this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2023
225 points (86.9% liked)

World News

32328 readers
144 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Growth in german wind capacity is slowing. Soo... then the plan is to keep on with lignite and gas? Am I missing something?

Installed Wind Capacty - Germany

German Wind Capacity

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This chart is from the "Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems," I wonder whether they might be a wee bit biased. It also puts the "consequential cost to health, environment and climate" of nuclear as higher than coal, which is bananas, and their data on lifecycle carbon emissions from nuclear comes from a noted anti-nuclear group (and the article even admits as much).

"When you factor it all in, you’re looking at 15-to-20 years of lead time for a new nuclear plant." Cool, let's start building a whole bunch of them right now and then worst-case in 20 years we'll have too much electricity.

"In the next 10 years, nuclear power won't be able to make a significant contribution" I appreciate your optimism but we are deeeeeefinitely not going to come anywhere close to phasing out fossil fuels in power generation in 10 years; we're not even going to be done with fossil fuels on days that are particularly sunny in the solar cell areas and particularly windy in the wind power areas.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Why would we waste money on nuclear when we could build renewables instead? It makes NO sense. Renewables are cheaper and cleaner.

[–] Jumper775 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because nuclear is pretty cool whereas renewables are less awesome. Think about it, the nuclear symbol ☢️ is much more interesting and cooler than the renewable ♻️ symbol. We all know this is what really matters.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well now you're back to arguing about new construction instead of keeping existing plants running.

Also, we can build both. Surely you appreciate that there are other factors slowing the speed of the energy transition besides the availability of capital, and that while nuclear has its own roadblocks, many of them are different from + don't overlap or compete with those standing in the way of renewables.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Capital (money) and capital (political) are the only roadblocks between us and a 100% renewable future. So no, there's no value to wasting either of those on nuclear when they could be more wisely proportioned to renewables. Pretty much the only resource that nuclear consumes that isn't consumed by most renewables would be uranium. I'm willing to just go ahead and say we can leave that one in the ground.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They’re really not, and if you think that then you need to read more. And “political capital” isn’t some big fungible pool of quatloos, it’s a lot of little tiny stupid slow fights.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Okay, go ahead and list the resources used for building nuclear reactors that isn't used for building other renewables.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago
  1. Uranium.

And thats about it.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago

Not my optimism, that's a quote from an industry expert, actually. But sure, whatever you say.