this post was submitted on 24 May 2024
472 points (92.3% liked)

World News

38578 readers
2980 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 505 points 3 months ago (39 children)

Cheap energy being framed as some kind of problem is a great demonstration of why we need a free press that isn't solely owned by billionaires

[–] Nommer@sh.itjust.works 46 points 3 months ago (18 children)

They could always just close their coal power plants. Idk why they don't.

[–] sqibkw@lemmy.world 55 points 3 months ago (11 children)

My guess is that in a climate like Germany's, solar isn't consistent enough to provide the steady baseline power that coal plants can.

One of the complexities of power infrastructure is that demand must be met instantaneously and exactly. Coal and solar typically occupy different roles in a grid's power sources. Coal plants are slow to start, but very consistent, so they provide baseline power. Solar is virtually instantaneous, but inconsistent, so it's better suited to handle the daily fluctuations.

So, in a place like Germany, even in abundance, solar can't realistically replace coal until we have a good way of storing power to act as a buffer. Of course, nuclear is a fantastic replacement for coal, but we all know how Germany's politicians feel about it...

[–] yetAnotherUser@feddit.de 21 points 3 months ago (3 children)

We also know building nuclear takes 20 years and costs more than building thrice the capacity in renewables + Germany has no long-term nuclear storage, only temporary one's a la Simpsons.

[–] Zorcron@lemmy.zip 17 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Germany had 17 active nuclear plants in 2011 and decommissioned them all by 2023.

[–] Beinofenstrot@feddit.de 2 points 3 months ago

They were already past their expiry date. Germany would face the same shit France is facing with their old reactors.

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 5 points 3 months ago

You are correct that when you build one new plant every 25 years it takes a long time to spool the industry, the skills, the testing and the manufacturing capability up to build new nuclear.

In countries that regularly build new nuclear it takes 5 years, comparable to any other power source. When France when through their mass-conversion to nuclear in the 70s (following the oil crisis), they put 2-3 new nuclear plants into operation every year.

All new western nuclear is in “production hell”. We don’t build them often enough to retain the skill set or for industry to dare invest. So they become massive state-run enterprises.

If we were serious on solving our climate crisis we would build nuclear power plans en masse.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (33 replies)