4 ms·

> Yep. I know that one. It misses a crucial requirement: tons of coke and LSD needed to drug the lawmakers to let it pass. The price tag for the _lowest_ estima

by tfourb 2y ago

> Yep. I know that one. It misses a crucial requirement: tons of coke and LSD needed to drug the lawmakers to let it pass. The price tag for the _lowest_ estimate is around $1T. You write this in the same week that German lawmakers actually passed almost $1 Trillion in new debt allowances for infrastructure and defense. > Yep. I know that one. And you conveniently ignore the dozens of other that have been published since and came to the same conclusion: a transition to renewable energy is possible and the cheaper option. > And yet, Germany is planning to rely on fossil natgas until at least 2040-s. Yes, to a constantly decreasing amount. That is the point of a "transition".

cyberax 2y ago
> You write this in the same week that German lawmakers actually passed almost $1 Trillion in new debt allowances for infrastructure and defense. Well, yes. I'm honestly surprised it passed. I guess a shadow of a new war can make even the German bureaucracy move. > And you conveniently ignore the dozens of other that have been published since and came to the same conclusion: a transition to renewable energy is possible and the cheaper option. Your own links provide $1T as the _lowest_ option. More realistic options are more expensive. And ALL of them require the development of new technologies, which is inherently risky. Nuclear is literally cheaper, even if we assume no savings from large-scale production. But it's not being considered, because Greenpeace wants Germany to use coal and gas. > Yes, to a constantly decreasing amount. That is the point of a "transition". And that's the point. The transition could have been already over, if Germany had chosen nuclear in 2000-s.
- tfourb 2y ago
  > Nuclear is literally cheaper, even if we assume no savings from large-scale production This is blatantly false. Even the cheapest conceivable nuclear (which is not realistic in Germany) is more expensive than any form of solar and wind: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/publications/studies/EN2024_ISE_Study_Levelized_Cost_of_Electricity_Renewable_Energy_Technologies.pdf https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/p... > The transition could have been already over, if Germany had chosen nuclear in 2000-s. The finish reactor OL3 came in at 11 billion Euros and produces up to 13 twh/year. Germany currently consumes 500 twh/year. So we'd have had to build close to 40 reactors at a cost of more than 400 Billion Euros to satisfy today's demand. By 2050, Germany's electricity demand will be around 2,000 twh/year. For that we'd have to build more than 150 OL3s at a cost of 1.7 Trillion Euros. How's that cheaper than 1 Trillion Euro for renewables and batteries? At the same time, renewables already provide more than 50% of electricity today and could have provided more, if the Merkel administration had not been actively hostile towards their buildout. And again: per kwh produced, any form of new solar and wind (yes, even including in combination with chemical batteries) is cheaper than new nuclear. There are certainly some (very) niche use cases where you can make the case for nuclear. Grid-wide baseload at competitive prices in a country like Germany is not one of them.

by tfourb 2y ago

cyberax 2y ago

> You write this in the same week that German lawmakers actually passed almost $1 Trillion in new debt allowances for infrastructure and defense. Well, yes. I'm honestly surprised it passed. I guess a shadow of a new war can make even the German bureaucracy move. > And you conveniently ignore the dozens of other that have been published since and came to the same conclusion: a transition to renewable energy is possible and the cheaper option. Your own links provide $1T as the _lowest_ option. More realistic options are more expensive. And ALL of them require the development of new technologies, which is inherently risky. Nuclear is literally cheaper, even if we assume no savings from large-scale production. But it's not being considered, because Greenpeace wants Germany to use coal and gas. > Yes, to a constantly decreasing amount. That is the point of a "transition". And that's the point. The transition could have been already over, if Germany had chosen nuclear in 2000-s.

tfourb 2y ago
> Nuclear is literally cheaper, even if we assume no savings from large-scale production This is blatantly false. Even the cheapest conceivable nuclear (which is not realistic in Germany) is more expensive than any form of solar and wind: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/publications/studies/EN2024_ISE_Study_Levelized_Cost_of_Electricity_Renewable_Energy_Technologies.pdf https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/p... > The transition could have been already over, if Germany had chosen nuclear in 2000-s. The finish reactor OL3 came in at 11 billion Euros and produces up to 13 twh/year. Germany currently consumes 500 twh/year. So we'd have had to build close to 40 reactors at a cost of more than 400 Billion Euros to satisfy today's demand. By 2050, Germany's electricity demand will be around 2,000 twh/year. For that we'd have to build more than 150 OL3s at a cost of 1.7 Trillion Euros. How's that cheaper than 1 Trillion Euro for renewables and batteries? At the same time, renewables already provide more than 50% of electricity today and could have provided more, if the Merkel administration had not been actively hostile towards their buildout. And again: per kwh produced, any form of new solar and wind (yes, even including in combination with chemical batteries) is cheaper than new nuclear. There are certainly some (very) niche use cases where you can make the case for nuclear. Grid-wide baseload at competitive prices in a country like Germany is not one of them.