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

  • Silverseren@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    47
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes, basically. Germany completely folded on nuclear to appease pretend environmental groups that actually know nothing about the environment and then went all in on coal again while pretending they were going all in on renewables. But now that even the renewables numbers are flat-lining, they have to keep up the charade by continuing to make negative comments about nuclear.

    They’re helped along by idiots like Blake elsewhere in this comment section. Because, sure, new nuclear is expensive, but that’s not the problem here. The problem was shutting down all the nuclear they already had.

    • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      29
      ·
      1 year ago

      Compared to nuclear, renewables are:

      • Cheaper
      • Lower emissions
      • Faster to provision
      • Less environmentally damaging
      • Not reliant on continuous consumption of fuel
      • Decentralised
      • Much, much safer
      • Much easier to maintain
      • More reliable
      • Much more responsive to changes in energy demands

      Why would anyone waste money on the worse option? An analogy: you need lunch and you can choose between a nutritious and tasty $5 sandwich from an independent deli or a $10 expensive mass-produced sandwich from a chain. The independent deli is tastier, cheaper, more filling, and healthier, and it’s easier for you to get since it’s on your way to work. Why would you ever get the $10 sandwich?

      According to you, I’m an idiot, and yet no one has debunked a single one of my arguments. No one has even tried to, they immediately crumple like a tissue as soon as they’re asked directly to disprove the FACT that nuclear is more expensive, slower to provision and more environmentally damaging than renewables. If I’m so stupid it should be pretty easy to correct my errors?

      Either that or you can loftily declare yourself above this argument, state that I am somehow moving the goalposts, say that “there’s no point, I’ll never change your mind” or just somehow express some amount of increduiity at my absolutely abhorrent behaviour by asking you such a straightforward question? You may also choose “that’s not the question I want to talk about, we should answer MY questions instead!”

      • Iceblade@lemdit.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The criticism is extraordinarily simple and justified.

        Which is better, Renewables and Nuclear or Renewables and Fossil Fuels?

        Germany could have had an almost entirely fossil free grid by now, but instead they chose renewables & fossil fuels.

            • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, I didn’t. You claimed that the choice was between either renewables and coal or renewables and nuclear. I am asking you to prove your claim that renewables are not a stand-alone option.

              • Iceblade@lemdit.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I am asking you to prove your claim that renewables are not a stand-alone option.

                I did not claim that, I suspect that you misunderstood something.

                I’ll clarify what I meant for your benefit. Germany has constructed a lot of new renewable power in the past two decades, which is great, but they prioritized shutting down nuclear power plants instead of fossil fuelled power. Because of this, they still get ~50% of their electricity from fossil fuels, which is not so great.

                If they instead had prioritized phasing out fossil fuelled power plants, that number would’ve been more like 20-30%, and more crucially, they could’ve phased out their entire fleet of coal power plants. Ergo, criticism of German energy policy is entirely justified.

                • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You replied to my comment. My comment simply stated that investing in building nuclear power plants is a waste of money that is better spent on renewables. You said that criticism of my comment was justified because Germany could choose between either renewables and coal, or renewables in Nuclear. I am asking you to support your claim. I am not inviting you to move the goalposts. If you replied to my comment and said criticism of my comment was justified and then started talking about something else unrelated to my comment then I don’t really know what to tell you?

                  • Iceblade@lemdit.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    …and your comment replied to one criticising German energy policy, hence the context of “the criticism being justified”. The bad policy decisions have already been made (from 2005-current) and it does seem like Germany will be stuck with coal power for quite some time because of their poor policymaking.

                    The question was not about the price of building new nuclear power, but of maintaining old plants, and existing nuclear) power provides incredibly cheap, green energy. Simply put, my “claim” as you want to put it, Germany could have rid themselves of coal power with the help of the VRE they invested ln, but instead shut down their old nucler plants. The “proof” is no more difficult than studying their energy profile for the past 20 yrs.

                    In hindsight, the OC was somewhat rude towards you in particular, which I don’t agree with, but alas.


                    Anyway, you seem to want to discuss future electricity solutions rather than the existing one, and I’d happily have a separate discussion on what mix of green energy sources ought to be used, if you’d like.

                    IMO based on what I have read over the years, optimal green energy mixes land on 40-70% VRE depending on regional climate factors, with the rest filled out by dispatchable sources such as hydropower, geothermal, biomass and nuclear power plants.

