3 ms·

>you are still lying That was my first comment in this discussion thread, you have evidently confused me with the other. Read the usernames if you're going t

>you are still lying That was my first comment in this discussion thread, you have evidently confused me with the other. Read the usernames if you're going to throw around shade like that. And "build more gas" is a claim you introduced to this discussion, not me. Solar+Wind necessitates gas, that is a fact. Whether it's building new gas turbines or using existing ones, Germany needs those gas turbines either way. Germany cannot run off solar and wind alone.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
You continue to lie about the goal. > Germany cannot run off solar and wind alone. There is this thing called storage in the form of batteries, hydro, and electrolysers. Stop pretending it does not exist, that it is not dropping in price (and use of scarce minerals) so fast it will be a complete replacement before a single new reactor would be finished and that renewables must work without it. Stop pretending that replacing 20% of the gas with nuclear is as useful as replacing 80% of it with pure renewables. If our bar is 90€/MWh or wherever you want to set it, then it is far closer to true that the technology to replace coal and gas with nuclear does not exist. Here is a model using no fossil fuels, no batteries and fairly pessimistic costings of real existing currently being built technology https://model.energy/?results=5f5bd91437b51fc85495b224d749455e#solve https://model.energy/?results=5f5bd91437b51fc85495b224d74945... See how it is about 10% less than the energy from falamville 3 even when including much more generous discount rates? Additionally with the lower initial capital you could replace it when it wears out with something that is a quarter of the price rather than locking in 110€/MWh for energy that won't start being produced for 10-20 years and you won't get all of for 50-70 years. Energy from a nuclear reactor still needs backup for the 10% of the time it is off (or 30% in France's case) and overprovision or peaking (which will either drive the cost up to 200€/MWh or require gas)

Schroedingersat 4y ago

You continue to lie about the goal. > Germany cannot run off solar and wind alone. There is this thing called storage in the form of batteries, hydro, and electrolysers. Stop pretending it does not exist, that it is not dropping in price (and use of scarce minerals) so fast it will be a complete replacement before a single new reactor would be finished and that renewables must work without it. Stop pretending that replacing 20% of the gas with nuclear is as useful as replacing 80% of it with pure renewables. If our bar is 90€/MWh or wherever you want to set it, then it is far closer to true that the technology to replace coal and gas with nuclear does not exist. Here is a model using no fossil fuels, no batteries and fairly pessimistic costings of real existing currently being built technology https://model.energy/?results=5f5bd91437b51fc85495b224d749455e#solve https://model.energy/?results=5f5bd91437b51fc85495b224d74945... See how it is about 10% less than the energy from falamville 3 even when including much more generous discount rates? Additionally with the lower initial capital you could replace it when it wears out with something that is a quarter of the price rather than locking in 110€/MWh for energy that won't start being produced for 10-20 years and you won't get all of for 50-70 years. Energy from a nuclear reactor still needs backup for the 10% of the time it is off (or 30% in France's case) and overprovision or peaking (which will either drive the cost up to 200€/MWh or require gas)