German Chancellor Scholz speaks out against new nuclear power, Deutschlandfunk reports
www.reuters.com
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said he is against a new nuclear power debate in the country, in an interview released late on Friday with German radio station Deutschlandfunk.

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

  • Rooty@lemmy.world
    63·
    1 year ago
    1. Power lines are not superconductive, there are always losses when electricity is moved long distance
    2. You sidestepped my point and went on a tangent
    3. Again, there are losses when electric energy is converted into other types - pumped storage requires large reservoirs, and you’re basically making ineffective hydro.
    4. I never stated that renewables are easier to maintain than nuclear, just that the monetary and enviromental cost of maintenance is swept under the rug by anti-nuclear zealots.
    5. Again, renewables have a reliabilty problem that cannot be handwaved by "just move the power somewhere else.

    Judging by your sneering tone, I doubt you’re going to be receptive to any further points.

    • Zuberi 👀@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      21·
      1 year ago

      You didn’t provide any sources.

      If you’re trying to wave your dick around you better provide more sources than Blake did above. Moving electricity long distances isn’t really losing much anyway.

    • Blake [he/him]
      45·
      1 year ago
      1. Sure, but it’s so much cheaper than nuclear, that it’s nearly irrelevant. A typical loss for 800 kV lines is 2.6% over 800 km. That means it’s cheaper to generate renewable energy 16,000km away from the point of consumption. That’s almost half the circumference of the Earth.
      2. You claimed that renewables would take up too much space. I provided an explanation backed up by facts and figures which clearly demonstrate that claim was false. You clearly can’t refute my point or you would have done so.
      3. Again, yes, but again, it’s so much cheaper that it doesn’t matter. Even with a conservative estimate, pumped storage is 70% efficient. In reality, it’s closer to 80%. This means that it’s still much cheaper to generate electricity and store it with pumped storage than it is to directly produce electricity with nuclear sources. 99% of the world’s electrical storage is pumped storage. Do you think you know better than industry experts?
      4. Good, I’m glad you’re willing to walk back this argument. The fact of the matter is that renewables are the cleanest, cheapest, safest source of energy available to us, and so that is what we should be investing in. That’s all that matters. Everything else is propaganda and rhetoric.
      5. No, they don’t. Again, this is just the same argument as argument 1. There’s no point in arguing it twice. People need to eat food, we produce food all over the world. People need to power their homes? We should produce power all over the world. It’s not a hard concept.