3 ms·

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. EXA

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
  > 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?” Nope, that was reacting to your previous comment: To say nothing of the fact that prices in many countries are often set by the marginal generator, which in the case of say Germany on that graph is oil, gas, or coal. Most of which is imported from other countries as fluctuates wildly with fuel costs (e.g. price shocks after Russian’s invasion of Ukraine). And again: A statement of fact (that the site peddles in misinformation and anti-renewable taking points) Nope. The only "evidence" for your claim that it "peddles" was something where the site was correct and you were the one who peddled the misinformation. > In fact, coal consumption increased while renewable share went down. So check your facts. Feel free to check them, I did. You obviously didn't. German energy consumption jumps “surprisingly” due to weak renewables output in early 2025 https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-energy-consumption-jumps-surprisingly-due-weak-renewables-output-early-2025?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-energy-consumpti... Energy usage in Europe's biggest economy increased to 187.3 million metric tons of coal equivalent, an industry standard measure, from 183.1 million in the first six months of 2024, AGEB's January-June report showed. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germanys-energy-use-rises-23-first-half-2025-2025-07-29/?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germanys-energy-use-... Germany's energy transition hits reverse so far in 2025 Clean energy sources generated the smallest amount of Germany's electricity in over a decade so far in 2025, dealing a blow to the energy transition momentum of Europe's largest economy. To compensate for the drop in clean electricity supplies, German power firms were forced to lift fossil fuel power output by 10% from a year ago, and the share of fossil fuels in the German generation mix has climbed to its highest since 2018. Anyway: you keep changing the subject, being dishonest about doing so etc. 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
> 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?” Nope, that was reacting to your previous comment: To say nothing of the fact that prices in many countries are often set by the marginal generator, which in the case of say Germany on that graph is oil, gas, or coal. Most of which is imported from other countries as fluctuates wildly with fuel costs (e.g. price shocks after Russian’s invasion of Ukraine). And again: A statement of fact (that the site peddles in misinformation and anti-renewable taking points) Nope. The only "evidence" for your claim that it "peddles" was something where the site was correct and you were the one who peddled the misinformation. > In fact, coal consumption increased while renewable share went down. So check your facts. Feel free to check them, I did. You obviously didn't. German energy consumption jumps “surprisingly” due to weak renewables output in early 2025 https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-energy-consumption-jumps-surprisingly-due-weak-renewables-output-early-2025?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-energy-consumpti... Energy usage in Europe's biggest economy increased to 187.3 million metric tons of coal equivalent, an industry standard measure, from 183.1 million in the first six months of 2024, AGEB's January-June report showed. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germanys-energy-use-rises-23-first-half-2025-2025-07-29/?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germanys-energy-use-... Germany's energy transition hits reverse so far in 2025 Clean energy sources generated the smallest amount of Germany's electricity in over a decade so far in 2025, dealing a blow to the energy transition momentum of Europe's largest economy. To compensate for the drop in clean electricity supplies, German power firms were forced to lift fossil fuel power output by 10% from a year ago, and the share of fossil fuels in the German generation mix has climbed to its highest since 2018. Anyway: you keep changing the subject, being dishonest about doing so etc. Bye.