β² 50 βΌ German power mix may get dirtier for 1st non-nuclear winter (www.reuters.com) submitted 2 years ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/europe@feddit.de 67 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[β] Lotec4@feddit.de 9 points 2 years ago (2 children) Except your wrong. It's the most expensive form of energy generation. The question is are you just dumb or saying wrong stuff on purpose. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [β] jman6495@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) The levelised cost doesn't take into account the need to offset intermittence, which is the big fucking problem that the entire population of Germany seems to be ignoring. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Lotec4@feddit.de 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ah yes you don't have the exact same problem with nuclear because energy usage never fluctuates. But even if it would takes 10 times more money to store solar energy it still would be cheaper than nuclear. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] jman6495@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Rare earths for batteries are a bottleneck, especially if you want to electrify transport too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Lotec4@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) No they aren't. There are so many different battery types that don't use any rare materials. You can store heat in salt. SALT permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] jman6495@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago Yes and we absolutely should, but Germany is going to have to build a shit ton more storage and generation capacity to make that work. Also different storage technologies have different discharge rates, while traditional batteries can provide instant, short lasting and much needed frequency regulation, heat-based batteries take time to respond but can operate for prolonged periods. This is also a really complex balance to reach. Again, not saying there isn't space for renewables: my ideal grid is 40% nuclear 60% renewable. but I'm not certain we can grow storage and production with the rate of increase in demand by purely using renewables. Especially given the future need for air conditioning, and green hydrogen production for industrial processes like steelmaking. We're in the midst of a climate crisis, and my only and primary goal is to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions. The statistics show clearly that Germany's phase out of nuclear had done the opposite. The wrong decision was made: these plants should have at least been maintained, and, in my opinion, moderately expanded. The EU should have developed an EU-wide nuclear fuel reprocessing and storage programme, and we could be much closer to climate neutrality and relative energy independence today. permalink fedilink source parent [β] jman6495@lemmy.ml -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) ScheiΓe, I've upset the Germans. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Contend6248@feddit.de 1 point 2 years ago That needs more than a lunatic on an online board. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] jman6495@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) The levelised cost doesn't take into account the need to offset intermittence, which is the big fucking problem that the entire population of Germany seems to be ignoring. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Lotec4@feddit.de 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ah yes you don't have the exact same problem with nuclear because energy usage never fluctuates. But even if it would takes 10 times more money to store solar energy it still would be cheaper than nuclear. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] jman6495@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Rare earths for batteries are a bottleneck, especially if you want to electrify transport too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Lotec4@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) No they aren't. There are so many different battery types that don't use any rare materials. You can store heat in salt. SALT permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] jman6495@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago Yes and we absolutely should, but Germany is going to have to build a shit ton more storage and generation capacity to make that work. Also different storage technologies have different discharge rates, while traditional batteries can provide instant, short lasting and much needed frequency regulation, heat-based batteries take time to respond but can operate for prolonged periods. This is also a really complex balance to reach. Again, not saying there isn't space for renewables: my ideal grid is 40% nuclear 60% renewable. but I'm not certain we can grow storage and production with the rate of increase in demand by purely using renewables. Especially given the future need for air conditioning, and green hydrogen production for industrial processes like steelmaking. We're in the midst of a climate crisis, and my only and primary goal is to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions. The statistics show clearly that Germany's phase out of nuclear had done the opposite. The wrong decision was made: these plants should have at least been maintained, and, in my opinion, moderately expanded. The EU should have developed an EU-wide nuclear fuel reprocessing and storage programme, and we could be much closer to climate neutrality and relative energy independence today. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] Lotec4@feddit.de 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ah yes you don't have the exact same problem with nuclear because energy usage never fluctuates. But even if it would takes 10 times more money to store solar energy it still would be cheaper than nuclear. