4 ms·

23% coal, 28.2% less than last year. Renewable energy is hugely increasing world wide.

by lispm 2y ago

Herz 2y ago
It would be even less and even faster decline of coal with nuclear But for Germany the priorities were other than decarbonization.
- lispm 2y ago
  But then we would have to deal with expensive and problematic nuclear. It's much more efficient to scale renewable energy, then deploy old technology like current nuclear powerplants, which are extremely costly with lots of unsolved problems. If you look at the countries which deploy nuclear, they have/use mostly government run industries. That's not our goal. Germany also has no nuclear weapons, where other countries use their nuclear industry to have that option.
  - Herz 2y ago
    The cost of nuclear energy is reflected in the electricity bill, not the initial investment. If you look at countries like France or Finland, the cost is very low. And in Finland, it's not "old technology." In contrast, German bills, heavily reliant on renewables, are among the highest and most unstable in Europe. > "unsolved problems" Do you mean the intermittency of renewables? > they have/use mostly government run industries. I don't think in French nuclear is mostly used for gov industries. So I dont understand this point. It's amusing how your arguments against nuclear are purely ideological and filled with intellectual dishonesty. I don't understand your connection between nuclear weapons and nuclear energy.
    - lispm 2y ago
      > I don't think in French nuclear is mostly used for gov industries. It is OWNED by the French state. The French government rescued its nuclear industry from bankruptcy. > It's amusing how your arguments against nuclear are purely ideological and filled with intellectual dishonesty. Personal attacks don't support your point of view. I'm out.
      - Herz 2y ago
        > It is OWNED by the French state. The French government rescued its nuclear industry from bankruptcy. Okok, your statement wasn't clear to me. Sure, it's definitely true what you say, but what exactly is your point? What are you trying to prove or say with "French nuclear is mostly used for gov industries"?
        lispm 2y ago
        I said "If you look at the countries which deploy nuclear, they have/use mostly government run industries." The nuclear industry in these countries is mostly owned and fullydirected by the government: electricity providers and companies selling&building nuclear powerplants. Nuclear power is especially strong when central governments direct & pay for the the industry, which is far from a free market. China: authoritarian dictatorship with centrally planned economy. France: government owned. Japan: government directed, TEPCO rescued by the government. Nuclear: big government. Centralized. State-owned monopolies. Renewable energy: lots of energy producers, strong local ownership, distributed industry, distributed grid, markets for energy, ...
        Herz 2y ago
        I understand your perspective, but it's important to address some misconceptions. Firstly, the notion that the nuclear industry is predominantly government-owned and directed is somewhat outdated. While it's true that historically, many countries relied on state-run entities for nuclear power, the landscape is changing. Countries like the United States have a mix of private and public involvement in their nuclear sectors, with significant contributions from private companies. Secondly, the argument that renewable energy operates within a "free market" is misleading. Renewable energy industries, especially solar and wind, receive substantial government subsidies globally. In 2021 alone, global renewable energy subsidies exceeded $120 billion, highlighting that renewables are not thriving purely on market dynamics. Moreover, the renewable sector is heavily influenced by government policies, incentives, and international competition, particularly from countries like China, which dominates the solar panel market through state-supported enterprises. The claim that renewables foster "local ownership" and "distributed industry" oversimplifies the reality. While small-scale renewable projects do exist, the production of critical components, such as solar panels and wind turbines, is concentrated in the hands of a few major players, often backed by significant government support. This centralization can lead to market distortions and dependencies, similar to those seen in the nuclear sector. Lastly, suggesting that support for nuclear power equates to endorsing "big government" overlooks the complexity of energy policy. Effective energy infrastructure, whether nuclear or renewable, requires substantial investment and regulation to ensure safety, reliability, and sustainability. Both sectors depend on a combination of public and private investment and face significant challenges that require coordinated efforts beyond simplistic free-market solutions. In summary, both nuclear and renewable energy sectors involve significant government intervention and investment. The debate should focus on how best to balance these investments to achieve a sustainable and reliable energy future, rather than framing it as a binary choice between free markets and government control. https://www.statista.com/chart/24687/solar-panel-global-market-shares-by-production-steps/ https://www.statista.com/chart/24687/solar-panel-global-mark... https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2023/08/china-leads-race-bottom-deep-sea-mining-critical-minerals/ https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2023/08/china-leads-race-bot...
  - Moldoteck 2y ago
    nuclear doesn't have unsolved problems. It's only problem is the cost. We already know how to operate the plants, how to safely store the waste or reprocess it to reuse multiple times, how to solidify the waste - all of this is already known, the question is if govt's want to spend the money now for this infra to get the prices down in the future and reduce the build times like China did
    - Herz 2y ago
      I would also add that all these solutions are financed in the bill. Once a panel or blade reaches the end of its life, it is no one's responsibility to have to recycle it. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turb... Nuclear power is the only source that solves all the "problems" on the bill.
      - Moldoteck 2y ago
        Reprocessing and vitrification are certainly not financed in the bill since these require separate infra and nuclear pp can operate without them. Usually the waste is going through several stages of cooling and stored underground 'till reprocessing is possible/economically profitable'
  - palata 2y ago
    This is upside down. Nuclear energy has pretty much nothing to do with nuclear weapons, and is pretty much solved. Also it's not "old" technology (there are new designs like the 4th gen that we actually need). Scaling renewable energy is an open problem: it has never been done. It's easy to say that "renewables doubled last year" when they go from "marginal" to "still marginal". Renewable energy is intermittent, and that is completely unsolved between seasons.
    - lispm 2y ago
      > Nuclear energy has pretty much nothing to do with nuclear weapons That's not true. For example Japan has Plutonium for several thousand nuclear weapons, where the Plutonium comes from reprocessing of fuel of Nuclear Power Plants. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2018-10/features/japans-misguided-plutonium-policy https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2018-10/features/japans-misg... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency Take Iran, which was hiding their nuclear weapons program behind a nuclear energy program. -> "Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful,[58] and had then enriched uranium to less than 5 percent, consistent with fuel for a civilian nuclear power plant." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran > It's easy to say that "renewables doubled last year" when they go from "marginal" to "still marginal" 60% electricity from renewable for Germany is far from marginal.
      - palata 2y ago
        > where the Plutonium comes from reprocessing of fuel of Nuclear Power Plants. With this logic, the Raspberry Pi foundation is involved in producing F35 fighter jets, because there is electronics in the F35. > Take Iran, which was hiding their nuclear weapons program behind a nuclear energy program As you say, there was a "weapons program" hidden there. It's not like a power plant reactor gives you the weapon technology magically. > 60% electricity from renewable for Germany All year? What happens when there is no wind and no sun? > is far from marginal. Electricity accounts for like 20% of the energy. So it's 60% of 20% = 12% and that's when there is wind and sun.
  - belorn 2y ago
    Germany has plans to stop sales of new combustion engine cars after 2035. Significantly, they do not have similar goals for new fossil fueled power plants. If they could just scale renewable energy then they would issue such plans, but they can't. There is no end-date for fossil fueled power plants, and plans for new ones are being built right now with operational times lasting long after 2035. German even pushed through a EU deceleration of making natural gas "green" in order to be able to continue invest and build more natural gas powered power plants. Germany is Europe's largest advocate for renewable power and natural gas with clear intention to continue supporting both for a very long time.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
Moldoteck 2y ago
and manufacturing industry much less too sadly(

