Share Funny Videos, Images, Memes, Quotes and more

parent

[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

I was using the live data from today, no need to accuse me of lying. It has risen from 9.7% to 12.2% in the meantime, however: https://grid.iamkate.com/

parent

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

You could have scrolled down and hit the year tab to get a more representative number, which is around 14%. Taking the daily value doesn't make much sense now does it?

parent

[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

If that's the level of pedantry you want to argue about, sure. It doesn't change the fact that nuclear isn't the backbone of the UK grid, and that it is not feasible to bring it back in Germany, and that it never was and likely never will be economically competitive, especially not with renewables getting cheaper every year.

That is to say nothing about security risks, political dependencies and environmental impacts.

parent

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago

It's produced more power than coal, biomass, solar, and hydro combined this year and is the third largest behind wind and gas. There are plans to do more. This is in a country that isn't that into nuclear. In France over 70% is nuclear.

Economically competitive doesn't mean it's the best option. Renewables are basically useless without significant investment in energy storage. They also need replacing more often. Add these two together and you have very significant environmental and economic issues with "green energy". That's why countries like France and China are invested in nuclear and why everyone wants fusion.