4 ms·
I sincerely hope they don't repair it and instead focus more on building up infrastructure around renewable energy sources.
by wolfium3 4y ago
I sincerely hope they don't repair it and instead focus more on building up infrastructure around renewable energy sources.
- baybal2 4y ago
- holyharvey 4y ago
- mikewarot 4y agoThat's a rather energy blind view of the world. Europe isn't an optimal location for solar or wind.
- conceptme 4y agoEurope is large and lots of places are using both wind and solar the issue is storage and have something that does not causes peaks and lows on the net
- _aavaa_ 4y agoThere are other renewables, and other green sources of energy beyond wind/solar. The elephant in the room that Europe is slowly starting to look at is nuclear.
- pchangr 4y agoI live in Europe and .. from my perspective it really isn’t. Chernobyl traumatized Europe and if anything they are all looking away from it.
- up2isomorphism 4y agoPlease stop trying to give strategic opinions to something you have no idea of and don’t start to starving yourself while looking for a better land to farm.
- hoffs 4y agoLol what
- arez 4y agowhat's so wrong hoping for renewable rather than fossile fuel future?
- dislikedtom2 4y agodo we have any nuclear plants that we closed because we are too good for nuclear power? If so, I would suggest opening those again.
- miguelazo 4y agoThe discussion here is whether replacing the cheap, reliable Russian gas that Europe had access to before the US blew up Nordstream (a de facto attack on Germany) with “renewables” is a REALISTIC solution in the near to medium term. It is certainly not, and I say that as an committed environmentalist. It’s pretty disgusting for Americans to be pontificating this way, when we all know what would happen if their own energy prices had tripled in less than a year.
- aaomidi 4y agoWhat’s your source for saying it’s not? How do you define short and medium term? To me medium is a decade. There’s also the short to medium term work of enabling nuclear plants to start up again.
- miguelazo 4y agoGermany was already a leader in solar and wind in Europe. Even in the US which has much better conditions, you would have to cover an absurd and untenable amount of land with solar/wind to effectively displace fossil fuels with current technology. You certainly couldn’t do it in 10 years. I don’t consider nuclear renewable. We are no closer to finding a good solution for the waste. And there are other safety concerns. “Wind and solar generation require at least 10 times as much land per unit of power produced than coal- or natural gas-fired power plants, including land disturbed to produce and transport the fossil fuels.” https://www.brookings.edu/research/renewables-land-use-and-local-opposition-in-the-united-states/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/renewables-land-use-and-l...
- bilekas 4y agoIt's beneficial for everyone to move to renewables, and the Nord Stream has certainly lfast-tracked that, but it still puts EU under energy pressures that really didn't need to be.
- seydor 4y agoyou mean LNG ?
- BiteCode_dev 4y agoNorway has a huge renewable infrastructure thanks to the fossil fuel it could sell to build it.
- tomohawk 4y agoIt's not too far from saying this to say we would be better off without the pipeline, so let's blow it up while Russia is attacking Ukraine since that will cover out trails.