      • Rooty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You forgot:

        • Not able to provide energy during the night/calm days
        • Not energy dense - require enormous amount of land that can be put to better use
        • Rely on battery storage - huge fire and explosion hazard
        • Need to be replaced and serviced much more often - the lack of density means that repair and maintenance crew have a lot of ground to cover
        • Energy output wildly fluctuates due to weather conditions.

        Renewables have their place, but they cannot sustain the entire grid. At this point, going all in on renewables means either prolonging fossil fuel usage, or condemning vast swaths of the population to brownouts and energy poverty.

        • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Look at all of these wrong arguments. It’s so thoughtful of you to bring them all together like this.

          1. It’s always day somewhere. Also there’s still wind, wave, geothermal, hydroelectric, etc. not to mention interconnectors. Additionally, energy demand during the night is very low. Peak energy usage is at the same time as peak solar generation. The idea is that if you spread renewables across a large enough area, natural shortages of wind/sun in one area is compensated for the wind/sun being in another area.
          2. It’s true that it isn’t energy dense, but it’s definitely not true that it can be “put to better use”. 5% of the US is covered in parking spaces, enough to provide 8 spaces for every car. If 10% of that land was allocated to solar power it would be enough to meet the electricity demand of the entire United States.
          3. Doesn’t rely on energy storage. Just build interconnectors. Electrical energy can be moved from where it is greatest in supply to where it is greatest in demand. Additionally, electrochemical batteries aren’t the only choice, there are countless ways to store electrical energy - pumped storage, thermal storage, etc.
          4. This is outright wrong. Source your claim that nuclear is easier and cheaper to maintain than renewables. I’ll wait.
          5. This is the same as your first point. See 1.

          You’re wrong. There are numerous studies which say a 100% renewable future is entirely possible with current technology. Since you’re incapable of googling this basic fact here’s a link for you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy

          • Rooty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago
            1. Power lines are not superconductive, there are always losses when electricity is moved long distance
            2. You sidestepped my point and went on a tangent
            3. Again, there are losses when electric energy is converted into other types - pumped storage requires large reservoirs, and you’re basically making ineffective hydro.
            4. I never stated that renewables are easier to maintain than nuclear, just that the monetary and enviromental cost of maintenance is swept under the rug by anti-nuclear zealots.
            5. Again, renewables have a reliabilty problem that cannot be handwaved by "just move the power somewhere else.

            Judging by your sneering tone, I doubt you’re going to be receptive to any further points.

            • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago
              1. Sure, but it’s so much cheaper than nuclear, that it’s nearly irrelevant. A typical loss for 800 kV lines is 2.6% over 800 km. That means it’s cheaper to generate renewable energy 16,000km away from the point of consumption. That’s almost half the circumference of the Earth.
              2. You claimed that renewables would take up too much space. I provided an explanation backed up by facts and figures which clearly demonstrate that claim was false. You clearly can’t refute my point or you would have done so.
              3. Again, yes, but again, it’s so much cheaper that it doesn’t matter. Even with a conservative estimate, pumped storage is 70% efficient. In reality, it’s closer to 80%. This means that it’s still much cheaper to generate electricity and store it with pumped storage than it is to directly produce electricity with nuclear sources. 99% of the world’s electrical storage is pumped storage. Do you think you know better than industry experts?
              4. Good, I’m glad you’re willing to walk back this argument. The fact of the matter is that renewables are the cleanest, cheapest, safest source of energy available to us, and so that is what we should be investing in. That’s all that matters. Everything else is propaganda and rhetoric.
              5. No, they don’t. Again, this is just the same argument as argument 1. There’s no point in arguing it twice. People need to eat food, we produce food all over the world. People need to power their homes? We should produce power all over the world. It’s not a hard concept.
          • hh93@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            For #2 to add: you can just install them over a parking lot, too

            Makes people happy that their car isn’t exposed to the sun/rain anymore and not removing anything from NIMBYs that fear for their car-privileges

          • vodnik@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s always day somewhere

            Pretty obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. You can’t transfer power from the other side of the planet.

            • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Nice, ignoring 99% of my comment to attack a strawman. The sun covers half the globe at any one time. I’m not suggesting that somewhere in midnight takes solar power from somewhere in midday. For example power can be moved across the US grid, which covers three timezones, which gives solar 3 hours more viability.

