2 ms·

That turns out not to be the case. Germany is still all-in on the failed Energiewende. Last I checked, this is due to the coalition agreement with the SPD, wh

That turns out not to be the case. Germany is still all-in on the failed Energiewende. Last I checked, this is due to the coalition agreement with the SPD, who have not yet managed to come to terms with their mistake. The problems of the intermittent renewables wind power and solar are inherent, they have nothing to do with being "for" or "against" it. Stating simple facts is not being "against" something. Well, unless you are such a blind-eyed partisan that any criticism of your religion, no matter how justified, is viewed as heresy. We don't have such blind partisanship here, do we? I mean apart from the crucial topics of vi vs emacs and static vs dynamic typing? And nuclear being cheaper is not a "non-mainstream view". It is a simple, easily checkable fact.

ZeroGravitas 7mo ago
Let's say that I'm in the same info-bubble as you and the OP and we all agree that renewables are more expensive than nuclear and furthermore that this point is so well accepted that it's not even worth mentioning. Still in that case, it's kind of weird to attack a pro-nuclear politician for not replacing deadly coal fast enough without even mentioning that he is against wind as well. Or to avoid any reference the exact same thing happening in your own country.
- mpweiher 7mo ago
  That "info-bubble" is also known as The Real World™. Adding more intermittent renewables at this point is useless. Last year we installed significant new wind capacity and output from wind for that year actually dropped. Although the weather did play a role (which is bad enough by itself!), this is not an anomaly: we have reached a point where we have way more intermittent renewable capacity than demand, so when the sun shines and the wind blows it already needs to be curtailed. Added capacity does not add output here, it just adds to the curtailment. And when the existing intermittent renewables don't produce, the newly installed capacity also does not produce. Capacity factors for both wind and PV have dropped, and will continue to drop even faster. And they still need full backup with fossil fuels, because the guaranteed production is either exactly zero or close to zero.

ZeroGravitas 7mo ago

Let's say that I'm in the same info-bubble as you and the OP and we all agree that renewables are more expensive than nuclear and furthermore that this point is so well accepted that it's not even worth mentioning. Still in that case, it's kind of weird to attack a pro-nuclear politician for not replacing deadly coal fast enough without even mentioning that he is against wind as well. Or to avoid any reference the exact same thing happening in your own country.

mpweiher 7mo ago
That "info-bubble" is also known as The Real World™. Adding more intermittent renewables at this point is useless. Last year we installed significant new wind capacity and output from wind for that year actually dropped. Although the weather did play a role (which is bad enough by itself!), this is not an anomaly: we have reached a point where we have way more intermittent renewable capacity than demand, so when the sun shines and the wind blows it already needs to be curtailed. Added capacity does not add output here, it just adds to the curtailment. And when the existing intermittent renewables don't produce, the newly installed capacity also does not produce. Capacity factors for both wind and PV have dropped, and will continue to drop even faster. And they still need full backup with fossil fuels, because the guaranteed production is either exactly zero or close to zero.