Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Germany Achieves Record 57.7% Renewable Energy Share for First Half of 2023

ise.fraunhofer.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 430 posts

Re: Germany Achieves Record 57.7% Renewable Energy Share for First Half of 2023

#421

Post by fsflover »

fsflover wrote: post #412
Timon3 wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to posit yourself as taking the "necessary risks", but you haven't demonstrated that: - nuclear energy is the only way to fend off the climate crisis - unsafe nuclear energy is the only way for nuclear energy to fend off the climate crisis - the risk of unsafe nuclear energy is lower than the risk of the climate crisis Until you do that I will prefer the lower risk option.

> - nuclear energy is the only way to fend off the climate crisis This is the only practically infinite source of CO2-free energy not relying on weather, geographical position or large area. See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26603464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26673987 > - unsafe nuclear energy It is safer than almost all other sources (taking into account Chernobyl and Fukushima): https://en.w…

See also this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36615401

Re: Germany Achieves Record 57.7% Renewable Energy Share for First Half of 2023

#422

Post by fsflover »

locallost wrote: post #419
fsflover wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Here [1] an article about Poland deciding to build nuclear plants FOUR YEARS AGO. Cherry picking. Other countries build nuclear reactors just fine if they want. See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36333904

Except we were talking specifically about Poland for which you said you support what they do. Now that you know the facts do you still support prolonging the use of so much coal? In 4 years they've done nothing, and won't do anything for at least a decade. Germany's coal exit 2030 you called too slow. Will you reconsider? France started building a prototype replacement in Flamanville for those reactors and with a bit…

Poland must change the regulation, not give up on fighting climate change. Even trying and failing is better than not trying at all, as you suggest.

The French prototypes are now ready and tested. Why not use them?

Re: Germany Achieves Record 57.7% Renewable Energy Share for First Half of 2023

#423

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

locallost wrote: post #420
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but we are not talking about per capita co2 emissions but the worst emitter, and that is Germany and not Poland. The world does not care about per capita anything, it cares about absolutes.

So I guess the problem might be solved if Germany dissolves into 16 smaller countries, this will surely reduce its emissions drastically. I haven't thought of that brilliant angle of tackling the climate crisis, just reduce the size of countries. Do you have other ideas? At this rate we might solve the problem within a couple hours.

Honestly I'm not sure what argument you are trying to make.

Re: Germany Achieves Record 57.7% Renewable Energy Share for First Half of 2023

#424

Post by locallost »

fsflover wrote: post #422
locallost wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except we were talking specifically about Poland for which you said you support what they do. Now that you know the facts do you still support prolonging the use of so much coal? In 4 years they've done nothing, and won't do anything for at least a decade. Germany's coal exit 2030 you called too slow. Will you reconsider? France started building a prototype replacement in Flamanville for those reactors and with a bit…

Poland must change the regulation, not give up on fighting climate change. Even trying and failing is better than not trying at all, as you suggest. The French prototypes are now ready and tested. Why not use them?

Which regulation?

They gave up on climate change when they decided to invest in nuclear energy. They prioritized nuclear power over removal of coal. If the whole world takes this viewpoint we will decarbonize in a few centuries.

The French plants were designed to run for 30 years, their replacement was supposed to be the EPR and the construction on Flamanville started almost 20 years ago. The program has been a colossal failure.

The problem is you don't know anything.

Re: Germany Achieves Record 57.7% Renewable Energy Share for First Half of 2023

#425

Post by fsflover »

locallost wrote: post #424
fsflover wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poland must change the regulation, not give up on fighting climate change. Even trying and failing is better than not trying at all, as you suggest. The French prototypes are now ready and tested. Why not use them?

Which regulation? They gave up on climate change when they decided to invest in nuclear energy. They prioritized nuclear power over removal of coal. If the whole world takes this viewpoint we will decarbonize in a few centuries. The French plants were designed to run for 30 years, their replacement was supposed to be the EPR and the construction on Flamanville started almost 20 years ago. The program has been a colos…

Removal of coal? Show me any reliable, scalable, affordable method.

Re: Germany Achieves Record 57.7% Renewable Energy Share for First Half of 2023

#426

Post by Timon3 »

fsflover wrote: post #412
Timon3 wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to posit yourself as taking the "necessary risks", but you haven't demonstrated that: - nuclear energy is the only way to fend off the climate crisis - unsafe nuclear energy is the only way for nuclear energy to fend off the climate crisis - the risk of unsafe nuclear energy is lower than the risk of the climate crisis Until you do that I will prefer the lower risk option.

> - nuclear energy is the only way to fend off the climate crisis This is the only practically infinite source of CO2-free energy not relying on weather, geographical position or large area. See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26603464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26673987 > - unsafe nuclear energy It is safer than almost all other sources (taking into account Chernobyl and Fukushima): https://en.w…

> This is the only practically infinite source of CO2-free energy not relying on weather, geographical position or large area.

Okay? You haven't shown that an energy source not relying on weather, geographical position or large area is necessary to solve the climate crisis. Don't just throw around more attributes.

> It is safer than almost all other sources (taking into account Chernobyl and Fukushima)

Is it a physical fact of life they are safer (as in, you can't to do anything wrong) or is it our regulations that make them so safe? The regulations you want to remove?

