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

  • Ertebolle@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    27
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • denial@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Fraunhofer ISE is a reaseach institut with a focus on solar. It is very well respected and I would be very suprised if they where biased here.

    • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      • Jumper775@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • Ertebolle@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Ertebolle@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.