23% coal, 28.2% less than last year. Renewable energy is hugely increasing world wide.

by lispm 2y ago

23% coal, 28.2% less than last year. Renewable energy is hugely increasing world wide.

Herz 2y ago

It would be even less and even faster decline of coal with nuclear But for Germany the priorities were other than decarbonization.

lispm 2y ago
But then we would have to deal with expensive and problematic nuclear. It's much more efficient to scale renewable energy, then deploy old technology like current nuclear powerplants, which are extremely costly with lots of unsolved problems. If you look at the countries which deploy nuclear, they have/use mostly government run industries. That's not our goal. Germany also has no nuclear weapons, where other countries use their nuclear industry to have that option.
- Herz 2y ago
  The cost of nuclear energy is reflected in the electricity bill, not the initial investment. If you look at countries like France or Finland, the cost is very low. And in Finland, it's not "old technology." In contrast, German bills, heavily reliant on renewables, are among the highest and most unstable in Europe. > "unsolved problems" Do you mean the intermittency of renewables? > they have/use mostly government run industries. I don't think in French nuclear is mostly used for gov industries. So I dont understand this point. It's amusing how your arguments against nuclear are purely ideological and filled with intellectual dishonesty. I don't understand your connection between nuclear weapons and nuclear energy.
  - lispm 2y ago
    > I don't think in French nuclear is mostly used for gov industries. It is OWNED by the French state. The French government rescued its nuclear industry from bankruptcy. > It's amusing how your arguments against nuclear are purely ideological and filled with intellectual dishonesty. Personal attacks don't support your point of view. I'm out.
    - Herz 2y ago
      > It is OWNED by the French state. The French government rescued its nuclear industry from bankruptcy. Okok, your statement wasn't clear to me. Sure, it's definitely true what you say, but what exactly is your point? What are you trying to prove or say with "French nuclear is mostly used for gov industries"?
      - lispm 2y ago
        I said "If you look at the countries which deploy nuclear, they have/use mostly government run industries." The nuclear industry in these countries is mostly owned and fullydirected by the government: electricity providers and companies selling&building nuclear powerplants. Nuclear power is especially strong when central governments direct & pay for the the industry, which is far from a free market. China: authoritarian dictatorship with centrally planned economy. France: government owned. Japan: government directed, TEPCO rescued by the government. Nuclear: big government. Centralized. State-owned monopolies. Renewable energy: lots of energy producers, strong local ownership, distributed industry, distributed grid, markets for energy, ...
        Herz 2y ago
        I understand your perspective, but it's important to address some misconceptions. Firstly, the notion that the nuclear industry is predominantly government-owned and directed is somewhat outdated. While it's true that historically, many countries relied on state-run entities for nuclear power, the landscape is changing. Countries like the United States have a mix of private and public involvement in their nuclear sectors, with significant contributions from private companies. Secondly, the argument that renewable energy operates within a "free market" is misleading. Renewable energy industries, especially solar and wind, receive substantial government subsidies globally. In 2021 alone, global renewable energy subsidies exceeded $120 billion, highlighting that renewables are not thriving purely on market dynamics. Moreover, the renewable sector is heavily influenced by government policies, incentives, and international competition, particularly from countries like China, which dominates the solar panel market through state-supported enterprises. The claim that renewables foster "local ownership" and "distributed industry" oversimplifies the reality. While small-scale renewable projects do exist, the production of critical components, such as solar panels and wind turbines, is concentrated in the hands of a few major players, often backed by significant government support. This centralization can lead to market distortions and dependencies, similar to those seen in the nuclear sector. Lastly, suggesting that support for nuclear power equates to endorsing "big government" overlooks the complexity of energy policy. Effective energy infrastructure, whether nuclear or renewable, requires substantial investment and regulation to ensure safety, reliability, and sustainability. Both sectors depend on a combination