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

  • Ertebolle
    link
    fedilink
    -25
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Germany literally just shut down their existing nuclear plants and replaced them with fossil fuels.

    So even if what you’re saying were true (and I’d happily sit here and punch holes in it if I thought you were actually open to an argument - anti-nuclear people somehow seem to think that you can build all the solar/wind farms and transmission lines you want without running into the same endless messy regulatory battles you get with nuclear), none of it would be relevant here because the plants were already built and already working and responsible for like 1/8 of Germany’s electrical production - it wasn’t a cost decision, it was a bullshit anti-nuclear one.

    Also: the graph at the top shows the growth in Germany’s installed wind capacity in Germany leveling off - do you think that’s happening because they just don’t feel like building any more wind power, or is it possible they’re running into some limits on how much they can generate efficiently that way?

    • Blake [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      241 year ago

      Germany literally just shut down their existing nuclear plants and replaced them with fossil fuels.

      This claim is patently false.

    • @klisklas@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      181 year ago

      Sorry, but this comment is so full of false information.

      If you are able to read German or use a translator I can recommend this interview where the expert explains everything and goes into the the details.

      https://www.n-tv.de/wirtschaft/Deutschland-ist-kein-Strombettler-erklaert-Bruno-Burger-von-Energy-Charts-im-Klima-Labor-article24357979.html

      Claiming that Germany is fucked after shutting down nuclear for good is repeating the talking points from the far right here. Don’t be that guy.

    • @Rayleigh@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      161 year ago

      Germany literally just shut down their existing nuclear plants and replaced them with fossil fuels.

      That’s completely false.

      responsible for like 1/8 of Germany’s electrical production

      More like 2-3%

      it wasn’t a cost decision

      Not exclusively, but the high price of nuclear is one of the main points in the decision

      the graph at the top shows the growth in Germany’s installed wind capacity in Germany leveling off

      Because the graph stops in 2022. The growth now is accelerating and even more so for solar power which OP conveniently does not show us

      https://strom-report.com/photovoltaik/

    • WalrusDragonOnABike
      link
      fedilink
      151 year ago

      Given this thread is about new nuclear, I’m not sure why you are making up beliefs about what someone else in the thread believes. Personally a fan of old nuclear plants since their biggest expense (financial and likely ecological) is making them, so keeping them running is good as long as we are relying on fossil fuels.

      is it possible they’re running into some limits on how much they can generate efficiently that way?

      Why just speculate on it while insinuation someone is wrong about something when you could look it up? From what I can gather, it looks like administration/licensing delays, court cases, and rules limiting how close they can be to residential buildings (apparently 10 times the height of the turbine) are the main contributors to the slowdown.

      Also, solar is still growing more quickly and 2023 is having quicker growth in wind than last year (which was itself an increase from the previous year), so the trend being shown may already be outdated. Granted, inflation apparently are an issue now (not when the slowdown happened, but now as the rate of wind installation is increasing). And the rate of increase isn’t enough imo, but building new nuclear instead of using the same resources to build solar or wind at this point means relying more on fossil fuels.

      • Ertebolle
        link
        fedilink
        -41 year ago

        He is, in fact, arguing against keeping existing plants running too. (I suspected he believed this and he did indeed)

        rules limiting how close they can be to residential buildings (apparently 10 times the height of the turbine)

        These… don’t seem like crazy rules; I don’t know how this works in other legal systems but in the US every little podunk wind installation in a residential area is going to be tied up in years of lawsuits over this sort of thing.

        building new nuclear instead of using the same resources to build solar or wind at this point means relying more on fossil fuels

        I don’t think it is the same resources, that’s part of my point. I don’t think there’s a finite pool of money here; the limitations on solar / wind have as much to do with raw materials and suitable locations as anything else, if nuclear provides an additional path to getting carbon-free energy on line (and with the added benefit of not needing to worry about storage, which is going to bring its own rat’s nest of location + raw material problems once we get to it) then we ought to be encouraging it as well.

