12 ms·
>Is that what you usually hear? That replacing nuclear (a lot of it) by (a lot of) renewables will actually reduce fossil fuel use in the power sector? And yet
by faeriechangling 4y ago
>Is that what you usually hear? That replacing nuclear (a lot of it) by (a lot of) renewables will actually reduce fossil fuel use in the power sector? And yet it is the main lesson here.
I don't follow the logic whatsoever.
- hannob 4y agoDoesn't matter if you follow that logic, it's what the numbers say. Maybe it becomes clearer if you look at them, e.g. chart 3 on that page: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c...
- faeriechangling 4y agoYes that's pointing out the correlation once again, but it doesn't shed any light on what I'm confused by, which is why reducing nuclear power usage would have a causative link to reducing fossil fuel usage.
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoI think the key word you missed was "replacing". Yes switching off nuclear and doing nothing else would have that effect. But that's not what they did, they pivoted to a renewable heavy grid.
- faeriechangling 4y agoIf they pivoted to a renewable heavy grid, could it not be the same governmental policies which depreciated nuclear also depreciated coal/oil? From what I can see Germany started giving governmental support to renewables in 2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Renewable_Energy_Sources_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Renewable_Energy_Source... Also renewables simply just became far more economically viable relative to nuclear/coal/oil on a technological level in that time. So to me, the more natural conclusion is "why, renewables became more economically feasible, so they pushed out all these other forms of energy" not "Take out nuclear energy - and coal/oil fall like dominos". I really don't understand the basis for the causation being drawn in the article.
- nasmorn 4y agoThe gist is that the carbon output from gas peaker plants is not that high because they don’t run that much more than under nuclear base load. Just at different times. Summer air conditioning peaks are shit on nuclear but great on solar for example.
- illiarian 4y ago> Summer air conditioning peaks are shit on nuclear They are not, of course. And I wonder who will take care of peak air conditioning on a summer night?
- faeriechangling 4y agoPresumably the other side of the planet blocking the sun's rays?
- illiarian 4y agoAh yes. And you have cables sending you power from that other side, right?
- peterfirefly 4y agoIt's also a good thing that such cables are entirely safe from being destroyed by enemies.
- narag 4y agoIf transport over big distances wasn't a problem, both technical and political, solar would be the only source we need. I've read here multiple times that a "small" solar farm in the Sahara desert would suffice to provide energy for all Europe. Even if you can solve transporting it, imagine what could happen if it's in, or the wires run through a country in civil war, like Sudan.
- _ph_ 4y agoYes, the problems with solar in Africa powering Europe are mostly political, not technical. Of course, a good intermediate step would be a big roll out of solar in all the southern EU countries. Which will undoubtedly come now that more and more countries push for renewables.