of public and private investment and face significant challenges that require coordinated efforts beyond simplistic free-market solutions. In summary, both nuclear and renewable energy sectors involve significant government intervention and investment. The debate should focus on how best to balance these investments to achieve a sustainable and reliable energy future, rather than framing it as a binary choice between free markets and government control. https://www.statista.com/chart/24687/solar-panel-global-market-shares-by-production-steps/ https://www.statista.com/chart/24687/solar-panel-global-mark... https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2023/08/china-leads-race-bottom-deep-sea-mining-critical-minerals/ https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2023/08/china-leads-race-bot...
- Moldoteck 2y ago
  nuclear doesn't have unsolved problems. It's only problem is the cost. We already know how to operate the plants, how to safely store the waste or reprocess it to reuse multiple times, how to solidify the waste - all of this is already known, the question is if govt's want to spend the money now for this infra to get the prices down in the future and reduce the build times like China did
  - Herz 2y ago
    I would also add that all these solutions are financed in the bill. Once a panel or blade reaches the end of its life, it is no one's responsibility to have to recycle it. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turb... Nuclear power is the only source that solves all the "problems" on the bill.
    - Moldoteck 2y ago
      Reprocessing and vitrification are certainly not financed in the bill since these require separate infra and nuclear pp can operate without them. Usually the waste is going through several stages of cooling and stored underground 'till reprocessing is possible/economically profitable'
- palata 2y ago
  This is upside down. Nuclear energy has pretty much nothing to do with nuclear weapons, and is pretty much solved. Also it's not "old" technology (there are new designs like the 4th gen that we actually need). Scaling renewable energy is an open problem: it has never been done. It's easy to say that "renewables doubled last year" when they go from "marginal" to "still marginal". Renewable energy is intermittent, and that is completely unsolved between seasons.
  - lispm 2y ago
    > Nuclear energy has pretty much nothing to do with nuclear weapons That's not true. For example Japan has Plutonium for several thousand nuclear weapons, where the Plutonium comes from reprocessing of fuel of Nuclear Power Plants. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2018-10/features/japans-misguided-plutonium-policy https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2018-10/features/japans-misg... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency Take Iran, which was hiding their nuclear weapons program behind a nuclear energy program. -> "Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful,[58] and had then enriched uranium to less than 5 percent, consistent with fuel for a civilian nuclear power plant." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran > It's easy to say that "renewables doubled last year" when they go from "marginal" to "still marginal" 60% electricity from renewable for Germany is far from marginal.
    - palata 2y ago
      > where the Plutonium comes from reprocessing of fuel of Nuclear Power Plants. With this logic, the Raspberry Pi foundation is involved in producing F35 fighter jets, because there is electronics in the F35. > Take Iran, which was hiding their nuclear weapons program behind a nuclear energy program As you say, there was a "weapons program" hidden there. It's not like a power plant reactor gives you the weapon technology magically. > 60% electricity from renewable for Germany All year? What happens when there is no wind and no sun? > is far from marginal. Electricity accounts for like 20% of the energy. So it's 60% of 20% = 12% and that's when there is wind and sun.
- belorn 2y ago
  Germany has plans to stop sales of new combustion engine cars after 2035. Significantly, they do not have similar goals for new fossil fueled power plants. If they could just scale renewable energy then they would issue such plans, but they can't. There is no end-date for fossil fueled power plants, and plans for new ones are being built right now with operational times lasting long after 2035. German even pushed through a EU deceleration of making natural gas "green" in order to be able to continue invest and build more natural gas powered power plants. Germany is Europe's largest advocate for renewable power and natural gas with clear intention to continue supporting both for a very long time.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Moldoteck 2y ago

and manufacturing industry much less too sadly(