germany even pays Denmark to shut down their wind power on days when production is high, to make the statistics of German renewable production look prettier. Germany is still using fossil fuels for most of their energy. > Also we have build up renewable energy for the whole world. Norway has been on 100% renewable electricity since forever, and unlike Germany, Norway actually uses electricity for heating. Fossil fuel heating was banned in Norway i 2020. So Norway uses electricity for everything, meaning the population is not willing to pay German prices for much longer. Most likely, the Norwegian government will have to strangle exports through Nordlink and similar cables in the coming winter, if prices remain high. Norway did NOT need German help for that. On the other hand, Norway also provides Germany with a large percentage of Germany's fossil fuel needs, both natural gas and oil (most of the imports not coming from Russia comes from Norway).
petre 4y ago
Yeah, we've seen how it (hasn't) worked out for Germany.

by xienze 4y ago

Krasnol 4y ago

You don't have to transition completely in decades. You can start today. Meanwhile building a single nuclear reactor is a "decade-long" project, you can't start today and in the end you're still left with an old and expensive tech while the green tech moved ahead rapidly during the same time. Germany managed to replace almost half of their generation in 2 decades: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germanys-renewable-power-share-climbs-46-percent-2020-preliminary-data https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germanys-renewable-powe... When they started out the technology was terrible and managed to do all that despite a just recently retired government which did everything to stop further expansion.

xienze 4y ago
> You don't have to transition completely in decades. You can start today. Yes, I agree. If you start today, you’ll be done in decades. The boneheaded move is to start a green energy transition and immediately start decommissioning existing nuclear power plants and stonewall creating new ones by throwing up your hands and saying “well it’ll take forever to build them.” By the way, have you ever considered why it takes so long to build nuclear power plants? It’s a political and environmental special interest problem, not a technical one. At the end of the day, when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining, you still have to generate power somehow. Until the day that problem is solved (that’s the “decades” part), you want something like nuclear power to fall back on.
- Krasnol 4y ago
  I don't know why you're ignoring my reality example. Germany is part of a EU wide market and it just works. Also it's not like you put all your wind on one spot. There is always wind somewhere for example. The idea that it's an "political, environmental and special interest" problem while we're watching several nuclear plants being FAR over budget and over due being constructed in pro-nuclear countries proves that your argument is false. So basically: everything you wrote there is wrong...why are you doing this?
  - trashtester 4y ago
    > There is always wind somewhere for example. There is always wind somewhere. But grid capacity is not free, in fact it is quite expensive. Let's say, on a given day, the only place in Europe with reasonable winds would be west of Cadiz, transporting all that power through Spain, Portugal and France to cover the needs of all of Europe, would require immensive grid capacity expansion. And even with super-high-voltage, the losses before the power reaches Estonia would be huge. Also, if this load causes a brownout in Spain, due to improper maintaince, for instance, all of Europe could go dark, cold and stop moving (in a time after fossil fuels). (I can imagine seeing this from space during some cold winter night around 2045, all the lights in Western and Central Europe disappear at once. Only Norway and parts of Sweden can be seen, since they have their hydro power.) In other words, while a better grid can mitigate _some_ of the variability of renewable supply, you still need massive expansion of storage capacity when you stop using natural gas, especially when you switch heating and transportation to use electricity too. Seen from the outside, it surely looks like the German population has been seriously misled.
    - g8oz 4y ago
      >>Seen from the outside, it surely looks like the German population has been seriously misled. And yet their sacrifice essentially kick-started the global solar industry. The world owes a round of applause to the German tax payer.
    - Krasnol 4y ago
      > There is always wind somewhere. But grid capacity is not free, in fact it is quite expensive. No it's not...as I said several times over: IT'S ALREADY WORKING and has been for years... > Also, if this load causes a brownout in Spain, due to improper maintaince, for instance, This is not the US here. We have the most stable grid on the whole planet. Countries do maintain their networks here. > In other words, while a better grid can mitigate _some_ of the variability of renewable supply, you still need massive expansion of storage capacity when you stop using natural gas, especially when you switch heating and transportation to use electricity too. Sure more storage is nice. Especially if you want to profit locally but it's not something which would make true green energy possible NOW. Because: as I said several times over: IT'S ALREADY WORKING. We have been "pumping" massively energy into storage in the alps. Now with NordLink we do the same in the other direction too. It's all there. > Seen from the outside, it surely looks like the German population has been seriously misled. This must seem so if you're completely uninformed or even misinformed as you have shown here. In fact though as g8oz says: you should be thankful for us showing the world that true green future technology can be made to work and power a high tech and densely populated country. We'll keep on showing you and those countries which WASTE taxpayer money on nuclear just that.
trashtester 4y ago
> Germany managed to replace almost half of their generation in 2 decades: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germanys-renewable-powe https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germanys-renewable-powe... Still, only 16% of Germany's total energy consumption comes from renewables: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig10-germany-energy-mix-energy-sources-share-primary-energy-consumption-2021.png?itok=XmYkdZD_ https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g... If Germany wants to replace all uses of fossil fuels for heating, transportation, industrial use, etc, with renewables, HUGE investments remain. In particular, giving up the ability to smooth out variations in production without the use of fossil fuels will be extremely costly, unless the cost comes down by at least a factor or 50.
- Krasnol 4y ago
  > Still, only 16% of Germany's total energy consumption comes from renewables: Sure but this has nothing to do with nuclear. Germany heats with gas and oil. We don't even have 5% electrical heating here. > In particular, giving up the ability to smooth out variations in production without the use of fossil fuels will be extremely costly, It's not even close to how costly nuclear is and will continue to be for GENERATIONS. Germany is connected to the most stable continental grid on this planet. Something other "developed" countries like the US can only dream of. Germany has been expanding their national grid and will continue to do so. Also we have build up renewable energy for the whole world. Paying for it. So don't worry. We'll manage. It's the rest of the world you have to worry about since they're stuck in the past. Especially France with their single source which is a rotting fleet run by a bankrupt state company eating up taxpayer money with no end in sight.
  - trashtester 4y ago
    Germany, for all it's renewables, let out significantly more greenhouse gases per capita than surrounding countries, such as France. > It's not even close to how costly nuclear is and will continue to be for GENERATIONS. Modern nuclear plants are designed to last for a minimum of 60 years, and can be renewed to last another 40. Modern wind turbines as well as most solar panels have an expected lifetime of around 25 years. > Also we have build up renewable energy for the whole world. Paying for it. Germany even pays Denmark to shut down their wind power on days when production is high, to make the statistics of German renewable production look prettier. Germany is still using fossil fuels for most of their energy. > Also we have build up renewable energy for the whole world. Norway has been on 100% renewable electricity since forever, and unlike Germany, Norway actually uses electricity for heating. Fossil fuel heating was banned in Norway i 2020. So Norway uses electricity for everything, meaning the population is not willing to pay German prices for much longer. Most likely, the Norwegian government will have to strangle exports through Nordlink and similar cables in the coming winter, if prices remain high. Norway did NOT need German help for that. On the other hand, Norway also provides Germany with a large percentage of Germany's fossil fuel needs, both natural gas and oil (most of the imports not coming from Russia comes from Norway).

petre 4y ago

Yeah, we've seen how it (hasn't) worked out for Germany.