231–240 of 240 posts
Ok, so what is the solution you propose? Quit russian gaz cold turkey, today? Let people in Berlin freeze to death tonight? (Temperatures are 0 degrees C at night)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I'm going to make a prediction: Nothing will change because this isn't a political issue. This is a materials science, physics, and chemistry issue. We do have have a battery technology to get around solar/wind intermittency issues. Doesn't matter who is in charge.
I assume you're saying that we don't have the battery technology. But we don't need batteries in this system. I imagine energy storage via lifting rocks uphill or giant flywheels or molten salt caves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry - yes, should be 5,800MW. They produced 51Twh/365/24 = 5.8GW in avg delivery. Nuclear generated it's power around the clock. I'm not sure solar is covering the evening peaks and the prices for electricity make going to things like heat pumps and electric dryers much more expensive than you'd expect in germany so the economic case for electrification in germany has started to run way way behind the case in other…
The idea that baseload can only be provided with nuclear or with fossil fuels has long been debunked.
What else is there?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was previously ardently against nuclear power, and now I'm staunchly for it. The world needs to be rid of oil, there are few other things that have caused as much human and environment suffering as oil. Hell, I even back bio fuels, as bad as they are, as long we can conclusively show they have a major impact in oil use and aren't just a subsidy handout farmers.
Glad to hear that you're keen to move away from fossil fuels. I'd add that renewable energy production methods are currently cheaper, faster to construct, easier to secure (both in terms of perimeter and supply chain), easier to train staff for and maintain, and safer long-term than nuclear energy production methods.
... and are not viable without baseload provided by fossil fuels. Unfortunately there is such a thing as cloudy days, night time, and days without wind.
Does anybody know why Germany isn't really using their domestic gas fields? According to the german EPA equivalent[1] there's enough for 10 years of usage. While I agree with the need to shut off Nordstream I, I am not sure Germany can afford this right now due to historically low gas reserves [2]. I have to disagree with the tone of the statement "We can afford the consequences". Who is "we"? The lower middle class…
An unfortunate and overlooked fact is that Europe (Germany in particular) effectively exported the resource curse problem to Russia, which was probably the country in its sphere least likely to deal with it well. Hindsight is 20/20. Besides the fact that we can't exactly build infrastructure for those gas fields overnight, I think Germany wants to avoid any association with sort of problem. The fear I would have is t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea that baseload can only be provided with nuclear or with fossil fuels has long been debunked.
*fossil fuels, nuclear, hydro, geothermal - though the latter two need particular geography. What else is there?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assume you're saying that we don't have the battery technology. But we don't need batteries in this system. I imagine energy storage via lifting rocks uphill or giant flywheels or molten salt caves.
Those are batteries (i.e. things that store energy for later use). You'll notice that none of them are actually used at any scale, and certainly not to provide baseload for solar/wind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
*fossil fuels, nuclear, hydro, geothermal - though the latter two need particular geography. What else is there?
Overprovisioning and HVDC. Those two together can make a real dent into required installed baseline power.
That should be a clue that there are some major (and insurmountable) issues with deploying batteries at grid-scale. It's sad this is a game that is being played on the public, where the public is made to believe wind/solar investment leads to less reliance on fossil fuels.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There won't be consensus. This war started over one party having lots of demands and not even recognizing the other party as sovereign and the other party just wanting to be left in peace. How the fuck should a compromise look like here? It's like being robbed at gunpoint and negotiating a deal with the robber about how much you might keep.
> This war started over one party having lots of demands and not even recognizing the other party as sovereign Can you name the party? if you say Russia, put yourself on their shoes and answer the question, if you see NATO expanding to your borders together with the country ruled by people like Geroge Bush, Hillary Clinton (see how she is happy for destroying whole nation and their government: https://www.youtube.com…
Second, even if there were no nuclear weapons in play, NATO ain't the USA and UK alone. Most NATO states had more or less castrated their military to the point that even successful conventional defense depends cooperation with all other members. That's over since 2014 and even more so since 2022. Putin woke the sleeping giant. Germany alone will more than match Russia's conventional military in the future. Putin created his own opponent. Before that, NATO was structurally incapable of attacking Russia conventionally without a year long buildup of forces.
And finally, if it comes to the thread of a color revolution: Putin has had all the chances to both develop close and lasting ties to the EU and make his own people happy. He had the money and the tools. All he would have needed to do was to stop running the country like a mafia clan. He could have gone down in history as the great Russian reformer but now he will go down as its grave digger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those are batteries (i.e. things that store energy for later use). You'll notice that none of them are actually used at any scale, and certainly not to provide baseload for solar/wind.
I mean, they are all energy storage, but they aren't the chemical based batteries I thought you were talking about. I know flywheels are in some use. But, in general, they are technically sound and can be scaled up with sufficient investment and demand. As opposed to creating new battery chemistries, which requires research.
Good to clear up confusion. I mean batteries in the general sense, not just based on chemistry.
>But, in general, they are technically sound and can be scaled up with sufficient investment and demand.
So far that hasn't been shown to be true. This is very much an open question, leaning towards 'no' because NOBODY got that level of storage working.