Candlelight irrigation

But if a private company does it, it belongs ti the private company.

Unless you don’t believe in private ownership?

“If I invented the means of saving lives that doesn’t make it my responsibility to actually do so. Especially if there are profits on the line”. Wow.

Germany has a beautiful sentence in its constitution:

Eigentum verpflichtet. Sein Gebrauch soll zugleich dem Wohle der Allgemeinheit dienen.

Property implies responsibility. Its use shall also benefit the wellbeing of the general public.

The thought being that while private property is a core staple of our society this is only the case because the concept of private property is seen as beneficial overall. If private property starts hurting the general public then the implied responsibilities coming with the property are not being fulfilled and the concept loses its value to society as a whole.

Ich behaupte halt dass das nicht vernünftig ist den Steuerfreibetrag zu erhöhen und dabei zu behaupten das würde ja vor allem Geringverdienern nützen.

Du hast aber nun mal behauptet es bevorteilt vor allem Geringverdienende. Es gibt übrigens mehrere Millionen Menschen die Arbeiten und trotzdem aufstocken müssen. Denen bringt das gar nichts.

Ganz abgesehen davon dass es einige Leute gibt die eben unter dem Freibetrag verdienen denen das gar nicht hilft habe ich ja auch nicht gefragt warum das denen auch hilft. Meine Frage hat sich spezifisch auf das vor allem bezogen. Diese Steuererleichterung ist deutlich vorteilhafter für besser Verdienende und trägt zur weiteren Spreizung der Schere zwischen Arm und Reich bei.

Wenn man vor allem Geringverdienern helfen möchte kann man z.b. an der Umsatzsteuer für Gegenstände des täglichen Bedarfs drehen. Essen, Hygienemittel, Schulmaterial, sowas.

Die Steuersenkung der FDP war bisher ein höherer steuerfrei Betrag… Was vorallem den Geringverdienern hilft.

Geringverdienern wird der minimale Steuersatz erlassen, wenn sie denn überhaupt über dem Freibetrag liegen. Leute die den maximalen Steuersatz zahlen wird dafür dieser erlassen, prozentual also deutlich mehr. Wie genau hilft der Steuerfreibetrag vor allem Geringverdienern?

Oh definitely. I’m just saying both sides have their indiscriminant supporters and that one side is way overrepresented in my experience

No I didn’t miss that but taking an explorative pilot project as the defacto standard and then rejecting that it might be possible to build something more space efficient is not how the world works

Have i Not Just calculated that the storage for one day for berlin would be like a few soccer fields? How many days do you think is necessary to be prepared for completely no power input? 10? That’s 100ish soccer fields with 2020s battery technology. Stop spreading that bullshit.

Your tldr does not follow from any of the things you wrote above. Considering current energy densities it doesn’t seem unfeasible to me to build that storage. And I was honestly surprised how little space this would have taken back in 2020, not to mention that, again, this has been reduced by about 4x today. And it’s going to go down further. Your only argument here seems to be space and I don’t see that as a big problem. A few soccer fields worth of land distributed in the vicinity of each bigger city doesn’t seem like a lot to me.

I do see your point that it is in the interest of fossil fuel to stop nuclear power from replacing them. But I don’t agree that we won’t be able to build an energy grid without fossile fuels. I believe we can have a grid without both of these technologies.

You seem to be influenced by the “well we won’t do anything until we are already burning” mentality which is coincidentally pushed heavily by the fossil industry. It’s meant to defer people from believing that change is possible and taking action so we all stay at home and bicker about how cool it would have been if we started change 20 years ago.

Okay so your comparison has a few flaws there. The square meters I calculated were just a reference. The important thing is the volume taken up. If you stack your batteries only 1m high that’s gonna cover a lot of ground. You also completely failed to take into account that energy density has apparently 4x since 2020 which shrinks the required volume significantly.

I’m gonna argue that 4000 of these facilities distributed around the whole USA isn’t that much. Spacewise the USA is in a very comfortable position compared to European countries.

As for the price: taking the price for a pilot project and assuming that every facility is going to cost that is very wrong. If you’re going to build 4000 of them, cost is going to go way down.

But if we are talking numbers here I too have a question. How much land would nuclear plants (and the intermediary storage and final storage for the waste) use to fulfill those 12TWh per year? And how much would those cost to build and maintain? I imagine that a battery facility is way cheaper to operate than a nuclear plant.