        • Blake [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          41 year ago

          At no point have I said that we should shut down nuclear power plants that are still running effectively, I must request that you redact your false claims, I do not appreciate these libellous remarks. I explained reasons behind why nuclear power plants are decommissioned. I’m sure you understand that no-one believes that nuclear power plants should be built once and run forever and ever.

        • WalrusDragonOnABike
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          Nuclear has more location issues than renewable. Do you think people want a nuclear plant in their backyard?

          It’s the same issues of will, money, and location that limit both. Why waste all of those on nuclear in 20 years when the grid is unstable today?

    • Blake [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      101 year ago

      I’d happily sit here and punch holes in it if I thought you were actually open to an argument

      If you had just said this and stopped writing then you’d have saved yourself time and embarrassment. I can dunk anytime, anywhere on whatever arguments you dream up, because definitionally if you’re arguing with me about this then you have no idea what you’re talking about. It’s a fool-in-a-barrel type of situation, really.

      Anyways, enough merry-making, to the meat of your comment:

      Germany literally just shut down their existing nuclear plants… it wasn’t a cost decision, it was a bullshit anti-nuclear one

      Nuclear power has huge cost implications, economically and politically, which make it less viable. If Germany had built renewables instead of nuclear, would they have turned off the renewables that were producing the cheapest, cleanest energy ever known, with zero fuel costs and minimal maintenance costs? You make my argument for me.

      The decommissioning of the german nuclear power plants was planned in 2011 because nuclear is a waste of resources. German scientists know this as well as I do. You’re the one arguing with them.

      "Nuclear energy is also often more expensive than wind and solar power, there are no longer any real advantages with nuclear energy.” - Volker Quaschning, a professor of renewable energy at the Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft Berlin. “Nuclear power plants are a hindrance to the energy transition. They are not able to run in stop-and-go mode and cannot really compensate for power fluctuations that arise when using solar and wind energy. With Germany looking to expand solar and wind power very rapidly over the next few years, now is a good time to shut down nuclear reactors to make way for renewable energy,” he said.

      “In the German context, the phase-out of nuclear energy is good for the climate in the long term. It provides investment certainty for renewable energy; renewables will be much faster, cheaper and safer than expansion of nuclear energy,” - Niklas Höhne, a professor the mitigation of greenhouse gases at Wageningen University in the Netherlands.

      …and replaced them with fossil fuels

      I think you’re referring to the emergency recommissioning of German coal power plants in response to Russian gas being held hostage over the Ukraine war? It’s not like they went “meh fuck the climate lol lets just turn off nuclear and put on the old coal burner for old time’s sake”.

      • Ertebolle
        link
        fedilink
        -81 year ago

        definitionally if you’re arguing with me about this then you have no idea what you’re talking about

        And this is why I said I don’t think you’re open to an argument. But I’m not actually trying to argue with you about this, to the extent I’m arguing here it’s for the benefit of other people reading who are perhaps a tiny bit less pig-headed than you are. Which is great, because I don’t have to actually persuade you of anything but simply to give other people an alternative perspective to yours.

        If Germany had built renewables instead of nuclear, would they have turned off the renewables that were producing the cheapest, cleanest energy ever known, with zero fuel costs and minimal maintenance costs?

        Yes, because they’re still tied up in anti-nuclear politics. (hardly a phenomenon unique to Germany)

        “Often more expensive” “no longer any real advantages” according to a “professor of renewable energy” who doesn’t actually seem to have anything against them except that somehow he wants to “make way for renewable energy” which he somehow perceives an existing, functional nuclear plant as a hindrance to? Again, politics.

        “Provides investment certainty for renewable energy” is likewise a weak / hypothetical / pie-in-the-sky argument - show me where existing nuclear power plants are actually getting in the way of new renewables.