              • PhantomPhanatic@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Not a strawman when you respond to “sometimes it’s night and solar doesn’t work” with “it’s daytime somewhere”. The natural assumption is that your intention was that day side power could be used on the night side.

                Do you have anything to back up your idea that the US grid can or does actually supply power across the entire nation?

                • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Your assumption is mostly correct - “day side power can be used on the night side”. Say that you live in a city where the sun sets at 7pm. The largest synchronous power grid in the world is in Continental Europe - from east to west, it’s approximately 5600 km, and connects Portugal (UTC 0) all the way to Turkey (UTC +3), covering three time zones. That means when the sun sets in Portugal, solar panels in Turkey are still generating power at 75% efficiency.

                  As you can understand, this is an entirely different claim from “we would get power from the other side of the world”. It’s a strawman because that’s the weakest possible version of the argument I made.

                  As for the US power grid, no, you’re right, I was totally wrong about that. I had thought that the east and west power grids were connected, but it seems that they still haven’t sorted that out yet. Thanks for correcting me. It looks like they have a project in the planning stage to make it happen (Tres Amigas SuperStation) but it probably won’t be for a while. It’s absolutely achievable, though, and pretty easily.

                  It would also be achievable to get a single planetary power grid, theoretically, but I think it’s practically impossible to achieve that at the moment. It would need a level of global cooperation far beyond what we have ever accomplished. Definitely a future goal for our species!

                  • PhantomPhanatic@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Transmission losses prevent most of what you are suggesting. Across a continent, even with high voltage low loss power lines, you lose 35% to resistance. This doesn’t count the added loss from stepping down the voltage at various substations and transformers along the way. You can expect another 8-15% more reduction from that.

                    You’re suggesting that the amount of excess power from one side of the country could be enough to power the other side (while still meeting the demands locally) with 40-55% losses. Come on.

      • theherk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        How are renewables more responsive to changes in demand? I don’t know how to make the sun shine brighter or the wind blow harder. That seems like one of the weakest points for the case. And how much much safer are they as a function of unit of power generated?

        In any case the argument between renewables or nuclear baffles me. Both are, in my view at least, an improvement over our current primary fossil fuel power generation systems.

        Edit: I mistyped fossil as fissile, which while funny undercut my sentiment.

        • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          By angling the wind turbine blades, rotating the turbines, pitching the rotors, using breaks, gearboxes, etc.

          It doesn’t really matter how weak this point is, to be honest. It’s just a bonus. The ultimate trifecta of “renewables are cheaper, better for the environment and faster to build” mean that renewables always win.

          They’re both an improvement over fossil fuels, sure, but one is clearly the superior choice and resources are limited. It’s very important that we push for the right choices to be made to reduce the impact of climate change as quickly and effectively as possible. It’s literally one of the most important issues facing our species.

          Every $1 spent on nuclear power is basically stolen from renewables. $1 spent on renewables generates 150%-200% more power than nuclear and it does it safer and cheaper. Why invest in nuclear at all.

          • theherk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Well I suppose there is a lot to unpack there but I want to hold to the one point. Renewables are absolutely in no way more responsive to demand. I’m not sure where you got that, but it seems clear you don’t even want to defend it when challenged.

            It is in fact their Achilles heel, and regularly pointed out as the one reason why they are an incomplete solution requiring other solutions like batteries, or other storage and distribution.

            Simply pitching blades cannot increase power in accordance with demand spikes. One would expect the current brake, blade pitch, and other controls to be set for current maximum generation capability given the current wind.

            • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s easy to turn off wind turbines. It’s much harder to turn off nuclear reactors. That’s what responsive to demand means.

              • theherk@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Without disputing any of your other points, you’re just dead wrong about this one. Look up dispatchability. Turbine driven power can go from zero to full multimegawatt power and back in very little time since we control the fuel. You cannot turn up the wind, nor the sun at night.

                Nuclear power can be shut down very quickly, even more quickly in gen4. You have good points and you need not disrupt them by claiming renewables are good for demand response.

                To clarify, I mean steam turbines but the same is true of wind turbines. Like you said, easy to disconnect them from generation. The difference is maximum power is limited by fuel rather than nature.

                • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Again, I am talking about NUCLEAR VS. RENEWABLES. If you bring up fossil fuels once more I will just block you.

