• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Not a realistic option, especially if you want to have industry. I suppose Germany may just be advocating for NIMBY strategy here though. Perhaps you plan to just deinudstrialize and outsource manufacturing to countries like China so that your energy needs go down enough to make all renewables viable.

        • smegforbrains
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Can you substantiate your claim by offering a source, or is this your personal assessment?

            • smegforbrains
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Research into this topic is fairly new, with very few studies published before 2009, but has gained increasing attention in recent years. The majority of studies show that a global transition to 100% renewable energy across all sectors – power, heat, transport and industry – is feasible and economically viable.

              https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.apenergy.2020.116273

              https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-05843-2

              https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/cheap_safe_100_renewable_energy_possible_before_2050_says_finnish_uni_study/10736252

              https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.rser.2021.110934

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Not sure what you’re basing this grand assertion that most studies show the transition is feasible and economically viable. For every study that shows this, I can find you one that shows the opposite. In fact, as you admit, this is a new research topic with a lot of unknowns, and we are in a middle of a global crisis that threatens our whole civilization. Using proven technologies that are known to work seems like a far better thing to do than to experiment in a middle of a crisis.

                • smegforbrains
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  That’s a valid point. There is no consensus yet. But what’s the worst that would happen if we can’t achieved this goal in Germany, when we try? We will buy french nuclear power again. But what happens when it works out? Germany will be climate neutral and will be independent of nuclear power. No fission material is required, no uranium mining will be required for power production. So there’s the possibility to mitigate the negative impact of uranium mining, while getting rid of the dangers of nuclear power plants and not creating more nuclear waste for future generations to take care of. IMHO that’s a great opportunity that we should seize.

                  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    The worst that will happen is that our civilization collapses because we failed to transition away from the use of fossil fuels. Buying energy from France is the best case scenario, using more coal and other dirty fuels if the transition fails is another very likely scenario. And once again, I’ll note that there are alternatives to uranium such as thorium. The only reason uranium is used traditionally is because it doubles up as weapons material. Thorium reactors are cheaper, safer, and don’t require water cooling. Why not explore all options, and find a mix of solutions that work reliably. In a situation where there are many unknowns, it’s generally best not to put all the eggs in one basket.