4 ms·

No we won't. There are plenty of studies on the topic. Those areas are there and already identified. Wind alone would just double to manage the Energiewende by

No we won't. There are plenty of studies on the topic. Those areas are there and already identified. Wind alone would just double to manage the Energiewende by 2050: https://www.naturschutz-energiewende.de/aktuelles/flaechenverfuegbarkeit-fuer-die-energiewende/ https://www.naturschutz-energiewende.de/aktuelles/flaechenve... I don't get your other argument. If you push for renewables instead of wasting money on over due and over budget nuclear reactors, you can create an industry at home. Create massive amounts of jobs and improve on the technology. It's already happening and those improvements are way faster than everything we've seen with nuclear in the recent decades.

illiarian 4y ago
> If you push for renewables instead of wasting money on over due and over budget nuclear reactors --- start quote --- Ernst & Young (EY) has found that an average power and utility megaproject is delivered 35% over budget and two years behind schedule Of the megaprojects surveyed, 64% were delayed and 57% were over budge. Almost three-quarters of hydropower, water, coal and nuclear infrastructure projects were over budget by 49% on average, --- end quote --- https://www.offshorewind.biz/2016/12/02/offshore-wind-projects-have-less-delays-and-cost-overruns-says-ey/ https://www.offshorewind.biz/2016/12/02/offshore-wind-projec... "Data shows the avg. 50MW PV construction project delays cost $2M. The average solar construction project is delayed by about 20% with the consequences hovering around $2M in costs." https://percepto.co/solar-construction-delays-budget-overruns-data-shows-the-avg-50mw-pv-construction-project-delays-cost-2m/ https://percepto.co/solar-construction-delays-budget-overrun...
- ben_w 4y ago
  > nuclear infrastructure projects were over budget by 49% on average, Ahem.
  - illiarian 4y ago
    Let me fix that quote for you: "Almost three-quarters of hydropower, water, coal and nuclear infrastructure projects were over budget by 49% on average,". ALL OF THEM. Not just nuclear.
    - ben_w 4y ago
      You're the one promoting nuclear as if it's better than the rest in this regard. Nuclear is… just another mega project, just like the rest. You don't get to use that quote to say everything else is more expense when it's everything including your darling.
      - illiarian 4y ago
        > You're the one promoting nuclear as if it's better than the rest in this regard. Do not ascribe words to me that I didn't say or imply > You don't get to use that quote to say everything else is more expense I literally said nothing of the kind
        ben_w 4y ago
        Even ignoring all those words you used meaning to me what I said they mean (and hence unavoidably "implying" even if you now wish to say you were misunderstood, which is totally a thing I get and have experienced in reverse): You know we can see your comments, right? https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=illiarian https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=illiarian And you've got a… distinct… writing style, so I recognised you from a few days ago before seeing your user name: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35618522 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35618522
        illiarian 4y ago
        > You know we can see your comments, right? Yes, I do. > And you've got a… distinct… writing style Ad hominem is not as good an argument as you think it is. So. This is what I actually wrote, and not what you pretend I wrote. The original statement was this: "If you push for renewables instead of wasting money on over due and over budget nuclear reactors" To which I replied: "Almost three-quarters of hydropower, water, coal and nuclear infrastructure projects were over budget by 49% on average" Which means only one thing: renewable projects are just as prone to time and buget overruns as nuclear. That is it. How you imagined what you think I wrote, I cannot even begin to comprehend.
switchbak 4y ago
So you chose to ignore his points re: the required fossil fuel inputs to create these clean renewable sources?
- ben_w 4y ago
  The world burns that much coal — which is apparently enough to make enough renewables for 50% of global electricity needs — every three months, and we don't, not even accidentally, set fire to wind turbines or solar cells at anything like that rate.

illiarian 4y ago

> If you push for renewables instead of wasting money on over due and over budget nuclear reactors --- start quote --- Ernst & Young (EY) has found that an average power and utility megaproject is delivered 35% over budget and two years behind schedule Of the megaprojects surveyed, 64% were delayed and 57% were over budge. Almost three-quarters of hydropower, water, coal and nuclear infrastructure projects were over budget by 49% on average, --- end quote --- https://www.offshorewind.biz/2016/12/02/offshore-wind-projects-have-less-delays-and-cost-overruns-says-ey/ https://www.offshorewind.biz/2016/12/02/offshore-wind-projec... "Data shows the avg. 50MW PV construction project delays cost $2M. The average solar construction project is delayed by about 20% with the consequences hovering around $2M in costs." https://percepto.co/solar-construction-delays-budget-overruns-data-shows-the-avg-50mw-pv-construction-project-delays-cost-2m/ https://percepto.co/solar-construction-delays-budget-overrun...

ben_w 4y ago
> nuclear infrastructure projects were over budget by 49% on average, Ahem.
- illiarian 4y ago
  Let me fix that quote for you: "Almost three-quarters of hydropower, water, coal and nuclear infrastructure projects were over budget by 49% on average,". ALL OF THEM. Not just nuclear.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    You're the one promoting nuclear as if it's better than the rest in this regard. Nuclear is… just another mega project, just like the rest. You don't get to use that quote to say everything else is more expense when it's everything including your darling.
    - illiarian 4y ago
      > You're the one promoting nuclear as if it's better than the rest in this regard. Do not ascribe words to me that I didn't say or imply > You don't get to use that quote to say everything else is more expense I literally said nothing of the kind
      - ben_w 4y ago
        Even ignoring all those words you used meaning to me what I said they mean (and hence unavoidably "implying" even if you now wish to say you were misunderstood, which is totally a thing I get and have experienced in reverse): You know we can see your comments, right? https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=illiarian https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=illiarian And you've got a… distinct… writing style, so I recognised you from a few days ago before seeing your user name: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35618522 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35618522
        illiarian 4y ago
        > You know we can see your comments, right? Yes, I do. > And you've got a… distinct… writing style Ad hominem is not as good an argument as you think it is. So. This is what I actually wrote, and not what you pretend I wrote. The original statement was this: "If you push for renewables instead of wasting money on over due and over budget nuclear reactors" To which I replied: "Almost three-quarters of hydropower, water, coal and nuclear infrastructure projects were over budget by 49% on average" Which means only one thing: renewable projects are just as prone to time and buget overruns as nuclear. That is it. How you imagined what you think I wrote, I cannot even begin to comprehend.

switchbak 4y ago

So you chose to ignore his points re: the required fossil fuel inputs to create these clean renewable sources?

ben_w 4y ago
The world burns that much coal — which is apparently enough to make enough renewables for 50% of global electricity needs — every three months, and we don't, not even accidentally, set fire to wind turbines or solar cells at anything like that rate.