4 ms·

Not him but. >For example here they discuss economic life vs operational life, when you live in reality rather than grasping for straws: It's essentially just

Not him but. >For example here they discuss economic life vs operational life, when you live in reality rather than grasping for straws: It's essentially just saying the market can't think long term enough leading to drastic differences in your calculations. But hence it's typically governments pushing these projects forward. >The market is limited until for example Jevons paradox expands it. Which will never happen with new built nuclear power due to how expensive the electricity is But it did happen for nuclear power in the past. Now you see essentially the opposite. >Why are you so afraid of renewables and storage? I'm not. I think it's a great set of technologies. But I think if one tries to get to 100% everywhere one's going to stub their toes on the scenarios where it's not all roses. Why? Because the storage part is hard at scale in a lot of places and the intermitency more pronounced. In Texas and Cali are incredibly sunny places in the south of the US. Silicon valley where it's already an issue gets 3 times as much sunshine hours during winter as let's say berlin and those hours are far less usefull. >Crying about FOAK vs NOAK is not even close to solving the absolutely stupidly large subsidies new built nuclear power needs. Is this not intentionally sidestepping the ludicrous amount of subsidies that have been handed out to renewables in aggregate? Berlin would need to overproduce insane amounts in summer to handle it's winters.

ViewTrick1002 26d ago
The flip side is that what you are saying is that nuclear power will be commercially viable into the 2100s. And betting the house on that. While knowing that the electricity they provide is expensive enough to lead to energy poverty for generations. That seems absolutely insane. Jevons Paradox did not happen for nuclear power. What happened was crazy cost overruns, cancellations and the industry collapsing into its current state. Who cares if we get to 95%, 97, 99% or 100% carbon neutral electricity when we still need to decarbonize agriculture, aviation, chemicals, industry, construction and so on? Don't let perfect be the enemy of good enough. Transition that final firming to whatever carbon neutral sources we land on when their emissions matter in the late 2030s and 2040s. We need to optimize decarbonization per dollar spent with the shortest time to market. You do realize that renewable subsidies are being phased out all over the world? They aren't needed anymore. Complaining about "equality" because your desired solution didn't deliver in time is a kindergarten level argument. We've spent the past 70 years subsidizing nuclear power. It just never delivered on its promise. The relevant question is: Where does Germany spend the next €100 billion today to avoid the most emissions? And that is certainly not new built nuclear power.
- modo_mario 26d ago
  >While knowing that the electricity they provide is expensive enough to lead to energy poverty for generations. What are you on about? >Jevons Paradox did not happen for nuclear power. What happened was crazy cost overruns, cancellations and the industry collapsing into its current state. And the opposite happened in the past whilst europe was building bunch more of them. >Who cares if we get 95%, 97, 99% or 100% when we still need to decarbonize agriculture, aviation, chemicals, industry, construction and so on? Funny you say that when some of those are significantly harder. Are you going to turn on steel plants only in summer? Do you think that might have some effect? >You do realize that renewable subsidies are being phased out all over the world? They aren't needed anymore. Complaining about "equality" because your desired solution didn't deliver in time is a kindergarten level argument. You should tell my government and the neighbouring governments. >We've spent the past 70 years subsidizing nuclear power. It just never delivered on its promise. It did exactly that? >The relevant question is: Where does Germany spend the next €100 billion today to avoid the most emissions? it has spent €700 billion to $1 trillion on the energywende (a metric which doesn't properly include a lot of private investment) and ends as one of the worst emitters in europe whilst deindustrialising due to high energy prices. They jerk eachother off about how high their renewables share of the economy is every summer and then import and fire up the browncoal and gasplants again troughout the other seasons. When that solar panel is producing a 10th of it's average summer output (already below the capacity everyone loves to roll with for articles) in winter there's only one big winner possible. People like to point out how france's electricity production is subsidised when they come out looking good even when the gov intentionally puts a stick in it's wheels by essentially forcing it to subsidise pricing to competition.
  - deleted 25d ago
    [deleted]
- chickenbig 25d ago
  > Where does Germany spend the next €100 billion today to avoid the most emissions? They could spend much less and restart some nuclear. https://www.radiantenergygroup.com/reports/radiant-energy-group-response-to-federal-government-statement-on-reactor-restarts https://www.radiantenergygroup.com/reports/radiant-energy-gr... > You do realize that renewable subsidies are being phased out all over the world? CfD is going strong in the UK; it seems about the only way of deploying it, given the revenue uncertainty associated with market saturation/cannibalisation. Denmark required CfDs too. https://windeurope.org/news/successful-danish-offshore-wind-tender-proves-that-cfds-deliver-competitive-bids/ https://windeurope.org/news/successful-danish-offshore-wind-... Of course, other subsidies exist. Feed in tariffs. Transmission charges. Capacity and ancillary service payments to provide services that solar/wind do not.