                  Nuclear power can be shut down very quickly

                  Provide a source of a nuclear power plant in operation which is capable of going from 100% to 0% in seconds.

                  • theherk@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Threatening to block somebody for challenging your statement? Okay. I didn’t bring up fossil fuel there. Nuclear power requires fuel too. And I didn’t claim a reactor could be powered down in seconds, but quickly. In any case, generation can go to zero even more quickly as just like a wind turbine a steam turbine can be disconnected from the generator.

                    The point is very simple though, nuclear can increase to full power when decided upon by plant operators. Renewable energy cannot; it can only increase to current maximum potential given natural conditions. I’m still pro renewable energy, I just don’t like misinformation.

      • tooLikeTheNope@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Decentralised

        I was rummaging this is probably the main reason for which they are pushed back in an excessively popular narrative in favour of nuclear: of course it is way harder to exercise capitalism when you can’t centralize power and control, with renewables instead it could probably only exist a form of cooperative enterprise with the business of managing the energy production, immagine the loath of some individuals even acknowledging some utterly leftist term such as “cooperative” even exists, let alone even works. Better.

      • 790@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        (I am German, so please excuse my grammar mistakes. If you are a German, too, the humanist party has a great position paper on nuclear energy: https://www.pdh.eu/programmatik/kernenergie/)

        While reading your list, several points stood out for me.

        • Cheaper

        I assume you are talking about the inherent costs of the technology, but that is not where the costs come from. Nuclear power plants are not mass produced and there is constantly changing regulation. The petrol lobby is partly to blame for that, as they have a strong interest in making building nuclear power plants difficult and expensive. https://thebulletin.org/2019/06/why-nuclear-power-plants-cost-so-much-and-what-can-be-done-about-it/ https://progress.institute/nuclear-power-plant-construction-costs/

        • Faster to provision

        https://www.blog.geoffrussell.com.au/post/nuclear-may-or-may-not-be-expensive-but-it-s-much-faster-to-build-than-renewables

        Additionally, the low hanging fruits (the places that can easily be used for windparks) were already picked in Germany. It’s becoming more and more difficult to find more places where windparks can be built.

        • Less environmentally damaging

        That stood out as especially weird. How did you come to that conclusion? If you are referring to nuclear waste: “Nuclear power causes least damage to the environment, finds systematic survey” https://techxplore.com/news/2023-04-nuclear-power-environment-systematic-survey.html

        “Why I Don’t Worry About Nuclear Waste” https://archive.ph/ZJQCj or, if you prefer some informational tweets by the same author: https://twitter.com/MadiHilly/status/1550148385931513856.

        Last but not least, I highly recommend this book (I’ve read it, but it’s German): “Atommüll - Ungelöstes, unlösbares Problem ?: Technisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Aspekte der Endlagerung hochaktiven Atommülls. Ein Versuch zur Versachlichung der Debatte.” https://www.amazon.com/-/de/dp/B09JX2ZRB3/

        Also, take into account the land usage.

        • Not reliant on continuous consumption of fuel

        Non-issue. Nuclear fuel is virtually inexhaustible and will last us literally until the sun explodes. https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/t/nuclear-fission-fuel-is-inexhaustible/1257

        https://whatisnuclear.com/nuclear-sustainability.html

        You might also be interested in the discussion on Hacker News: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36744699

        Nuclear engineer here. I did a similar write-up (gratuitously leveraging GNU Units) since most people don’t seem to know this fact about fission breeder reactors. I added some other references at the bottom of people pointing this out throughout nuclear fission’s history. https://whatisnuclear.com/nuclear-sustainability.html In addition to the OP, it’s also worth mentioning that you can breed with slow (aka ‘thermal’) neutrons as well as fast ones, you just have to use the Thorium-Uranium fuel cycle to do so.

        • Decentralised

        Haven’t you heard about small modular reactors (SMR)? One prominent company is Oklo (named after the natural nuclear reactor), another is Nuscale https://www.nuscalepower.com.

        Also, we have vessels that are powered by nuclear reactors since several decades.

        • Much, much safer

        I assumed the data was well known: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh With newer designs (“walk-away safety”) the nuclear death rate will likely continue to fall.

