3 ms·

Like I said, people more credible than you have made claims it's possible. Whether or not it's true is a matter of debate, or in the end the proof is in the pud

Like I said, people more credible than you have made claims it's possible. Whether or not it's true is a matter of debate, or in the end the proof is in the pudding. That something is not possible, what you're saying is just not the case. You also have a misconception of things that exist and don't exist. Germany does not run coal and gas plants full speed in the winter. Wind energy ticked over coal for the first quarter of 2023 [1]. Even if it did, Poland is currently backing up their nuclear with 100% coal, in the winter and summer, for the next 10 years at least. It will continue to pump co2 into the atmosphere and do as much damage as Germany will do for the next ~30 years, if Germany's coal use does not go down. But it will go down, it's on pace to reach 80% renewables in 2030. Poland is on pace to reach 30% coal in 2040. The damage done by spending money on nuclear first can never be recovered from. It might even be too late for the world by then. Think about that. The world will deploy 400GW of solar this year alone, and the growth will not decelerate any time soon. That is about 60 1GW reactors worth of electricity. Talk really is cheap. [1] https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2023/06/PD23_220_43312.html https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2023/06...

realusername 3y ago
> Like I said, people more credible than you have made claims it's possible. Whether or not it's true is a matter of debate, or in the end the proof is in the pudding. That something is not possible, what you're saying is just not the case. You also have a misconception of things that exist and don't exist. Exactly, the proof is in the pudding and right now well, it's not there. Those magic storage solution don't exist, not even in theory. > Germany does not run coal and gas plants full speed in the winter. Wind energy ticked over coal for the first quarter of 2023 [1]. https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/news/2022/public-net-electricity-in-germany-in-2021-renewables-weaker-due-to-weather.html https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/news/2022/publi... Germany went from 300TWh of fossil fuel production to 200TWh of fossil fuel production which is only a third of the way there. This relatively small decrease has costed around 2x the French nuclear plants in its totality already and took 15 years. Let's just say that the numbers aren't great. And ironically, that's just the start of their problems, since the new renewables have a pretty low durability, they are 0% of the way of their 2050 goals. Everything they installed already will have to be reinstalled again, they will understand the meaning of an exponential curve pretty soon. What they spent is chump change compared to what's coming ahead. There's a reason they are pushing so hard for dodgy financing in the EU, they see themselves the curve ahead. To add even more to this bleak results, they only have 5% electricity heating whereas it's 40% in neighboring France. If they really wanted to catch this up, they would have to make the exponential curve even steeper. > The world will deploy 400GW of solar this year alone, and the growth will not decelerate any time soon. That is about 60 1GW reactors worth of electricity. Talk really is cheap. Well no that isn't because those panels require dirty backups and will only last 1/4 of the lifetime of the plant and I'm being generous. Not to mention the issue of China being close to the single producer, see what happened with Russia, maybe we should learn lessons from the past. Talk is cheap indeed, the results just aren't there. > The damage done by spending money on nuclear first can never be recovered from The damage one by spending money on renewables can never be recovered, the country is then locked to fossil fuels to smooth out the load. Fossil fuels and renewables are two sides of the same coin and go together. That's the reason why all the major gas producers are onto it, it's the same story everywhere.
- locallost 3y ago
  Those numbers are great because when Germany started the costs for renewables were astronomic. Even in 2012 when Germany deployed a then unthinkable 10GW+ of solar it was probably the most expensive electricity source. But now it is the cheapest -- and fastest way to deploy clean energy. So in that case, what lock in? If you decarbonize a lot more a lot faster, you will have more money to spend on nuclear. Lock in happens with nuclear first -- by the time you're done you're broke, didn't accomplish as much and it's anyway too late. That's rational only if you're really bad with numbers. The renewables industry is on an astronomic trajectory. From zero to saving the world, and it will succeed where nuclear has failed for 70 years. Precisely the reason why fossil fuels and nuclear are two sides of the same coin: highly dependant on lobbying and corruption. Nuclear failed even before carbon emissions were an issue and this green relabeling is its last lifeline. But because it already failed, it won't suddenly miraculously succeed. All of the former climate deniers are now on the nuclear bandwagon because they know this will buy the most time for fossil fuels. Here is one: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/09/renewable-energy-nuclear-power-green-net-zero-chernobyl/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/09/renewable-energy... I am an engineer he says, nuclear is the only option. Ten years ago he was a high member of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition that sued the government to prevent it from claiming climate change is dangerous. Nuclear requires dirty backup during construction which is always very long. I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand. It's doubtful if it can ever make up for that delay between deploying renewables and nuclear. So it's a net negative.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - realusername 3y ago
    > So in that case, what lock in? The lock in to fossil fuel in Germany and other renewable heavy countries is pretty clear and nobody can deny that. The Russian war was a slap in that fossil fuel oriented strategy, it's time to learn some lessons about past failures. > The renewables industry is on an astronomic trajectory. From zero to saving the world, and it will succeed where nuclear has failed for 70 years. Precisely the reason why fossil fuels and nuclear are two sides of the same coin: highly dependant on lobbying and corruption. Haha, may I remind you what happened in Germany and France? The Russian government financed renewable lobbying to keep the dependency on the Russian gas, and unfortunately for us, that worked. Even Greenpeace themselves sold Russian gas as part of their renewable strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Planet_Energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Planet_Energy. > But because it already failed, it won't suddenly miraculously succeed. Germany's renewable strategy failed multiple times already, and every time it fails, they double down financially. We're pretty deep into sunken cost fallacy and I hope other countries aren't stupid enough to follow them in the hole they dug themselves in. Last time they even wanted to build some new gas pipeline covering southern Europe (but it's only temporarily transporting gas, we swear again), that's what the lock-in of renewable does. https://www.offshore-technology.com/news/germany-italy-support-gas-pipeline/?cf-view https://www.offshore-technology.com/news/germany-italy-suppo... > Nuclear requires dirty backup during construction which is always very long. And renewable require dirty backups as long as they exist, easy to see why it's worse and why gas producers are pushing for it instead of nuclear plants.

