4 ms·

> Here a summary of the regional effects in, er, all parts of the world Have you read the summary? (Or even the IEA link I posted?) Because the shock in every

> Here a summary of the regional effects in, er, all parts of the world Have you read the summary? (Or even the IEA link I posted?) Because the shock in every single one of those countries was because of fossil fuel prices/shortages or climate change, not renewables. > In fact, blades currently cannot be recycled, whereas the largest part by mass, the base, could be but routinely is not. Hence the bad faith arguments and misinformation. Suddenly there’s all this care about lack of recyclability when it comes to clean energy, but not a care in the world about the pollution put into the air by fossil fuels. Or the coal ash from coal plants. Or electronic waste. Or municipal waste. Of course there are no such concerns since this isn’t a serious argument. It’s put forth by people who already have their conclusions (renewables bad) and are looking for any reason to believe this. Wind and solar produce a fraction of the amount of waste that fossil fuel sources produce per unit of energy created, and produce a minuscule amount of waste in absolute terms. As for wind turbine blades, they are inert composites. Bury them and move on, they are about as best case scenario for garbage as we can get. > which challenges the economic sanity of 100% intermittent renewable targets. A) Don’t move the goal posts. We aren’t talking about 100% intermittent renewables. And B) did you read the paper you posted or simple find the first one that confirms your biases? I’ll quote: “The LFSCOE are defined as the costs of providing electricity by a given generation technology, assuming that a particular market has to be supplied solely by this source of electricity plus storage” Advocates of renewable energy are not advocating for using a single source, I.e. just solar and no wind nor hydro, or solely wind, or solely hydro. This paper attempts to show that it is uneconomical to pursue a plan nobody is arguing for. > Solar panel installations in China fell precipitously in June … to 15GW. They installed only 16% of Germany’s total capacity in a single day. Why did it fall so much? Per your own linked article: because a subsidy ran out last month which always causes demand to be pulled forward. It is the April and May number who are out of norm, per the graph you sent. The June numbers are in line with last year’s. Nothing to see here indeed. > Oh, and China invests massively in nuclear, currently approving about 10 plants a year, rate increasing, plants that they build in around 5 years. And yet is behind on it’s nuclear target by 5 years [2] while it’s wind/solar/hydro are growing exponentially, far ahead of target and each one produces >2x more energy every year than nuclear [3]. Pointing to them and saying that nuclear is the way to go is not only not supported by the data, but is actively refuted. > In Germany, intermittent renewables actually produced less power than three years ago, despite a massive increase in capacity. A great way to misrepresent the fact. In Germany, all sources of electricity produced less energy than they did 3 years ago. Germany simply used less power. [1] > overcapacity So what? The sun shines and the wind blows for free, it costs nothing. If the plant is economical with this overcapacity, even before adding storage, I don’t see what the problem is. > This overcapacity is almost entirely useless, as it has to be curtailed when sun and wind are cooperating Another tired point. Install storage. Increase demand side flexibility. People already use time-of-day prices in many parts of the world. Incentivize them to use it when it’s more plentiful. [0]: https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/renewables-wast https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/renewables-wast [1]: https://ember-energy.org/countries-and-regions/germany/ https://ember-energy.org/countries-and-regions/germany/ [2]: https://cleantechnica.com/2024/12/27/china-hits-ev-target-10-years-early-still-hasnt-reached-2020-nuclear-target/ https://cleantechnica.com/2024/12/27/china-hits-ev-target-10... [3]: https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/china#electricity-mix https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/china#electricity-...

mpweiher 1y ago
1. Energy crisis > Because the shock in every single one of those countries was because of fossil fuel prices/shortages or climate change, not renewables. EXACTLY! Thank you for finally agreeing to this obvious point: that the correlation of high electricity prices to renewables has nothing whatsoever to do with the energy crisis of 2021-2023. Not sure why you tried this in the first place, it was so obviously wrong. 2. Wind turbine blade recycling > Hence the bad faith arguments and misinformation. Suddenly there’s all this care about lack of recyclability Er, it was you who brought up the issue of blade recycling, in order to incorrectly smear some site as an unreliable source. This smear failed, because they were correct and you were not. In this thread, the subject was the correlation of high electricity prices with renewables build out. Glad we can put another one of your straw men to bed. 3. Economic insanity of 100% renewable targets Actually, Germany for example does have a de-facto 100% renewables target for electricity. And yes, the same effects occur when you mix intermittent renewables, and we are already seeing those effects. Germany has the highest electricity prices in the EU. 4. China Here you present another common straw man, which is that renewables and nuclear are somehow mutually exclusive. This idiocy is only really prevalent in Germany, pretty much all other industrialized nations are doing both. Even France is adding wind and solar, because it allows their nuclear plants to run more efficiently. 5. Overcapacity This is simply a fact. In fact, coal consumption increased while renewable share went down. So check your facts. And no, your wishful thinking does not change those facts. Oh, and "demand side flexibility" is simply newspeak for "sorry, we have no electricity for you". 6. Wind blows and sun sines for free Uranium atoms also don't send invoices for splitting. In both cases it is the machinery that is expensive. And intermittent renewables are so inefficient that you need a lot more of that expensive machinery. Add required overcapacity, required short-term storage, required long-term storage, required transmission lines and the costs become astronomical. Already are, incidentally. Germany spent somewhere between €400-600 billion on its failed "Energiewnde", and it has 10x worse CO₂ emissions than France, which spent €228 billion to nuclearize its electricity sector. But it only gets worse, because so far was the easy part. Anyway, I think we're done here. Bye.
- _aavaa_ 1y ago
  > EXACTLY! Thank you for finally agreeing to this obvious point … Not sure why you tried this in the first place, it was so obviously wrong. You were the one who tied it to renewables: “And the energy crisis 2021-2023 affected the entire world, yet for some reason the countries with intermittent renewables were worst affected?” So I really don’t know what point you’re making. > in order to incorrectly smear some site as an unreliable source. This smear failed, because they were correct and you were not. A statement of fact (that the site peddles in misinformation and anti-renewable taking points) is neither a smear now a straw man. > Actually, Germany for example does have a de-facto 100% renewables target for electricity If you go an read the paper you linked to, you’ll see that they are talking about 100% renewable from a single source, e.g. only solar, or only wind. This is not what Germany is doing; they may be targeting 100% renewables, but they aim to reach that by combining multiple sources. > Here you present another common straw man, which is that renewables and nuclear are somehow mutually exclusive. When you have $ to spend on new energy sources, every dollar spent on one source is a dollar not spent on another. And any dollar spent on nuclear would be better spent on renewables. > In fact, coal consumption increased while renewable share went down. So check your facts. Feel free to check them, all you have to do is click on the links I have already sent. But here you can clearly see that your statement is categorically false [0-1]. > Germany spent somewhere between €400-600 billion on its failed "Energiewnde", and it has 10x worse CO₂ emissions than France, which spent €228 billion I don’t see any sources for this. For starters, is that French price adjusted for inflation given that their fleet was built decades ago? As for the CO2 levels, see [0] that shows their emissions high even before their renewables push. And after it is has been decreasing consistently since then. [0]: https://ember-energy.org/countries-and-regions/germany/ https://ember-energy.org/countries-and-regions/germany/ [1]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-elec-by-source?country=~DEU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-elec-by-source?coun...

