• 4 Posts
  • 149 Comments
Joined 3 months ago
cake
Cake day: June 16th, 2024

help-circle



  • I guess we are stating the same, just from different perspectives. About Germany, you are correct that it isn’t just their push towards renewables, it was a combination of ditching nuclear power and going full renewables. The real world outcome was huge pollution. That was indeed reduced by renewables (each year more) but still, it was enormous and it’s still pretty huge and will be for a foreseeable future unless they come with enough surplus of renewables and huge energy storage. I don’t see the later coming soon, though. The France does it right, they rely on nuclear.

    You say (correct me if I’m wrong) that renewables (even without storage) are reducing emissions because they reduce fossil fuels usage, and you are definitely right. I’m saying that that’s not enough, we have to ditch fossil fuels entirely and if/when that occurs, renewables without storage are not that useful since we will have to rely on stable non-co2-emission power source - which is only nuclear today.

    Sorry to go so hard on this

    Hey, it’s a healthy debate.

    Edit: formatting






  • Sure, I agree that it helps, but only as long as you are emitting co2 as an alternative. Not sure whether comparison to USA is a good one since they ditched new nuclear plants after Three Mile Island accident. Try comparing against France though - they are the greenest and most reliable energy producer out there (maybe Scandinavian countries are better, but they have excellent predispositions). And then we have Germany, which went diehard renewable with the side effect of becoming one of the biggest European polluter.






  • Fossil fuels end up doing the work of balancing the grid during times when wind and solar are low. That’s not ideal, but a world where fossil fuels are used to balance renewable provision is much better than a world where they’re the primary energy source.

    That’s true, but only as long as your primary source/balancing source are fossil fuels. I can imagine a lot of them being burned during short and cloudy winter days + all nights in this scenario. If we want to avoid CO2 emissions, nuclear pps seems like the best choice today. But then we don’t need nearly as much renewables. Tricky situation, even worse for countries without much wind.

    I work in the UK energy sector, and that’s definitely not true! About 1/3 of our energy comes from wind which is somewhat but mostly not stored.

    Yep, because you are still relaying on fossil fuels and can adjust their output quite dynamically. But the more renewables power you have, the more fossil fuels you’ll burn when renewables aren’t producing.

    Makes sense?





  • I think the ramifications of what Israel did will go far far beyond fear in non west countries. We entered the stage when you can’t trust your device anymore to not explode when some state (or non-state) actor would deem you disposable. Everybody should be concerned when they receive a phone call. If nothing else, it should change the way we fly - now security will annoy you with prohibiting bringing even water on airplane. What now? We should travel without any electronic device? Heck, even China didn’t go that far (west is banning their devices mostly for economic purposes even though they mimic them as ‘security’).