3 ms·

Germany is in crisis because for the last two decades, it hasn't been investing in infrastructure, digitalization, education, or anything for that matter. Cheap

by V__ 2y ago

Germany is in crisis because for the last two decades, it hasn't been investing in infrastructure, digitalization, education, or anything for that matter. Cheap Russian gas just delayed the chickens coming home to roost.

mk89 2y ago
And I guess bringing renewables to 62% solves that problem? Honestly I find the goal of 100% renewables awesome. But take it easy, with Merkel we reached a very high percentage in a steady way - why not to proceed like that instead of getting crazy.... https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/klima-energie/erneuerbare-energien/erneuerbare-energien-in-zahlen https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/klima-energie/erneuerb...
- Blemoloko 2y ago
  [dead]
- panick21_ 2y ago
  There is nothing 'awesome' about 100% renewables. Renewables by itself has no value. What has value is no emissions that kill people, and no CO2. That's awesome. Renewables are at best an implementation detail.
  - mk89 2y ago
    > What has value is no emissions that kill people, and no CO2 Neither of them can be reached with coal/gas/other fossil fuels. In addition, having 100% renewables means that you have an entire society ready for it - from infra to consumers. So, no, that's for me in no way an implementation detail like "I am just swapping A with B" otherwise I am pretty damn sure we could stop everything we're doing and mount solar panels everywhere to reach 100% renewables. In principle I understand what you were trying to say, but I don't agree on the premise that they are just an implementation detail.
    - panick21_ 2y ago
      The property 'renewable' has nothing really to do with it. And its strictly speaking not even true as the sun isn't 'renewable'. The better term would be 'sustainable'. What you want is to have 'sustainable' near zero emission, near zero Co2, safe energy production. Renewables also misleading because by definition hunting wales for oil is 'renewable' but nobody would consider that 'sustainable'. So to write legislation with a narrow viewpoint of 'renewable' as the goal, rather then the goal being reducing on emission and CO2, you are shooting yourself in the foot from the jump.
      - mk89 2y ago
        This is what EU as a whole does (reduce CO2 by X% within Y years), e.g., the 2030 climate targets. However, there is a very strong correlation between reaching those targets and the broad/accepted definition of renewables. Again, I understand you're trying to be more precise and all that, but in the broader language the connection is "renewables = reduction of CO2 in a sustainable way with solar panels, wind, etc etc". EDIT: ok, I forgot, there would be the nuclear energy as well to reduce CO2, which is not really renewable (although most of it can be recycled it seems). You were right. I would still prefer 100% renewable (and have no burning fuels at all) but I would be happy to have a mix of renewable and nuclear to reduce emissions and still keep companies up and running (=cheap electricity).
- V__ 2y ago
  No of course it won't solve the problem. This is a multi-faceted problem which will require significant investments into multiple areas to overcome. Which looking at current pooling seems unlikely to happen in the next few years.

by V__ 2y ago

mk89 2y ago

And I guess bringing renewables to 62% solves that problem? Honestly I find the goal of 100% renewables awesome. But take it easy, with Merkel we reached a very high percentage in a steady way - why not to proceed like that instead of getting crazy.... https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/klima-energie/erneuerbare-energien/erneuerbare-energien-in-zahlen https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/klima-energie/erneuerb...

Blemoloko 2y ago
[dead]
panick21_ 2y ago
There is nothing 'awesome' about 100% renewables. Renewables by itself has no value. What has value is no emissions that kill people, and no CO2. That's awesome. Renewables are at best an implementation detail.
- mk89 2y ago
  > What has value is no emissions that kill people, and no CO2 Neither of them can be reached with coal/gas/other fossil fuels. In addition, having 100% renewables means that you have an entire society ready for it - from infra to consumers. So, no, that's for me in no way an implementation detail like "I am just swapping A with B" otherwise I am pretty damn sure we could stop everything we're doing and mount solar panels everywhere to reach 100% renewables. In principle I understand what you were trying to say, but I don't agree on the premise that they are just an implementation detail.
  - panick21_ 2y ago
    The property 'renewable' has nothing really to do with it. And its strictly speaking not even true as the sun isn't 'renewable'. The better term would be 'sustainable'. What you want is to have 'sustainable' near zero emission, near zero Co2, safe energy production. Renewables also misleading because by definition hunting wales for oil is 'renewable' but nobody would consider that 'sustainable'. So to write legislation with a narrow viewpoint of 'renewable' as the goal, rather then the goal being reducing on emission and CO2, you are shooting yourself in the foot from the jump.
    - mk89 2y ago
      This is what EU as a whole does (reduce CO2 by X% within Y years), e.g., the 2030 climate targets. However, there is a very strong correlation between reaching those targets and the broad/accepted definition of renewables. Again, I understand you're trying to be more precise and all that, but in the broader language the connection is "renewables = reduction of CO2 in a sustainable way with solar panels, wind, etc etc". EDIT: ok, I forgot, there would be the nuclear energy as well to reduce CO2, which is not really renewable (although most of it can be recycled it seems). You were right. I would still prefer 100% renewable (and have no burning fuels at all) but I would be happy to have a mix of renewable and nuclear to reduce emissions and still keep companies up and running (=cheap electricity).
V__ 2y ago
No of course it won't solve the problem. This is a multi-faceted problem which will require significant investments into multiple areas to overcome. Which looking at current pooling seems unlikely to happen in the next few years.