mpweiher 1y ago

1. Energy crisis > Because the shock in every single one of those countries was because of fossil fuel prices/shortages or climate change, not renewables. EXACTLY! Thank you for finally agreeing to this obvious point: that the correlation of high electricity prices to renewables has nothing whatsoever to do with the energy crisis of 2021-2023. Not sure why you tried this in the first place, it was so obviously wrong. 2. Wind turbine blade recycling > Hence the bad faith arguments and misinformation. Suddenly there’s all this care about lack of recyclability Er, it was you who brought up the issue of blade recycling, in order to incorrectly smear some site as an unreliable source. This smear failed, because they were correct and you were not. In this thread, the subject was the correlation of high electricity prices with renewables build out. Glad we can put another one of your straw men to bed. 3. Economic insanity of 100% renewable targets Actually, Germany for example does have a de-facto 100% renewables target for electricity. And yes, the same effects occur when you mix intermittent renewables, and we are already seeing those effects. Germany has the highest electricity prices in the EU. 4. China Here you present another common straw man, which is that renewables and nuclear are somehow mutually exclusive. This idiocy is only really prevalent in Germany, pretty much all other industrialized nations are doing both. Even France is adding wind and solar, because it allows their nuclear plants to run more efficiently. 5. Overcapacity This is simply a fact. In fact, coal consumption increased while renewable share went down. So check your facts. And no, your wishful thinking does not change those facts. Oh, and "demand side flexibility" is simply newspeak for "sorry, we have no electricity for you". 6. Wind blows and sun sines for free Uranium atoms also don't send invoices for splitting. In both cases it is the machinery that is expensive. And intermittent renewables are so inefficient that you need a lot more of that expensive machinery. Add required overcapacity, required short-term storage, required long-term storage, required transmission lines and the costs become astronomical. Already are, incidentally. Germany spent somewhere between €400-600 billion on its failed "Energiewnde", and it has 10x worse CO₂ emissions than France, which spent €228 billion to nuclearize its electricity sector. But it only gets worse, because so far was the easy part. Anyway, I think we're done here. Bye.

_aavaa_ 1y ago
> EXACTLY! Thank you for finally agreeing to this obvious point … Not sure why you tried this in the first place, it was so obviously wrong. You were the one who tied it to renewables: “And the energy crisis 2021-2023 affected the entire world, yet for some reason the countries with intermittent renewables were worst affected?” So I really don’t know what point you’re making. > in order to incorrectly smear some site as an unreliable source. This smear failed, because they were correct and you were not. A statement of fact (that the site peddles in misinformation and anti-renewable taking points) is neither a smear now a straw man. > Actually, Germany for example does have a de-facto 100% renewables target for electricity If you go an read the paper you linked to, you’ll see that they are talking about 100% renewable from a single source, e.g. only solar, or only wind. This is not what Germany is doing; they may be targeting 100% renewables, but they aim to reach that by combining multiple sources. > Here you present another common straw man, which is that renewables and nuclear are somehow mutually exclusive. When you have $ to spend on new energy sources, every dollar spent on one source is a dollar not spent on another. And any dollar spent on nuclear would be better spent on renewables. > In fact, coal consumption increased while renewable share went down. So check your facts. Feel free to check them, all you have to do is click on the links I have already sent. But here you can clearly see that your statement is categorically false [0-1]. > Germany spent somewhere between €400-600 billion on its failed "Energiewnde", and it has 10x worse CO₂ emissions than France, which spent €228 billion I don’t see any sources for this. For starters, is that French price adjusted for inflation given that their fleet was built decades ago? As for the CO2 levels, see [0] that shows their emissions high even before their renewables push. And after it is has been decreasing consistently since then. [0]: https://ember-energy.org/countries-and-regions/germany/ https://ember-energy.org/countries-and-regions/germany/ [1]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-elec-by-source?country=~DEU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-elec-by-source?coun...