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

  • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nothing? That’s my point. They HAVE figured this out. Get your head out of your ass and take an opportunity to actually learn something instead of just being aggressively wrong on the internet. The only people in the industry who think we should provision nuclear power plants are those who would financially benefit from continued investment in nuclear. Just look it up.

    • lntl@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      If renewables are the answer, why does germany still rely on lignite? If it was figured out, wouldn’t they be exporters of carbon free energy to Europe? (France is!) Instead of resisting nuclear, renewable advocates ought to go after fossil fuel subsidies. Fighting nuclear gives lignite “the green light.”

      • LordR@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because the last German government did everything it could to make it harder to get more renewables. Just look at Bavaria for example where the little sister f the CDU is still inpower. You are allowed to build wind turbines in very few spots

      • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because the fossil fuel industry and their lobbyists are absolutely, ridiculously, hideously wealthy, and it benefits them for it to be that way?

        France lost their place as largest energy producer in the EU in 2022, because France has been having issues with their nuclear power stations.

        “France usually exports more power than it imports, but structural problems with its nuclear fleet, which show no signs of improving, saw exports from the country halve compared to the previous year, while Sweden exported 16 terawatt hours”

        Sweden has over 60% of their energy generation from renewables, by the way.

        Take a look at this graph:

        See that blue line that starts out at the top, then it drops off a cliff? That’s coal. Look at it dropping.

        The yellow line that’s just below it, that’s been slowly decreasing until it sharply started dropping? That’s nuclear.

        Look at my boy wind power, that little gray line, going into orbit, flying like the wind.

        Solar PV is that purple line that’s trending upwards.

        Oil is also slowly decreasing.

        So no, you’re wrong. Stop digging your heels in and admit when you are wrong.

        • lntl@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Lol, what am I wrong about? Nuclear is a a carbon free techonolgy that we have that can prodce the energy we need? Germany dumped nuclear to go full renewable and it flopped? France exports a ton energy to Europe? What did I say that was wrong?

          I think your brain is full of ideas that came from somewhere else.

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

            Watch this, I can make you ragequit this entire argument with this one comment with like a 90% confidence rate:

            Prove either of these two statements as false:

            1. The total cost per kWh of nuclear electricity is more expensive than common renewable sources of electricity.

            2. The total amount of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions for nuclear is greater than the carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of common renewable sources of electricity.

            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!”

            But go ahead and prove me wrong, I’ll be waiting!

            • lntl@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Nice. Topic change.

              For real though, you’ve got a lot of energy on this. That’s great. Use it to go after fossil fuels, they’re the ones damaging the climate. Costs are indeed a concern with expanding nuclear but money’s not a problem. Emissions are. If we need more we’ll just print more like we always do.

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

                Ah yeah, that’s the stuff, right there. It’s like fucking heroin right into my veins. I ask you directly to contradict the entire underlying basis for my entire original argument and you declare that it’s a “topic change”. I don’t know why you love defending the nuclear industry so much, but man, the entertainment value alone, it’s great stuff.

                Use it to go after fossil fuels, they’re the ones damaging the climate

                How about you take that little hit to your ego, admit that you were wrong, and start being right? We’ve all been there man, I used to be a big supporter of nuclear energy too, you can join me in recovery and we can fight against investments in both fossil fuels AND nuclear AT THE SAME TIME. It’s almost unbelievable I know but we’re actually capable of more advanced thought than “the mineral fuel enemy of my fossil fuel enemy is my friend”. Every million dollars spent on nuclear would have been better spent as half a million on renewables and then burying the other half a million in a hole in the ground. Obviously spending the whole million on renewables would be good as well but I know that it’s just not the same generating power without having some big hole in the ground being dug as part of that process so I’m willing to come to a compromise.

                • lntl@lemmy.mlOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I won’t fight against anything that helps the climate, even if it’s expensive. It’s unfortunate that anyone would. Do you really think when our grandchildren inherit the land, they’ll be proud that their ancestors saved money when caring for the atmosphere?

                  This isn’t about being right or wrong, or arguing about stupid things with a loon from the internet. It’s about the atmosphere, don’t forget that.

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

                    Again, 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

                    Name a single good fucking thing nuclear does better than renewables.

            • escapesamsara@discuss.online
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              The total cost per kWh of nuclear electricity is more expensive than common renewable sources of electricity.

              Subsidize nuclear as much as renewables and the price equalizes.

              The total amount of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions for nuclear is greater than the carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of common renewable sources of electricity.

              This is incorrect, objectively.