5 ms·

In hindsight switching to renewables from nuclear was a great idea. It's also obvious in hindsight that politicians on the right have been sabotaging it all al

In hindsight switching to renewables from nuclear was a great idea. It's also obvious in hindsight that politicians on the right have been sabotaging it all along, and despite that it still worked out okay and probably helped save the world. Imagine the whole government was consistently behind wind, solar, EV, batteries, heat pumps etc. manufacturing and deployment, they'd be more resilient to Russia and better placed to compete with China. It's notable that the more a German political party supports nuclear, the less they support EVs and heat pumps. Which suggests it's a disingenuous distraction for them.

palata 10mo ago
> In hindsight switching to renewables from nuclear was a great idea. I'm genuinely confused.
- ZeroGravitas 10mo ago
  It's not clear if you aren't familiar with the political history or if you just disagree that it's a good idea. Historical context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiewende https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiewende As to whether it was good idea, a quote from that article: > The coalition government introduced an intermediate target of a 55–60% share of renewable energy in gross electricity consumption in 2035. The targets were described as "ambitious" In 2025 they'll be around 56% (and as I said, this is with clear sandbagging by people who are politically opposed to this transition). And them blazing this trail enabled other nations like Hungary to go from zero to 30% solar in a decade.
  - palata 10mo ago
    > or if you just disagree that it's a good idea I disagree that it's a good idea. They heavily rely on fossil fuels, and when they don't, they heavily rely on France's nuclear energy. Renewable is great when there is wind and sun, not so much otherwise. It's the kind of situation where "but we're 50% there!" does not matter if the last 50% is impossible. And hoping for nuclear fusion proves that renewables don't solve the problem on their own. Nuclear fission is not bad, those who are afraid of it are just uninformed.
    - ben_w 10mo ago
      > And hoping for nuclear fusion proves that renewables don't solve the problem on their own. It's weaker than that, it says that renewables don't currently look like they solve the problem at a national level on their own. The "currently" is subject to tech improvements, the "look like" is subject to politicians having the same range of beliefs as the rest of us and not being magically blessed with true knowledge, the "national level" part is e.g. "yes the PV and batteries are both cheap enough and available in large enough quantities to do it all, but we don't like the country selling them". Fusion (and fission) can be a hedged bet; against the third caveat I listed, it doesn't even need to be fully deployed to be useful, as the investment is a costly signal to e.g. China that e.g. Germany will be able to respond quickly if China tries to cut off supply in order to secure Chinese interests.
      - palata 10mo ago
        > as the investment is a costly signal to e.g. China that e.g. Germany will be able to respond quickly I don't see that at all: fusion is not remotely a "quick" solution. Investing a lot into a message that says "be careful, if you cut off our supply, we will work on this thing that will take another few decades" doesn't sound super smart.
        ben_w 10mo ago
        Truth vs. perception. As I said, politicians have the same range of beliefs as the rest of us, are not magically blessed with true knowledge. They can be believers in fusion just as e.g. Trump has weird beliefs about Chinese domestic installation of renewables. (Me, I don't know if fusion is or isn't realistic, but I can see ways it can cause proliferation issues just by being easier to configure as a cheap neutron source than as aneutronic, so I hope it's not realistic, but hope isn't a prediction).
        palata 10mo ago
        > Truth vs. perception. Which doesn't matter at all in the case of Germany. One should go for what's reasonable when it's about running a country. I mean... ideally of course. And it was not reasonable to move away from nuclear fission.

palata 10mo ago

> In hindsight switching to renewables from nuclear was a great idea. I'm genuinely confused.

ZeroGravitas 10mo ago
It's not clear if you aren't familiar with the political history or if you just disagree that it's a good idea. Historical context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiewende https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiewende As to whether it was good idea, a quote from that article: > The coalition government introduced an intermediate target of a 55–60% share of renewable energy in gross electricity consumption in 2035. The targets were described as "ambitious" In 2025 they'll be around 56% (and as I said, this is with clear sandbagging by people who are politically opposed to this transition). And them blazing this trail enabled other nations like Hungary to go from zero to 30% solar in a decade.
- palata 10mo ago
  > or if you just disagree that it's a good idea I disagree that it's a good idea. They heavily rely on fossil fuels, and when they don't, they heavily rely on France's nuclear energy. Renewable is great when there is wind and sun, not so much otherwise. It's the kind of situation where "but we're 50% there!" does not matter if the last 50% is impossible. And hoping for nuclear fusion proves that renewables don't solve the problem on their own. Nuclear fission is not bad, those who are afraid of it are just uninformed.
  - ben_w 10mo ago
    > And hoping for nuclear fusion proves that renewables don't solve the problem on their own. It's weaker than that, it says that renewables don't currently look like they solve the problem at a national level on their own. The "currently" is subject to tech improvements, the "look like" is subject to politicians having the same range of beliefs as the rest of us and not being magically blessed with true knowledge, the "national level" part is e.g. "yes the PV and batteries are both cheap enough and available in large enough quantities to do it all, but we don't like the country selling them". Fusion (and fission) can be a hedged bet; against the third caveat I listed, it doesn't even need to be fully deployed to be useful, as the investment is a costly signal to e.g. China that e.g. Germany will be able to respond quickly if China tries to cut off supply in order to secure Chinese interests.
    - palata 10mo ago
      > as the investment is a costly signal to e.g. China that e.g. Germany will be able to respond quickly I don't see that at all: fusion is not remotely a "quick" solution. Investing a lot into a message that says "be careful, if you cut off our supply, we will work on this thing that will take another few decades" doesn't sound super smart.
      - ben_w 10mo ago
        Truth vs. perception. As I said, politicians have the same range of beliefs as the rest of us, are not magically blessed with true knowledge. They can be believers in fusion just as e.g. Trump has weird beliefs about Chinese domestic installation of renewables. (Me, I don't know if fusion is or isn't realistic, but I can see ways it can cause proliferation issues just by being easier to configure as a cheap neutron source than as aneutronic, so I hope it's not realistic, but hope isn't a prediction).
        palata 10mo ago
        > Truth vs. perception. Which doesn't matter at all in the case of Germany. One should go for what's reasonable when it's about running a country. I mean... ideally of course. And it was not reasonable to move away from nuclear fission.