        • Much easier to maintain

        I tend to agree here. My main argument against nuclear power is the ongoing competence crisis. We need people that can maintain these plants for decades, but education and scientific literacy are in decline, while ideologies and social conflicts are on the rise. That is not a good environment for radioactive material with malicious use cases.

        • More reliable

        Could you elaborate?

        • Much more responsive to changes in energy demands

        How? Solar and wind have fluctuating production. One main challenge with solar is to get rid of excess electricity quickly, before it damages the grid. Germany already PAYS other countries to use their electric power on sunny days (i. e. the electricity cost becomes negative). That problem will become much worse. Plus, when it is sunny in Germany, it is likely sunny in surrounding countries, too, so they will have the same problem. There is a great talk by Hans-Werner Sinn touching this topic (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5trsBP9Cn4, see 23:04).

        I am not favoring nuclear energy, btw.

        • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Thanks for the reply, it means a lot that you’re willing to engage with my actual arguments.

          When I say cheaper, I refer to a metric known as TCOE - total cost of electricity. It represents all of the various costs required to put a kWh of electrical energy onto the grid.

          Regulatory controls obviously are a major factor to the cost of nuclear, but we can’t just waive all regulation to get cheaper electricity, that would be incredibly dangerous.

          The thing is, with renewables, once they’re built, they continue to generate electricity for many, many years and require no fuel. Whereas nuclear power requires that a material be extracted from the ground, refined, handled and stored to very precise specifications, and then the waste products from that also have to be managed in a very particular (and expensive) way. You’re essentially arguing that nuclear could be cheaper than renewables if we removed ideological barriers to nuclear, but that’s just not true. Nuclear has very expensive costs associated with it that will mean it’s always more expensive than renewables. The gap will only widen with time as we get better at producing the renewables, too.

          For your faster to provision article, it’s truly mind-boggling what the author writes. Did you actually read it or did you just copy-paste links)? Do you actually agree with everything written in that article?

          The author has many cherry-picked examples, such as comparing how much electricity supply was added in a single year for various countries. That comparison obviously favours nuclear, because a nuclear power plant takes decades to build, but the year it comes online it provides a huge glut of (expensive) electrical supply. The obvious response to that graph is to divide each installation by the number of years needed to provision it. I checked that out manually for a few of the nuclear plants mentioned in the article and the energy gains essentially vanish into meaninglessness.

          Also, maybe it’s a bit of an unfair criticism but the line where he wrote “Why does a nuclear power plant need multiple coolers for the reactor? An aeroplane only has one!” was one of the dumbest things I have ever read in my life.

          it’s becoming more difficult to find places to build turbines

          No it isn’t. At present, 0.8% of German land area is used by wind farms and there are plans to increase that to 2%. For comparison, agricultural land uses over 50% of the land. Feel free to provide a source for your claim though.

          For less environmentally damaging - there are a lot of factors. The us bconcrete, the use of water, extraction of uranium, the biodiversity loss of clearing land for a power plant, the large amount of industrial processes and traffic to commission. Same to operate. Same to decommission. The handling of waste products. The irradiation of water. The co2e emissions of nuclear. I could go on and on.

          Your archive link didn’t work and I don’t use Twitter. But I’m not particularly interested in the biased opinion of individuals either way. The environmental impact of nuclear is a well known issue. If you want more information you can just look it up.

          I don’t speak German but I did Google around and found this, translated from the German wiki:

          The memorandum was partly criticized. According to the Green Party politician Hans-Josef Fell , the CO 2 savings potential is massively overestimated [26] , as the journalist Wolfgang Pomrehn calculates at Telepolis [27] , he only states a maximum initial savings potential of 4% of annual emissions . A publication by the IPPNW also accuses the authors of ignoring the study situation and market developments by claiming that there is only one alternative between fossil and nuclear power generation

          Your book is written by a guy employed by the nuclear industry. That isn’t going to be an unbiased view exactly, is it?

          nuclear matter is inexhaustible

          Nothing is infinite, so that’s a dumb claim right out the gate.

          “identified uranium resources [would last] roughly 230-year supply at today’s consumption rate in total”. Including undiscovered sources. I don’t need to tell you that todays current consumption of nuclear power is really, really low in comparison to other forms of energy, approximately 10%. If we used even 30%, that 240 years becomes 80 years.

          https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/

          Breeder reactors aren’t available and can be dismissed the same way cold fusion is. Worth investing in research in case it’s useful in the future but for now it is not viable.

