165
submitted 1 year ago by lntl@lemmy.ml to c/green@lemmy.ml

When do we get the next one?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Claidheamh@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No, it really does not. That compares power generation mix, not total capacity, over the same periods of different years, which you can't interpret in a vacuum. Look at the neighbouring countries' data so you can normalise the data and analyse it properly. It may very well be that total power generation in the period they're comparing is down overall due to a warmer winter. So it stands to reason that so would fossil fuels.

If you want to interpret it properly, we can go over it, but it won't tell you much about what we're talking about. The matter is that while we're in a fullblown climate crisis, and what we're doing is insufficient, they reopened coal plants:

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-reactivates-coal-fired-power-plant-to-save-gas/a-62893497

And are planning to expand gas generation capacity: https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/germany-plans-build-25-gw-new-gas-fired-capacity-2030.html

And none of it would be necessary had they not closed their very well performing NPPs.

We need to be doing everything we can to decarbonise, and I honestly don't understand why we keep having this 60 year old discussion, the same as the previous generations that have led us to this point. It really only serves so that fossil fuel magnates can keep lining their pockets as the world burns. Somehow they've convinced people that nuclear is competition for renewables instead of complementary, it's really incredible to me.

[-] ebikefolder@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

Your first link is almost one year old. They did indeed prepare for a worst case, which didn't occur after all. Coal and gas consumption (total, not just percentage wise) did not go up, but down instead.

Yes, a mild winter helped. Unfortunately, winters are getting warmer and warmer, and the last one was no exception there.

[-] Claidheamh@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So why is your country's emissions per capita more than 50% higher than France's (from here), despite a much higher renewables percentage in the power mix? Might it have something to do with how much more nuclear they have?

Looking through your post history, we seem to be aligned in advocating for decarbonisation. If you really want to reach zero emissions as soon as possible, don't you think we should be exploring every carbon free avenue, and shutting down every single fossil fuel power plant?

Don't fall for your government's justifications, or fearmongering around nuclear. If we want to decarbonise the grid, we need it to complement renewables and fill the roles that renewables can't by themselves. The longer we take to realise that, the longer we'll keep burning greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

[-] ebikefolder@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

I'm not paying €79/month to review the whole statistics, but you know perfectly well that France started from a much lower number. They already had nuclear when we started to roll out renewables on a large scale. Are you by any chance familiar with the term "head start"?

But decisions from 40 years ago are irrelevant for decisions today. Spilled milk.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2023
165 points (95.6% liked)

Green - An environmentalist community

5234 readers
27 users here now

This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!


RULES:

1- Remember the human

2- Link posts should come from a reputable source

3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith


Related communities:


Unofficial Chat rooms:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS