Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

netz_pirat t1_j6r7bew wrote

Reply to comment by thatmurdergoose4u2 in No coal comeback: Europe’s renewable energy transition is in hyperdrive by Straight_Ad2258

Let me guess, you have no clue about the situation in Germany?

The goal for wind energy installation this year is almost double the target from last year (and it was met).

For solar, wait times are beyond one year.

Germany was at 44.6% renewable electric energy last year about double of, say, usa.

(and if you insist : coal is on a downward trend in Germany since 2012)

38

marsnz t1_j6rmsq4 wrote

Come on now the dude read a headline that said “Germany bad” so he’s pretty read up on the whole situation

21

thatmurdergoose4u2 t1_j6shr49 wrote

And your just on a sub that only wants one-sided views. Not everything is uplifting and not every article on this sub is true

−7

ZoulouGang t1_j6sbxe0 wrote

You are right, it is getting better. But i still dont understand what is the target energy mix in Germany. What will be thé drivable electricity source ? A 100% renewable 24/7 is not possible right ? So what will replace gaz / coal ?

https://app.electricitymaps.com/

0

DeltaJesus t1_j6t1q8u wrote

> A 100% renewable 24/7 is not possible right

Not currently possible doesn't mean completely unattainable, once high volume energy storage has gotten good enough there's no reason we wouldn't be able to go 100% renewable basically everywhere.

2

mjfi4cp2 t1_j6tabj4 wrote

It’s doable with sufficient overbuilding of renewables and a bit of storage. I’m looking forward to seeing what ideas people come up with for the times when there’s significant excess energy available.

2

thatmurdergoose4u2 t1_j6shjak wrote

Germany litteraly just shut down nuclear power plants in favor of coal fueled ones. Please stop with the copium

−6

netz_pirat t1_j6spzgh wrote

No, in favor of renewables. No new coal plant is being built.

Stop the bullshit.

2

SeeminglyBlue t1_j6vo15w wrote

it's still stupid, though. nuclear is the most efficient form of energy we currently have and shelling it in favor of something that doesn't even have 100% uptime (to say nothing of efficiency) is silly.

−1

netz_pirat t1_j6vyrqa wrote

You may want to check the great uptime of nuclear power plants in France.

Or how cheap their new reactor is.

1

SeeminglyBlue t1_j82ybxp wrote

you're misunderstanding. what nuclear needs to be worldwide is a direct replacement for coal (as in, a "backup" energy source) and not renewables (which should power the majority of the grid). it's stupid because they're still using coal for that purpose and ditching the cleaner one until they go 100% renewable (which should have a backup because right now, it's not 100% uptime).

reactors are never cheap anywhere- i never said they were, and they're only gonna get cheaper if we eliminate the social stigma around them and embrace the new tech.

france's reactors are old. look at the gen IV reactors for a better example of what nuclear could (and should) be worldwide.

1

netz_pirat t1_j83p18w wrote

Unfortunately, nuclear does not fulfill this role from an economic perspective.

Cost of nuclear energy is mostly build cost and maintenance, fuel costs are pretty low. So if you have one, you want to keep it at nominal power for as much time as possible, if you just use it as backup, each kwh is insanely expensive.

For coal and gas, it's the other way round. Building them is cheap in comparison, so is maintenance. They only cost money if they run... So they are pretty good backup plants.

Also... You mean the brand new plant of the EPR Type in Flamanville? Construction was supposed to take 5 years, were now at 15 and counting and cost has gone up from 3.3 to 19(!) billion €

1

netz_pirat t1_j83p5e1 wrote

Unfortunately, nuclear does not fulfill this role from an economic perspective.

Cost of nuclear energy is mostly build cost and maintenance, fuel costs are pretty low. So if you have one, you want to keep it at nominal power for as much time as possible, if you just use it as backup, each kwh is insanely expensive.

For coal and gas, it's the other way round. Building them is cheap in comparison, so is maintenance. They only cost money if they run... So they are pretty good backup plants.

Also... You mean the brand new plant of the EPR Type in Flamanville? Construction was supposed to take 5 years, were now at 15 and counting and cost has gone up from 3.3 to 19(!) billion €

1