> The climate catastrophe is considered obviously very dangerous by all scientific organizations

Okay, did I say anything else?

Re: Germany Achieves Record 57.7% Renewable Energy Share for First Half of 2023

#427

Post by fsflover »

Timon3 wrote: post #426
fsflover wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - nuclear energy is the only way to fend off the climate crisis This is the only practically infinite source of CO2-free energy not relying on weather, geographical position or large area. See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26603464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26673987 > - unsafe nuclear energy It is safer than almost all other sources (taking into account Chernobyl and Fukushima): https://en.w…

> This is the only practically infinite source of CO2-free energy not relying on weather, geographical position or large area. Okay? You haven't shown that an energy source not relying on weather, geographical position or large area is necessary to solve the climate crisis. Don't just throw around more attributes. > It is safer than almost all other sources (taking into account Chernobyl and Fukushima) Is it a physic…

> You haven't shown that an energy source not relying on weather, geographical position or large area is necessary to solve the climate crisis.

Are you serious? Germamy can't abandon coal until 2030 because of that.

> or is it our regulations that make them so safe?

Did you read my comment? Even Chernobyl's regulation were sufficient to be safe, according to my link. I suggest to stop producing more regulations and build on latest working model.

Re: Germany Achieves Record 57.7% Renewable Energy Share for First Half of 2023

#428

Post by Timon3 »

fsflover wrote: post #427
Timon3 wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is the only practically infinite source of CO2-free energy not relying on weather, geographical position or large area. Okay? You haven't shown that an energy source not relying on weather, geographical position or large area is necessary to solve the climate crisis. Don't just throw around more attributes. > It is safer than almost all other sources (taking into account Chernobyl and Fukushima) Is it a physic…

> You haven't shown that an energy source not relying on weather, geographical position or large area is necessary to solve the climate crisis. Are you serious? Germamy can't abandon coal until 2030 because of that. > or is it our regulations that make them so safe? Did you read my comment? Even Chernobyl's regulation were sufficient to be safe, according to my link. I suggest to stop producing more regulations and b…

> Are you serious? Germamy can't abandon coal until 2030 because of that.

Can you show me that renewables couldn't hit the same targets with enough investment?

> Did you read my comment? Even Chernobyl's regulation were sufficient to be safe, according to my link. I suggest to stop producing more regulations and build on latest working model.

I don't think you understand correctly. First off Chernobyl is in no way an argument in your favor, as it shows that nuclear energy isn't even safe with regulations. Yet you want to remove even more regulations which would increase dangers. Remember, GP wrote:

> There was a very good article on HN about how nuclear reactors only seem to have gotten harder to plan and execute in Western countries since the 1980s due to ever-increasing regulations. Building a nuclear reactor doesn't have to take decades.

Based on what you've said you either want to roll back to 1980s regulations, or before that. Both are unsafe.

Re: Germany Achieves Record 57.7% Renewable Energy Share for First Half of 2023

#429

Post by fsflover »

Timon3 wrote: post #428
fsflover wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You haven't shown that an energy source not relying on weather, geographical position or large area is necessary to solve the climate crisis. Are you serious? Germamy can't abandon coal until 2030 because of that. > or is it our regulations that make them so safe? Did you read my comment? Even Chernobyl's regulation were sufficient to be safe, according to my link. I suggest to stop producing more regulations and b…

> Are you serious? Germamy can't abandon coal until 2030 because of that. Can you show me that renewables couldn't hit the same targets with enough investment? > Did you read my comment? Even Chernobyl's regulation were sufficient to be safe, according to my link. I suggest to stop producing more regulations and build on latest working model. I don't think you understand correctly. First off Chernobyl is in no way an…

> Can you show me that renewables couldn't hit the same targets with enough investment?

First, they couldn't until now. They might be able to at some point, but do you want to take that risk? We already have a safe solution.

> First off Chernobyl is in no way an argument in your favor, as it shows that nuclear energy isn't even safe with regulations.

Actually it does show that even Chernobyl's regulations were sufficient to be safer than almost any other energy source today.

> Yet you want to remove even more regulations

Where did I say that?

> Based on what you've said you either want to roll back to 1980s regulations, or before that

Where did I say that? I would appreciate a quote.

> Both are unsafe.

Compared to what? My link proofs the opposite.

Re: Germany Achieves Record 57.7% Renewable Energy Share for First Half of 2023

#430

Post by TomK32 »

ceving wrote: post #217
TomK32 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heating is one thing we have tackle, but also transportation which uses up 27.1% of energy in German. Individual transportation should be a main target, we would all shift from cars to public transport or bicycles. About 40% of distances driven with cars are shorter than 5 kilometers, a distance that's perfect for a bicycle. On top of that, car owners tend to underestimate the cost of their cars[1] [0] https://www.um…

I would like to see you cycling 5 km in the Alps against the wind in the rain. Cycling is fine. I do it 7 km to the work. But only because it is flat. And only when the weather is fine.

Oh you picked the wrong guy for your comment: I worked 10km away the winter before and got out the door at 6am, cycled to work and left a 5pm to cycle back home, often when it was dark again.

It's only a question of the right outfit, not the weather, otherwise everyone on the Bahamas would cycle https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdz6FeQLuHQ

Post reply on HN