ViewTrick1002 26d ago

The flip side is that what you are saying is that nuclear power will be commercially viable into the 2100s. And betting the house on that. While knowing that the electricity they provide is expensive enough to lead to energy poverty for generations. That seems absolutely insane. Jevons Paradox did not happen for nuclear power. What happened was crazy cost overruns, cancellations and the industry collapsing into its current state. Who cares if we get to 95%, 97, 99% or 100% carbon neutral electricity when we still need to decarbonize agriculture, aviation, chemicals, industry, construction and so on? Don't let perfect be the enemy of good enough. Transition that final firming to whatever carbon neutral sources we land on when their emissions matter in the late 2030s and 2040s. We need to optimize decarbonization per dollar spent with the shortest time to market. You do realize that renewable subsidies are being phased out all over the world? They aren't needed anymore. Complaining about "equality" because your desired solution didn't deliver in time is a kindergarten level argument. We've spent the past 70 years subsidizing nuclear power. It just never delivered on its promise. The relevant question is: Where does Germany spend the next €100 billion today to avoid the most emissions? And that is certainly not new built nuclear power.

modo_mario 26d ago
>While knowing that the electricity they provide is expensive enough to lead to energy poverty for generations. What are you on about? >Jevons Paradox did not happen for nuclear power. What happened was crazy cost overruns, cancellations and the industry collapsing into its current state. And the opposite happened in the past whilst europe was building bunch more of them. >Who cares if we get 95%, 97, 99% or 100% when we still need to decarbonize agriculture, aviation, chemicals, industry, construction and so on? Funny you say that when some of those are significantly harder. Are you going to turn on steel plants only in summer? Do you think that might have some effect? >You do realize that renewable subsidies are being phased out all over the world? They aren't needed anymore. Complaining about "equality" because your desired solution didn't deliver in time is a kindergarten level argument. You should tell my government and the neighbouring governments. >We've spent the past 70 years subsidizing nuclear power. It just never delivered on its promise. It did exactly that? >The relevant question is: Where does Germany spend the next €100 billion today to avoid the most emissions? it has spent €700 billion to $1 trillion on the energywende (a metric which doesn't properly include a lot of private investment) and ends as one of the worst emitters in europe whilst deindustrialising due to high energy prices. They jerk eachother off about how high their renewables share of the economy is every summer and then import and fire up the browncoal and gasplants again troughout the other seasons. When that solar panel is producing a 10th of it's average summer output (already below the capacity everyone loves to roll with for articles) in winter there's only one big winner possible. People like to point out how france's electricity production is subsidised when they come out looking good even when the gov intentionally puts a stick in it's wheels by essentially forcing it to subsidise pricing to competition.
- deleted 25d ago
  [deleted]
chickenbig 25d ago
> Where does Germany spend the next €100 billion today to avoid the most emissions? They could spend much less and restart some nuclear. https://www.radiantenergygroup.com/reports/radiant-energy-group-response-to-federal-government-statement-on-reactor-restarts https://www.radiantenergygroup.com/reports/radiant-energy-gr... > You do realize that renewable subsidies are being phased out all over the world? CfD is going strong in the UK; it seems about the only way of deploying it, given the revenue uncertainty associated with market saturation/cannibalisation. Denmark required CfDs too. https://windeurope.org/news/successful-danish-offshore-wind-tender-proves-that-cfds-deliver-competitive-bids/ https://windeurope.org/news/successful-danish-offshore-wind-... Of course, other subsidies exist. Feed in tariffs. Transmission charges. Capacity and ancillary service payments to provide services that solar/wind do not.