          For decentralisation - smaller reactors is more decentralised but even more expensive and higher environmental impact per kWh. And it’s still less decentralised than renewables.

          Even your own link shows that renewables are as safe or safer than nuclear, dude, what the fuck are you thinking about. Additionally, the sources of the data on fatalities caused by renewables are the most ridiculously cherry picked examples I have ever seen, you should look up the paper as it’s genuinely hilarious. And looking exclusively at death rates per kWh is not exactly the whole picture. When it comes to accidents, according to Benjamin Sovacool, nuclear power plants rank first in terms of their economic cost, accounting for 41 percent of all property damage, more than even fossil fuel plants. I couldn’t find information on the number of injuries but I’d bet any amount of money that nuclear causes more injuries than renewables.

          More reliable - it’s kind of a “sum of its parts” thing. The sun is always there, so is the wind and the waves and the oceans and geothermal energy. If we don’t have one of those then we’re all fucked anyways. Uranium is a resource which can run out, have shortages, have breakages in the supply chain, and so on. Fewer accidents, less of a target for people who want to disrupt it, if a bunch of them are destroyed in an earthquake then it wouldn’t cause huge disruption, and so on.

          And finally, responsiveness. It’s very easy to turn on and off wind and hydro generators on demand, for example. You can look up “smart grid” if you want to learn more. Nuclear is much, much slower than Solar to turn off and on, so Solar can be though of as baseline power and wind/hydro provide conditioning.

          https://smartgrid.ieee.org/bulletins/june-2019/maintaining-power-quality-in-smart-grid-the-wind-farms-contribution

          Final question: If you had the choice between buying magic power banks that fully charged your phone once a day for free, no questions asked, for $50 each, and you can buy one a day, or a regular one you have to buy uranium for to fill your phone with, which costs $150 and you can buy one every 10 years, which would you choose?

        • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Hahah, that’s sweet of you to say, thanks - I’m not usually so self-assured, but I do have a lot of opinions. Usually they’re just opinions rather than provable scientific facts though, so I don’t go quite as hard. As to your question, genuinely, I don’t know, but you can probably do something with an RSS feed? You can also add me on Discord if you want, DM me if you want my username.

      • PhantomPhanatic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why would anyone waste money on the worse option?

        Why do people have diverse stock portfolios?

        Hedging and diversification is important. Unforseen consequences and unknown future conditions can screw up your long term plans for 100% renewables. The more diverse our energy portfolio is, the unknowns become easier to weather.

        That is the answer for why we build and research something that is more expensive and may divert resources away from better options. To argue that there is literally no place for energy development other than purely renewable is a difficult position to defend.

        Your sandwich analogy is lacking because we’re talking about far future consequences of our decision. Maybe you plan to eat the sandwich a week from today. Which do you buy? You don’t have enough information to determine which will be better in a week. Do you pick the chain store’s because it’s full of preservatives? Do you decide to buy both in case one of them gets moldy just to make sure you have anything to eat?

        The consequences of developing or not developing potential viable solutions to energy requirements can be far reaching. Completely dismissing alternative options is just not rational.

        • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I support continued research and development into nuclear power, but I oppose the construction of nuclear power plants for reasons beyond scientific research. My very first comment in my thread said as much. Perhaps you should read more closely?

          I agree that diversification is important. Luckily, when it comes to renewables, we have an absolute feast of options:

          • Solar photovoltaic (generating electricity directly)
          • Solar thermal (heating water)
          • Wind, onshore
          • Wind, offshore
          • Geothermal
          • Hydroelectic (dams, rivers, etc.)
          • Wave
          • Biomass & biofuel
          • Artificial photosynthesis
          • Infrared thermals
          • Water vapor hydrostatic charge

          You say that we should consider the long term implications of our decisions, and I wholeheartedly agree with you. That is another reason to favour renewable sources. The sun is the only thing we can be 100% sure that will always be there for humanity. If it’s gone, then so are we. Likewise for the wind - it’s guaranteed as long as the sun shines and that physics continues to work as expected.

          Meanwhile, nuclear fissile material is a limited resource with extremely complex supply chains involved, with huge disruptions potential at any point in the extraction, refinement, handling, shipping, use and disposal of the material. Not to mention all of the things that can go wrong with a nuclear power plant - mistakes in maintenance or operation can leave it inoperable in a way which is extremely expensive and complex to fix.