        “Replaced them with fossil fuels” natural gas is also, y’know, a fossil fuel. Even the anti-nuclear people cited in one of your articles admit that the lifecycle emissions of a gas plant are 4x as high as a brand new nuclear plant. Coal is even worse, sure, but even absent the Ukraine situation they’d be producing a lot more carbon with a very, very thin justification.

        • Blake [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          71 year ago

          Yeah because they’re gonna be able to just whip up half a dozen nuclear power plants in response to the ukraine war quicker than they’d be able to build renewables.

        • Blake [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          Watch this, I can make you ragequit this entire argument with this one comment with like a 90% confidence rate:

          Prove either of these two statements as false:

          The total cost per kWh of nuclear electricity is more expensive than common renewable sources of electricity.
          
          The total amount of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions for nuclear is greater than the carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of common renewable sources of electricity.
          

          Either that or you can loftily declare yourself above this argument, state that I am somehow moving the goalposts, say that “there’s no point, I’ll never change your mind” or just somehow express some amount of increduiity at my absolutely abhorrent behaviour by asking you such a straightforward question? You may also choose “that’s not the question I want to talk about, we should answer MY questions instead!”

          But go ahead and prove me wrong, I’ll be waiting!

          • Ertebolle
            link
            fedilink
            -2
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I’ll cheerfully concede both of those statements, I just don’t think they result in you winning the argument.

            It’s not clear that we can build enough renewables fast enough, or that we can build storage capacity fast enough when we do; you cite vague studies that suggest we might be able to do, but that’s all they are. I’d rather not bet everything on that and then discover in 20 years that we made the wrong bet.

            According to the anti-nuclear group cited in one of your articles, nuclear produces about 4x the CO2 emissions of solar but 1/4 the emissions of natural gas. (1/8 those of coal) And it also assumes we can’t improve on that any, even though there is a tremendous amount of money + research going on right now on lowering CO2 emissions from construction materials like concrete and steel. (perhaps we don’t have any of those improvements up and running for in 20 years, but meanwhile those shiny nuclear plants are getting rid of 3/4 of the CO2 from the natural gas plants they’re replacing)

            • Blake [he/him]
              link
              fedilink
              21 year ago

              Ah, what a gentleman! Since you’ve been so sporting, I’ll indulge you.

              It’s not clear that we can build enough renewables fast enough

              You can go ahead and try to prove this statement false:

              • The total time taken to provision 1 GWh of nuclear electricity is considerably slower than the total time taken to provision 1GWh of common renewable sources of electricity.
              • Ertebolle
                link
                fedilink
                -5
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Again, I’m arguing we do both. And anyway this is a volume question, not a construction time one (enough renewables fast enough) - I’m OK with waiting 20 years for new nuclear plants if in 20 years we get a fuckton of them.

                • Blake [he/him]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  41 year ago

                  You need lunch and you can choose between a nutritious and tasty $5 sandwich from an independent deli or a $10 expensive mass-produced sandwich from a chain. The independent deli is tastier, cheaper, and healthier, and it’s easier for you to get since it’s on your way to work.

                  Or you could just get both for no good reason if you want I guess.

                • Blake [he/him]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  31 year ago

                  Hey, this you?

                  It’s not clear that we can build enough renewables fast enough

                  this is a volume question, not a construction time one (enough renewables fast enough)

                  Woah! What happened to those goalposts? I could have sworn they were here a second ago.

                  I’m gonna wait for your response to my other question to properly address this one since they’re so intrinsically linked.

            • Blake [he/him]
              link
              fedilink
              21 year ago

              I’ll cheerfully concede both of those statements, I just don’t think they result in you winning the argument.

              Obviously those points are the entire crux of the whole argument lmao.

      • @DahGangalang@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        Just so I’m clear on what you intend to say: you intend to show that the amount of energy Germany produces from wind has increased while the amount of energy produced by both coal and nuclear have decreased, the data standing as a self evident counter argument?