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
    47
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    You can have this copy/paste from like 5 minutes of googling. You can also run your own study yourself by just googling “average kwh price nuclear” and “average kwh price wind” and see how it looks. You can also google “average co2 eq emissions total lifetime nuclear” and likewise for wind/solar PV. This is extremely simple stuff, guys. I am basically saying, “lentils are cheaper than steak” and you’re asking for citations.

    2022 Electricity ATB Technologies and Data Overview, annual technology baseline:

    https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-nuclear-energy-good-for-the-climate/a-59853315

    Wow look isn’t it crazy how nuclear is the most expensive one?

    Mycle Schneider, author of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report: “Nuclear power plants are about four times as expensive as wind or solar, and take five times as long to build. When you factor it all in, you’re looking at 15-to-20 years of lead time for a new nuclear plant.”

    Differences in carbon emissions reduction between countries pursuing renewable electricity versus nuclear power, published in nature energy: "We find that larger-scale national nuclear attachments do not tend to associate with significantly lower carbon emissions while renewables do. "

    • Iceblade@lemdit.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      and this is a short intro to why a (60%/40%) split between renewables and nuclear may be the most accessible fossil free solution, and why the value of adding more variable renewables to a grid falls sharply the closer you get to 100%.

      Also, the last article you posted is paywalled.

    • Ertebolle@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      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
        16
        ·
        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
          8
          ·
          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
          14
          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
            13
            ·
            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
              10
              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.