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] jman6495@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Rare earths for batteries are a bottleneck, especially if you want to electrify transport too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Lotec4@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) No they aren't. There are so many different battery types that don't use any rare materials. You can store heat in salt. SALT permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] jman6495@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago Yes and we absolutely should, but Germany is going to have to build a shit ton more storage and generation capacity to make that work. Also different storage technologies have different discharge rates, while traditional batteries can provide instant, short lasting and much needed frequency regulation, heat-based batteries take time to respond but can operate for prolonged periods. This is also a really complex balance to reach. Again, not saying there isn't space for renewables: my ideal grid is 40% nuclear 60% renewable. but I'm not certain we can grow storage and production with the rate of increase in demand by purely using renewables. Especially given the future need for air conditioning, and green hydrogen production for industrial processes like steelmaking. We're in the midst of a climate crisis, and my only and primary goal is to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions. The statistics show clearly that Germany's phase out of nuclear had done the opposite. The wrong decision was made: these plants should have at least been maintained, and, in my opinion, moderately expanded. The EU should have developed an EU-wide nuclear fuel reprocessing and storage programme, and we could be much closer to climate neutrality and relative energy independence today. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] jman6495@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Rare earths for batteries are a bottleneck, especially if you want to electrify transport too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Lotec4@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) No they aren't. There are so many different battery types that don't use any rare materials. You can store heat in salt. SALT permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] jman6495@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago Yes and we absolutely should, but Germany is going to have to build a shit ton more storage and generation capacity to make that work. Also different storage technologies have different discharge rates, while traditional batteries can provide instant, short lasting and much needed frequency regulation, heat-based batteries take time to respond but can operate for prolonged periods. This is also a really complex balance to reach. Again, not saying there isn't space for renewables: my ideal grid is 40% nuclear 60% renewable. but I'm not certain we can grow storage and production with the rate of increase in demand by purely using renewables. Especially given the future need for air conditioning, and green hydrogen production for industrial processes like steelmaking. We're in the midst of a climate crisis, and my only and primary goal is to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions. The statistics show clearly that Germany's phase out of nuclear had done the opposite. The wrong decision was made: these plants should have at least been maintained, and, in my opinion, moderately expanded. The EU should have developed an EU-wide nuclear fuel reprocessing and storage programme, and we could be much closer to climate neutrality and relative energy independence today. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] Lotec4@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) No they aren't. There are so many different battery types that don't use any rare materials. You can store heat in salt. SALT permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] jman6495@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago Yes and we absolutely should, but Germany is going to have to build a shit ton more storage and generation capacity to make that work. Also different storage technologies have different discharge rates, while traditional batteries can provide instant, short lasting and much needed frequency regulation, heat-based batteries take time to respond but can operate for prolonged periods. This is also a really complex balance to reach. Again, not saying there isn't space for renewables: my ideal grid is 40% nuclear 60% renewable. but I'm not certain we can grow storage and production with the rate of increase in demand by purely using renewables. Especially given the future need for air conditioning, and green hydrogen production for industrial processes like steelmaking. We're in the midst of a climate crisis, and my only and primary goal is to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions. The statistics show clearly that Germany's phase out of nuclear had done the opposite. The wrong decision was made: these plants should have at least been maintained, and, in my opinion, moderately expanded. The EU should have developed an EU-wide nuclear fuel reprocessing and storage programme, and we could be much closer to climate neutrality and relative energy independence today. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] jman6495@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago Yes and we absolutely should, but Germany is going to have to build a shit ton more storage and generation capacity to make that work. Also different storage technologies have different discharge rates, while traditional batteries can provide instant, short lasting and much needed frequency regulation, heat-based batteries take time to respond but can operate for prolonged periods. This is also a really complex balance to reach. Again, not saying there isn't space for renewables: my ideal grid is 40% nuclear 60% renewable. but I'm not certain we can grow storage and production with the rate of increase in demand by purely using renewables. Especially given the future need for air conditioning, and green hydrogen production for industrial processes like steelmaking. We're in the midst of a climate crisis, and my only and primary goal is to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions. The statistics show clearly that Germany's phase out of nuclear had done the opposite. The wrong decision was made: these plants should have at least been maintained, and, in my opinion, moderately expanded. The EU should have developed an EU-wide nuclear fuel reprocessing and storage programme, and we could be much closer to climate neutrality and relative energy independence today. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] jman6495@lemmy.ml -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) ScheiΓe, I've upset the Germans. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Contend6248@feddit.de 1 point 2 years ago That needs more than a lunatic on an online board. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] Contend6248@feddit.de 1 point 2 years ago That needs more than a lunatic on an online board. permalink fedilink source parent