realusername 3y ago

> Like I said, people more credible than you have made claims it's possible. Whether or not it's true is a matter of debate, or in the end the proof is in the pudding. That something is not possible, what you're saying is just not the case. You also have a misconception of things that exist and don't exist. Exactly, the proof is in the pudding and right now well, it's not there. Those magic storage solution don't exist, not even in theory. > Germany does not run coal and gas plants full speed in the winter. Wind energy ticked over coal for the first quarter of 2023 [1]. https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/news/2022/public-net-electricity-in-germany-in-2021-renewables-weaker-due-to-weather.html https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/news/2022/publi... Germany went from 300TWh of fossil fuel production to 200TWh of fossil fuel production which is only a third of the way there. This relatively small decrease has costed around 2x the French nuclear plants in its totality already and took 15 years. Let's just say that the numbers aren't great. And ironically, that's just the start of their problems, since the new renewables have a pretty low durability, they are 0% of the way of their 2050 goals. Everything they installed already will have to be reinstalled again, they will understand the meaning of an exponential curve pretty soon. What they spent is chump change compared to what's coming ahead. There's a reason they are pushing so hard for dodgy financing in the EU, they see themselves the curve ahead. To add even more to this bleak results, they only have 5% electricity heating whereas it's 40% in neighboring France. If they really wanted to catch this up, they would have to make the exponential curve even steeper. > The world will deploy 400GW of solar this year alone, and the growth will not decelerate any time soon. That is about 60 1GW reactors worth of electricity. Talk really is cheap. Well no that isn't because those panels require dirty backups and will only last 1/4 of the lifetime of the plant and I'm being generous. Not to mention the issue of China being close to the single producer, see what happened with Russia, maybe we should learn lessons from the past. Talk is cheap indeed, the results just aren't there. > The damage done by spending money on nuclear first can never be recovered from The damage one by spending money on renewables can never be recovered, the country is then locked to fossil fuels to smooth out the load. Fossil fuels and renewables are two sides of the same coin and go together. That's the reason why all the major gas producers are onto it, it's the same story everywhere.

locallost 3y ago
Those numbers are great because when Germany started the costs for renewables were astronomic. Even in 2012 when Germany deployed a then unthinkable 10GW+ of solar it was probably the most expensive electricity source. But now it is the cheapest -- and fastest way to deploy clean energy. So in that case, what lock in? If you decarbonize a lot more a lot faster, you will have more money to spend on nuclear. Lock in happens with nuclear first -- by the time you're done you're broke, didn't accomplish as much and it's anyway too late. That's rational only if you're really bad with numbers. The renewables industry is on an astronomic trajectory. From zero to saving the world, and it will succeed where nuclear has failed for 70 years. Precisely the reason why fossil fuels and nuclear are two sides of the same coin: highly dependant on lobbying and corruption. Nuclear failed even before carbon emissions were an issue and this green relabeling is its last lifeline. But because it already failed, it won't suddenly miraculously succeed. All of the former climate deniers are now on the nuclear bandwagon because they know this will buy the most time for fossil fuels. Here is one: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/09/renewable-energy-nuclear-power-green-net-zero-chernobyl/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/09/renewable-energy... I am an engineer he says, nuclear is the only option. Ten years ago he was a high member of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition that sued the government to prevent it from claiming climate change is dangerous. Nuclear requires dirty backup during construction which is always very long. I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand. It's doubtful if it can ever make up for that delay between deploying renewables and nuclear. So it's a net negative.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- realusername 3y ago
  > So in that case, what lock in? The lock in to fossil fuel in Germany and other renewable heavy countries is pretty clear and nobody can deny that. The Russian war was a slap in that fossil fuel oriented strategy, it's time to learn some lessons about past failures. > The renewables industry is on an astronomic trajectory. From zero to saving the world, and it will succeed where nuclear has failed for 70 years. Precisely the reason why fossil fuels and nuclear are two sides of the same coin: highly dependant on lobbying and corruption. Haha, may I remind you what happened in Germany and France? The Russian government financed renewable lobbying to keep the dependency on the Russian gas, and unfortunately for us, that worked. Even Greenpeace themselves sold Russian gas as part of their renewable strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Planet_Energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Planet_Energy. > But because it already failed, it won't suddenly miraculously succeed. Germany's renewable strategy failed multiple times already, and every time it fails, they double down financially. We're pretty deep into sunken cost fallacy and I hope other countries aren't stupid enough to follow them in the hole they dug themselves in. Last time they even wanted to build some new gas pipeline covering southern Europe (but it's only temporarily transporting gas, we swear again), that's what the lock-in of renewable does. https://www.offshore-technology.com/news/germany-italy-support-gas-pipeline/?cf-view https://www.offshore-technology.com/news/germany-italy-suppo... > Nuclear requires dirty backup during construction which is always very long. And renewable require dirty backups as long as they exist, easy to see why it's worse and why gas producers are pushing for it instead of nuclear plants.