We're building the solar equivalent of the total cumulative nuclear capacity germany has ever build every 3 years.
If we manage to hold off regressive forces that are trying to derail the current trajectory with whataboutism of nuclear and fusion, we might actually make it to CO2 neutrality in a reasonable timeframe.
We’re making changes, but the course correction haven’t been sufficient so far and it remains to be seen if we will be able to do enough fast enough to avoid said cataclysm.
You didn't read the article I sent, it show you don't care about what it says but you try to attack the article because you dislike what it say.
The article state it's source is cicero, a... german magazine.
https://www.cicero.de/innenpolitik/robert-habeck-akten-atomk...
[0] https://assets.cicero.de/2024-04/2022-03-03_Atomaufsicht_Ver...
https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-just-cant-quit-russia...
A well known example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superph%C3%A9nix
UK stepped up and started to invest in the supply chain and replace Russia one day.
New gas plants are required to make use of gas as a storage medium one way or another.
> Late last month, Germany’s energy regulator said the country needs more coal power.
If you want a less biased source, here is bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-30/germany-s...
> Reserve plant capacity needs to double by 2026, regulator says
> Power stations on standby are mostly coal-, gas-fired plants
This article is riddled with statements that are factually incorrect. :(
I guess this is hard to research if you don't speak German, though.
> If you want a less biased source, here is bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-30/germany-s...
Can't read this, it's behind a paywall.
> Reserve plant capacity needs to double by 2026, regulator says
That does not imply more plants if you're in a phase where you take plants out of continuous operation. It's just that existing plants must be kept in reserve and can't be completely disconnected.
> If we manage to hold off regressive forces that are trying to derail the current trajectory with whataboutism of nuclear
Nuclear already reached the target. It's not some "whataboutism".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...
Nuclear has less capacity than solar. Nuclear has less capacity than on-shore wind. Nuclear is currently 3x as expensive as on-shore wind. Nuclear is currently 2x as expensive as solar.
France spend the last 70 years building low-CO2 energy reactors. Nobody is disputing that this is a great thing™, but that doesn't mean that it is the right technology for other nations to go with now, who can't go back in time 70 years.
I'm gonna use the most expensive storage technology I know (lithium-ion) and forego cheaper alternatives like pumped hydro just to make a point.
I'm gonna use data from lazard, because it looks like the most recent study[1].
- Cost of Lithium-Ion Battery Packs 139$/kWh [2]
- 139000$/MWh
- We want the levelized cost of electricity, so let's assume, again to make a point, that we have to throw the battery out after 500 cycles instead of it only operating at 80% charge. That's 139000$ / 500 = 278$
- The EU estimates that in a 80% renewable grid you need approx 30% storage capacity. So let's assume we need 40% storage capacity for a 100% grid.[3] That's 278$ * 0.4 = 112$
- Cost for solar 24–96$
- Cost for wind 24–75$
- Cost for solar + storage 136$ - 208$
- Cost for wind + storage 136$ - 187$
- Cost for new nuclear: 141–221$
1: https://www.lazard.com/media/typdgxmm/lazards-lcoeplus-april...
2: https://about.bnef.com/blog/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-...
3: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/research-and-technology/e...
Fortunately there's no such thing as diminishing returns and we can just make assumptions like this without any backing./s
But sure let's take a paper that estimated costs for the 100% renewable case: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac4dc8#...
They estimate €80 per MWh for an entirely renewable System.
So do you want to provide a study that has some contradicting numbers, or do you just want to admit that no amount of evidence is going to change your mind and move on?
There are multiple sources for those interested, https://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2021/6/11/some-rules-o... is a brief dot point page, the Hydrogen UK and European Hydrogen Backbone reports are longer more detailed technical report papers.
Our point is that nuclear is used exactly for the same purpose: "We don't need to invest into renewables, because fusion and nuclear is gonna magically save us all in 10 years."
Again it's great that france has this much nuclear right now. But that's not a good path for the rest of europe catching up. Especially not with the current price trajectories. (Nuclear becoming more expensive, storage and renewables getting cheaper)
The number I first gave(CO2 per kWh) is when Germany was at more than 80% renewable, at the time I wrote the comment. As we can all see the 'low carbon' target you set yourself in your example is not enough.
Btw the EU wants 80% renewables by 2050, that includes coal guzzlers like poland. Germany wants 100% renewables by 2035.
So you're barking at the wrong tree.
The tree I'm barking at kills thousands of European every year by burning coal, and finance anti-nuclear propaganda. https://env-health.org/IMG/pdf/dark_cloud-full_report_final....
https://www.ege.fr/sites/ege.fr/files/media_files/German_Int...
Should germany do more? Yes!
Is it great that france spend the last 70 years building 0-CO2 emmision power plants? Yes!
Should germany spend its money on the cheapest, most available technology? Yes!
Is your nuclear greenwash for new reactors in germany an obvious conservative derailment strategy to delay more investment in renewables? Yes! (you might actually believe this stuff, but german conservative parties that use this dogwhistle certainly don't)
The capacity factor in winter for solar is below 10%. Nuclear is typically at more than 90% in winter.
The target we are speaking is CO2 emitted, it already reached the "target" in france, with less than 60gCO2/kwh to provide electricity the whole year, to the whole grid.
> but that doesn't mean that it is the right technology for other nations to go with now
you propose something that is not feasible with the current technology.
Reports indicate countries should build a lots of clean energy source, as fast as possible, including nuclear, solar, wind, to use these clean energy source and replace fossil energy, to limit global warming
Right now, France doesn't do that fast enough (not enough investment in nuclear, and renewable), and Germany is headed to the opposite direction (need of fossil fuel to produce in renewable down-time).
Every euro spend on nuclear is a euro not spend on something that's giving you 2-3x as much energy generated.
Rewewables have been called "infeasible" at 5%, at 25% at 50%, now we're at 60%. I'm prette sure you'll yell "infeasible" even if we're running at 100%...