4 ms·
It wasn't the greens. While you can indeed make an argument about shutting down nuclear power plants while there are coal power plants in operations, the green
by _ph_ 4y ago
It wasn't the greens.
While you can indeed make an argument about shutting down nuclear power plants while there are coal power plants in operations, the green party was part of the government which targetted the mid-20ies for an end of nuclear energy in Germany - many power plants would have had to be shut down of age anyway. But they also set energy politics onto a trajectory which would have meant to mostly run on renewables by now. It was the Merkel government which first prolonged nuclear power plant run times and then cut it down quicker than the initial plans after Fukushima. All of that could be rationally argued, but not that they mostly killed the deployment of renewables. If they had pushed that properly, we still would be fine. Still, Germany managed to get to 50% renewables in the electricity mix. But indeed, we now have to push hard to take up speed of deployment and fortunately we have now the greens in power to push for that.
- thatfrenchguy 4y ago> Still, Germany managed to get to 50% renewables in the electricity mix. But indeed, we now have to push hard to take up speed of deployment and fortunately we have now the greens in power to push for that. I live in California, we have 59% renewables. The last 31% is exponentially harder as you actually need electricity sources that are reliable. Nuclear is reliable / suitable for base loads, wind/solar aren't. There are zero grid that use solar/wind as base load today.
- teakettle42 4y ago> they also set energy politics onto a trajectory which would have meant to mostly run on renewables by now The idea that we can run not just our current demand on “renewables”, but peak demand after electrifying everything from cars to stovetops, was and remains an absolute fantasy.
- _ph_ 4y agoNo, absolutely not, it is entirely doable. By the way: stovetops are already almost exclusively electric in Germany, and electrifying all cars would mean about 10% more electricity consumption. Doing so would add about 2 TWh of storage capacity in the cars alone, which would be very helpful for the grid.
- teakettle42 4y ago> No, absolutely not, it is entirely doable. No, it’s clearly not, and we’ve wasted decades chasing the utopian impossibility of energy with zero-downside — all while continuing to dump pollution into the atmosphere. > electrifying all cars would mean about 10% more electricity consumption Not at peak load. > Doing so would add about 2 TWh of storage capacity in the cars alone, which would be very helpful for the grid. Come again? You want people to donate the limited lifecycle of their very expensive car batteries to provide inefficient backup power to the grid? This is why the OP said greens hold significant responsibility for the mess we’re in. This kind of magical thinking has been a gift to the fossil fuel industry.
- pfdietz 4y ago> Not at peak load. So, what is your alternative? Nuclear plants for that peak load? Just burning gasoline and diesel forever? Please explain.
- _ph_ 4y agoYes, it clearly is. I don't know what you mean by "peak load", but it is 10% more electricity consumed. Electric cars rather help than load the grid, as their charging can be easily controlled to help balance the grid. And yes, a small part of the battery capacity won't be "donated" but rather rented to the grid in exchange for much lower prices. VW is about to roll out a corresponding project, owners can expect much cheaper charging up to even free charging. And no it isn't the Greens who are feeding the fossil fuel industry but those who hold back renewables and the electrification of transportation.