          Solar panels and wind turbines are so easy to install, maintain and repair that you could do it safely by having a high school level understanding of electronics and following a 20-minute YouTube tutorial.

          A thought experiment for you: Can you describe a scenario where either solar power or wind power are no longer viable sources of electrical supply, without a mass extinction event also occurring?

          • PhantomPhanatic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why would we limit our hedging to non-world destroying scenarios? It seems we’re already on track for a mass extinction event anyway. The reason you hedge is exactly for the worst case.

      • Aux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s nothing but propaganda, sorry. All your points are completely wrong.

          • Aux@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            There are plenty of detailed replies below. I don’t see a point of copy pasting them.

            • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Not a single one of them has addressed my claims in any way whatsoever.

              All you have to do to prove me wrong is show that nuclear is cheaper or better for the environment than renewables. It should be easy to do if I’m spreading propaganda.

              If you can’t or won’t do that, then your arguments can be dismissed. I have provided plentiful sources for my claims.

              • Aux@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                They did address. You just didn’t read. And that’s the issue with propagandists - you don’t want proofs that you’re wrong and you just ignore everything.

                • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Okay, go ahead and quote the exact phrases posted by other users which address the core of my argument, which I remind you, is the fact that nuclear power is cheaper, more environmentally friendly and faster to provision, than nuclear power.

      • tex@czech-lemmy.eu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        23
        ·
        1 year ago

        Tell me how much energy it provides during night and during winter. Thats’s why. Coal plant produces more radioactive waste than nuclear power plant. And that feared CO2 too.

        • EtzBetz@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          We need to change how power distribution works. That’s just the point. There are easy ways to store power that’s generated by day. And since we don’t just focus on one single renewable energy source, it’s not even half as bad as you’re drawing the picture here.

          Edit: since this is my only comment in here, I also want to point out that the chart is rising last year, I think/hope that it will continue rising. (Until CDU steps in again because people think “Hey there last years were so terrible, everything got more pricy and so on, that’s definitely on SPD, green, FDP, not just a random situation in the Ukraine” and vote for them…)

        • Ooops@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Coal plant produces more radioactive waste than nuclear power plant.

          Tell me you are totally brain-washed without telling me you are totally brain-washed.

          The correct take: Coal plants without any environmental requirements 50-60 years ago release more radiation into the area in the form of fly ash (containing natural amounts of radiation like all earth around you) than the radiation escaping from a modern nuclear power plant through it’s massive concrete hull.

          Or in other worlds: If nothing goes wrong and we completely ignore the actual radioactive waste produced (of which a coal plant obviously produces zero) then the radiation levels in the area around the plant are miniscule and it’s really safe. So safe indeed that just the redistribtion of natural radiation via ash when coal is burned has a slightly stronger effect.

          That’s it. That’s the actual gist of the study that is from the 1970s (referencing even older data).

          Just the fact that this fairy tale about coal power producing radioactive waste based on some (already then criticised and flawed) old study is still going around shows how lobbyists have damaged your brains.

      • lntl@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        33
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Silverseren: Germany made a foolish choice shutting down their nukes

        Blake: Renewables are a deli sandwich

        The room: …?

        • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sorry if the analogy was too hard for you. Feel free to ignore it and address the remaining 90% of the comment which was not an analogy.

          • lntl@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            23
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why would I do that? You’ve made it clear that you don’t read people’s comments. Instead of reading and responding, you copy paste from thead to thread the same disjointed bullet points.

            • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              I have read absolutely every single word you have written and responded to them in kind. After your last comment, I went back over the thread from beginning to end and my conversation with you was lucid and coherent the entire way through.

              I do appreciate the attempt at gaslighting, though. It’s a good feeling knowing that I’m having such a strong impact that you’re willing to try and psychologically manipulate someone.

              Anyways, look, drop me a line, if you’ll send some of that sweet sweet nuclear lobby money my way I’m sure it would be a very worthwhile investment for your company or think tank or what-not. I have reasonable rates and give good results!

            • DerGottesknecht@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Are you hallucinating? What part of your comments do you think was ignored?

              Because it certainly seems like you got your ass handed to you in this thread by someone who had the knowledge and could back it up with sources.

              And your general framing of the issue, ommitance of the stong uptick in new renewables after the new government took power pisses me off as a german.