3 ms·

The fact that Germany decarbonised so much, so fast and so cheaply and without nuclear power appears to have made a lot of people very angry. Unlike Poland, wh

by pydry 4y ago

The fact that Germany decarbonised so much, so fast and so cheaply and without nuclear power appears to have made a lot of people very angry. Unlike Poland, who quietly powers itself with 80% coal and attracts very little flak because 1) it didn't make the nuclear industry look unnecessary 2) it preferred to burn coal over gas from America's main geopolitical rival.

sofixa 4y ago
> The fact that Germany decarbonised so much, so fast and so cheaply and without nuclear power appears to have made a lot of people very angry. Decarbonised? They still have the worst CO2/KWh in Western Europe, and among the worst in Europe: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electricity?region=Europe https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electric... After literally decades of massive renewables investments and subsidies.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Alright, now do it again but this time assign the coal to the countries importing the electricity rather than where it is burnt and include the actual GWP of gas (ie. around the same as coal) and include the actual GWP of France's nuclear fuel which mostly comes from a low yield open pit mine in niger.
  - shakow 4y ago
    > which mostly comes from a low yield open pit mine in niger. That's literally bullshit. Main import sources of uranium in France are Kzakhstan, Australia, and Canada. Please stop spouting Russian and/or Greenpeace propaganda.
natmaka 4y ago
Poland announced in 2014 that it will build a reactor and start it in 2022. Nothing ensued. What Poland really does now is quite different: https://notesfrompoland.com/2023/02/03/polands-second-largest-wind-farm-launched-by-firm-belonging-to-countrys-richest-woman/ https://notesfrompoland.com/2023/02/03/polands-second-larges...
belorn 4y ago
I hope you understand how your comment can easily interpreted like fossil fuel advocacy. Trying to split hair over coal vs natural gas is just a distraction when the issue should be to ban fossil fuels. As a EU ban it would cover both Poland and Germany, and a bunch of other countries that current depend heavily on fossil fuel and who have very few alternatives for periods of high demand and low supply. It would be costly in the short run and require a lot of investment, but every new construction of a fossil fuel plant goes directly against the goal of zero emissions and is a plain failure to reach the global climate crisis. There is also a huge loss of public trust when green party politicians are advocating to keep subsidizing fossil fuel plants. If environmentalist want to keep oil and natural gas plants, then how will the public be convinced of climate change? The strategy need to be clear and fossil fuel free, and if that solution is wind, solar and storage then that plan need to be up front and part of the budget discussions. It should not be the argument from environmentalists that we should be using natural gas because it happen to be cheaper that nuclear.
- cinntaile 4y ago
  > It would be costly in the short run and require a lot of investment It seems like you already know why it's not realistic. Fossil fuels fulfill the role of a marginal power source very well, neither renewables nor nuclear can replace that role as of yet. There are still plenty of issues that need to be solved towards electrification, lets not make it unrealistically difficult for ourselves.
  - belorn 4y ago
    With the goal of keeping the grid as cheap as possible it is indeed unrealistic to care about global warming or the environment. The only thing that matter is to use what ever technology is cheapest at any given job at any given location, and especially focusing on fast returns on investments and political policies that can provide windfall during a single election cycle. It is however not a policy I would advocate or vote for. I rather oppose fossil fuels especially when they are being subsidized through taxes. Europe can also not really handle an other winter, especially if the weather would not be exceptional mild. Bailouts can only be paid so many times before it becomes unrealistic.

by pydry 4y ago

sofixa 4y ago

> The fact that Germany decarbonised so much, so fast and so cheaply and without nuclear power appears to have made a lot of people very angry. Decarbonised? They still have the worst CO2/KWh in Western Europe, and among the worst in Europe: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electricity?region=Europe https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electric... After literally decades of massive renewables investments and subsidies.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
Alright, now do it again but this time assign the coal to the countries importing the electricity rather than where it is burnt and include the actual GWP of gas (ie. around the same as coal) and include the actual GWP of France's nuclear fuel which mostly comes from a low yield open pit mine in niger.
- shakow 4y ago
  > which mostly comes from a low yield open pit mine in niger. That's literally bullshit. Main import sources of uranium in France are Kzakhstan, Australia, and Canada. Please stop spouting Russian and/or Greenpeace propaganda.

natmaka 4y ago

Poland announced in 2014 that it will build a reactor and start it in 2022. Nothing ensued. What Poland really does now is quite different: https://notesfrompoland.com/2023/02/03/polands-second-largest-wind-farm-launched-by-firm-belonging-to-countrys-richest-woman/ https://notesfrompoland.com/2023/02/03/polands-second-larges...

belorn 4y ago

I hope you understand how your comment can easily interpreted like fossil fuel advocacy. Trying to split hair over coal vs natural gas is just a distraction when the issue should be to ban fossil fuels. As a EU ban it would cover both Poland and Germany, and a bunch of other countries that current depend heavily on fossil fuel and who have very few alternatives for periods of high demand and low supply. It would be costly in the short run and require a lot of investment, but every new construction of a fossil fuel plant goes directly against the goal of zero emissions and is a plain failure to reach the global climate crisis. There is also a huge loss of public trust when green party politicians are advocating to keep subsidizing fossil fuel plants. If environmentalist want to keep oil and natural gas plants, then how will the public be convinced of climate change? The strategy need to be clear and fossil fuel free, and if that solution is wind, solar and storage then that plan need to be up front and part of the budget discussions. It should not be the argument from environmentalists that we should be using natural gas because it happen to be cheaper that nuclear.

cinntaile 4y ago
> It would be costly in the short run and require a lot of investment It seems like you already know why it's not realistic. Fossil fuels fulfill the role of a marginal power source very well, neither renewables nor nuclear can replace that role as of yet. There are still plenty of issues that need to be solved towards electrification, lets not make it unrealistically difficult for ourselves.
- belorn 4y ago
  With the goal of keeping the grid as cheap as possible it is indeed unrealistic to care about global warming or the environment. The only thing that matter is to use what ever technology is cheapest at any given job at any given location, and especially focusing on fast returns on investments and political policies that can provide windfall during a single election cycle. It is however not a policy I would advocate or vote for. I rather oppose fossil fuels especially when they are being subsidized through taxes. Europe can also not really handle an other winter, especially if the weather would not be exceptional mild. Bailouts can only be paid so many times before it becomes unrealistic.