I did the calculation for you in a different answer, it isn’t as unreasonable as you seem to think. Aside from that:

It’s extremely uncommon for the whole powergrid to experience zero wind. That’s not happening.

What pro-nuclear people are just waving away is so much more though. Space for storage is nothing in comparison.

For the fun of it I did do the calculation. Berlin uses about 12TWh per year. That’s about 33GWh per day.

Assuming an energy density of 450Wh/l (a number car batteries apparently were able to reach 2020) that’s about 80.000 m³.

A soccer field is about 4000 m². So a space of 10 soccer fields with 20m high battery stacks would do that.

Now assume that energy density will have improved in the last 4,5 years and that maybe storage batteries can be different from batteries in cars and that can go down by a lot. Seems reasonable enough for the biggest city in Germany.

The premise of powering a complete city just from one singular facility is a false one. It’s unnecessary to build such a facility. You can build multiple smaller ones to supply sectors of a city according to the needs of that sector. The answer also depends on how smart the usage of the power is. Are people using power when it’s available? Are people trying to use a lot of power when it’s not available but must come from storage? There are so many factors your scenario doesn’t take into account. The answer has to be: it depends.

This also feels a lot like a gotcha question not posed in good faith. Because again: you won’t need to power anything solely from storage. Wind and sun will always supply a base level of energy.

Why would you want to do that? Do you fear that there might be absolutely pitch black days with absolutely zero wind?

Or they would have known that they don’t work. Thats the thing. It is very much possible that further operation of these reactores would have been economically insensible. Maybe the repairs would have been so expensive and timeintensive that it would be easier to build new ones. The point is noone knows.

We can argue all day if what the CDU decided together with the owners of the plants was a good decision or a bad one. Nothing productive for the discussion around renewable energy will come out of that discussion. The plants are closed and they wont be able to get up and running in the forseeable future.

Because Germany decommissioned their Nuclear plants before they did so with coal plants (or gas plants, which they keep building)

Yeah but that is done. There is no way to reverse that. The thing we need to talk about now are options to coal based plants which are nuclear and renewables. So if anything we need to discuss the pros and cons of those two. Noone here is saying that the coal plants are a good thing.

Unless we move manufacturing back (which we should do, but that’s a decades long process we can’t possibly rely upon) we are still reliant on an external state to undergo the ecological transition.

Germany had one of the biggest sectors for photovoltaic cells. They are closing and I agree we should be moving production back to europe. Right now there might be enough knowhow left so it does not take decades to do so.

Using spent fuel should shorten the estimated containment time from tens of thousands of years to 300 years, which should be enough to just say, bury them and leave.

If we can actually use spent fuel. That’s a big if I don’t want to gamble on. Also 300 years is still a very long time. 300 years eralier society was so much different than now, we can’t possibly predict what’s going to happen in the next ~10 Generations of humans.

This is an issue we might be able to fix without hoping for magical technology. Also because it doesn’t touch only this argument, but pretty much everything happening in the country. We can’t just say “Germany can’t make any big project” and leave.

My point isn’t “do nothing instead of nuclear power” though. My point is that many smaller projects seem way more likely to succeed in the bigger picture even if some of them fail or are delayed, which is what reneweable energies are suited to. The success of the transition is also about people being able to trust into the success of the project. And I don’t think many people have a lot of trust into germanies ability to bring big projects to a successful end. I’d like that to be different, I do, but that’s just not what I have experienced in my lifetime.

That’s functionally the same thing.

It’s not. Not knowing if something works is far removed from knowing something does in fact still work. Discussing this again and again with the same arguments on both sides is not fruitful. And it doesn’t help making any of the current decisions around our enery supply for the forseeable future.

Because batteries aren’t as dangerous as reactors, are still making massive improvements on energy density and seem feasible to me. Doing anything useful with nuclear waste has been discussed for decades and no-one has come forward with any really promising results. The waste has been around for long enough if anyone could have done something productive with it it likely would have happened already.

As I already said I do have a lot of concerns around nuclear power as a long term strategy that I do not see or at least see as less of a problem with renewable energy sources.

I don’t know about Europe as a whole but in Germany we did not shut down functional reactors. We shut down reactors of which no one knows how functional they are because no one checked that because they were scheduled to be shut down anyways.

And I’ll repeat again: discussing if this was a mistake is such a moot point it literally doesn’t matter now. It’s done. Discussing this again and again just takes up everyone’s time and energy without any productive outcome.