Post A3zuD3SLyreLtz0eHI by g@fed.giorgiocomai.eu
(DIR) More posts by g@fed.giorgiocomai.eu
(DIR) Post #A3zppiEsIhw5cWJq9Q by g@fed.giorgiocomai.eu
2021-02-05T20:22:59.325148Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Quick reminder that nuclear does not have much of a future, mostly because it's too expensive. By the time a new plant would go into production, it would still be far more expensive than renewables. What the graph does not show is just how incredibly cheap renewables are expected to be very soon compared with fossil fuels: new investments in fossil fuel for energy production make no sense, from no point of view besides that of people who have vested interests. Insistence of building pipelines such as North Stream II (bad for climate, bad for economy, bad for geopolitics) is beyond puzzling.https://m.dw.com/en/germany-looking-for-final-repository-for-nuclear-waste-global-outlook/a-56449115
(DIR) Post #A3zppimCIoahHruS5g by servant_of_the_anime_avatars@kiwifarms.cc
2021-02-06T11:57:50.610051Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@g Reminder that Germany is again building coal power plants after the shutdown of nuclear power plants began...Also 2030 isn't here yet and even IF these renewables were as efficient as claimed the shutdown of nuclear power in Germany will still have resulted in decades more of coal power plants. As the building up of renewable energy sources inevitably takes a very long time.
(DIR) Post #A3zruNEK2SHtooPXH6 by g@fed.giorgiocomai.eu
2021-02-06T12:11:53.321832Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@servant_of_the_anime_avatars To be clear, I also think that Germany took a terrible, terrible decision in anticipating the closure of nuclear powerplants, and keeping coal powerplants instead. The point I made is not about nuclear VS coal (or gas).
(DIR) Post #A3zruNm01FE5VGAQlc by servant_of_the_anime_avatars@kiwifarms.cc
2021-02-06T12:21:05.721952Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@g I think a reasonable plan would have been to tie the shutdown of nuclear power plants to the availability renewable energy.And I really didn't like the green parties push against nuclear power, before alternatives were available, the consequences were foreseeable and now coal power plants are being built again to satisfy energy demands.The possibility of renewables being more cheaply available in a decade doesn't solve current problems, especially in a country like germany which requires large amount of energy for its manufacturing and the shutting down of nuclear power plants has made the demand for fast solutions just more urgent.
(DIR) Post #A3zuD24v6VJLd12Q76 by frankie95@mastodon.bida.im
2021-02-06T10:20:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@g actually no https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/02/05/if-saving-the-climate-requires-making-energy-so-expensive-why-is-french-electricity-so-cheap/#7b3a5f271bd9#nuclear #nuclearenergy #nucleare #nuclearpower
(DIR) Post #A3zuD3SLyreLtz0eHI by g@fed.giorgiocomai.eu
2021-02-06T11:42:20.188949Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@frankie95 Actually, the graph I posted is about expected costs in 2030.
(DIR) Post #A3zuD4lX72aNxkzToO by g@fed.giorgiocomai.eu
2021-02-06T11:51:07.763281Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@frankie95 Thinking with the price, production, and consumption patterns of today for things that start to work,say, in 10 years, and are expected to work for decades after that,is part of the reason why we are still investing in gas pipelines and powerplants which are almost certain to become stranded assets. If the cost of nuclear and renewables remained stable at their 2005 (or even 2015) values, then sure.. but it's an assumption we know to be wrong.
(DIR) Post #A3zuD5tiu4jPTRpXDU by frankie95@mastodon.bida.im
2021-02-06T12:06:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@g it's also wrong thinking that the price of electricity for #renewables will go down and we shouldn't invest in #nuclear , because solar and wind will be many times cheaper in the future than they are now , also when should decarbonazing now not in 10 years
(DIR) Post #A3zuD7W2t4yoUaleaW by Zyklon_Dan@kiwifarms.cc
2021-02-06T12:46:43.345153Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@frankie95 @g the whole point of renewables is basically planned obsolescence. Tying everything to panels or turbines that keep breaking down ties you to a more sustained cash flow and having to constantly pay to fix and replace them as they break down naturally. At best you get 20 years out of panels. Not to mention it's a wealth transfer scheme that falls directly on party lines. Stop oil and gas production that a4e largely controlled by conservative companies and transfer all that wealth to liberal owned companies like the solar panel and wind turbine companies. Politicians don't care about the environment no matter which side of the aisle. It's about money and power. Nuclear has always been the foil to that which is why it gets almost bipartisan Support to not build it or fund it.