381–390 of 430 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I said I praised Poland for building nuclear plants . I didn't say they did everything perfectly.
There is no difference between building plants and producing the vast majority of your electricity from coal for the next 15 years. The latter is the consequence of the former.
We're going to create massive hydrogen infrastructure where we produce it from sea water of the North Sea and then transport it inland using a pipe system to reach a low number of mega hubs, where high energy industry will plug in. Included will be some pipes crossing the border, surely into Germany.
On top of this, our king went to Portugal to secure massive deals with Portugal. Apparently it's easier/cheaper to produce Hydrogen in the Mediterranean. Some of it will be produced there and then shipped to Rotterdam, and then fed into the pipes.
We're the gods of big infra and also very cheap, so you can be sure that this is going to work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting. So what are the disadvantages of living in Quebec? (Never been there.)
If you don't speak fluent French and want to live there (as a tourist is fine, although outside MTL + Quebec City, English proficiency by the residents should not be assumed), your government dislikes you and is generally trying to make your life harder in as many ways as it can think of. I would expect that to continue getting worse. On the HN/startup crowd note, that includes mandates that business in the office be…
Thank you!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ironically, I hear the ones that were shut down in Germany were some of the best maintained in the world and had very high "capacity factors" even when compared with other nuclear (fraction of time delivering power to the grid). It seems like the solution to poor maintenance is better maintenance? Some of the causes of recent poor French maintenance are analyzed here: https://player.fm/series/decouple/somethings-rott…
It's not that ironic. Germans tend to do stuff right when they do it. The ironic thing to me is that Germany is so anti-nuclear.
Berlin Brandenburg Airport enters the chat
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why Germany produces almost 10 times as much CO2 per kWh as France. https://abload.de/img/img_20230705_133511_84efdp.jpg It's mind boggling.
This seems to assume that nuclear disposal is something clean.
On a per-kilowatt-hour basis nuclear waste is pretty damn clean. The end product is carefully encased in absurdly over-engineered containment vessels. Environmental leaks are rare to non-existent. The aim is to store it underground where it will pose far less of a risk to humanity than the raw ore did before it was dug up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why Germany produces almost 10 times as much CO2 per kWh as France. https://abload.de/img/img_20230705_133511_84efdp.jpg It's mind boggling.
It's.. complicated. Nuclear is super clean at the consumption site, but not super clean at the mining site [0]. And then there's the problem that France's access to cheap uranium is a relic of extractive colonialism, and these countries don't exactly see the fair profits from France's hunger for energy [1]. So yes, France's energy is cleaner, but it's a complicated picture. [0] https://meta.eeb.org/2017/10/18/french-…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you could leave nuclear, and "replace" lignite with wind and solar instead, you actually replaced nuclear with lignite. >The decision to phase out nuclear has long been made (for good reasons). No, it was made for bad reasons. >Keeping them active or even building new reactors of that kind is not an economically viable solution. The price Germany pays for this is higher carbon emissions for the time being until re…
Your comment is wrong and malicious and looking at the data proves you wrong. Using lignite only slowed the reduction of coal, nuclear was almost completely replaced by renewables. https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Renewable energy is unpredictable, thus you need a backup source of energy for when there's no wind, sunlight or rain. It's yet unfeasible to store large amounts of energy unfortunately so that means using either natural gas or coal, because you need to be able to rapidly increase/reduce/regulate the energy output. It's coal at the moment for Germany and that means more pollution and dirty politicians that don't care…
it's possible to store huge amounts of energy with hydro, but at that point nuclear is not that bad in terms of price and nr of people killed by nuclear vs hydro accidents, so again Germany fkd up
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not that ironic. Germans tend to do stuff right when they do it. The ironic thing to me is that Germany is so anti-nuclear.
Being “anti nuclear” made a lot of sense until a madman decided to attack Ukraine. And with the world economy stabilizing after that mad man’s actions it’s again making a lot of sense as nuclear continues to be far more expensive than other renewable alternatives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the meantime, Switzerland is installing solar panels on train tracks [0] instead of, I don't know, people's roofs. There is so much promising tech coming out in terms of energy storage and we're seeing almost zero investment from governments. Everything's backwards. [0] https://www.techspot.com/news/98944-switzerland-installing-s...
Solar on roofs kinda sucks. It's way more expensive to install and rarely at an optimal orientation. And they will get covered in snow for months out of the year depending on climate. Government money would be much better spent on a regular solar installation on the ground. Much cheaper to install and maintain.