Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Fa1n t1_j4xb84g wrote

I just want more affordable clean energy.

40

PEVEI t1_j4xemt6 wrote

Saying “just” doesn’t make it easy.

52

Prinzmegaherz t1_j4ywoxd wrote

It seems that we can build lot‘s of LNG terminals in a short amount of times, but not renewables. They seem to take a looooong time here.

2

YeaISeddit t1_j4z59ge wrote

Each of these terminals can bring in between 50-100 TWh of energy while Germany is adding around 20-30 TWh of renewable energy per year. The obvious reason for the difference is upfront cost. The cost for each of these 50 TWh terminals is around 1 billion euro, while the cost to build 50 TWh of yearly solar capacity currently costs 150 billion euros. So the upfront costs are 150x higher for solar.

Obviously there are differences in costs of operation of the facilities since gas costs money and the sun is free. But upfront costs are the big hinderance for now.

To replace the 800 TWh of energy capacity from Russian gas, Germany would have to spend around 2.5 Trillion Euro, equivalent to 6 years of the German government's entire budget, whereas with LNG terminals it can be done for 16 billion or 4% of the government's yearly budget. Given the extremely tight time window to accomplish the transition, LNG is the obvious choice.

21

directstranger t1_j503nrg wrote

You also need gas to go hand in hand with renewables, each TW of renewables needs 1TW insalled in gas, for backup.

1

LefthandedCrusader t1_j4zqcos wrote

Last year Germany installed 9GW solar and more than 3GW wind capacity. Not bad.

2

kraenk12 t1_j51xf39 wrote

Renewable energy has been growing fast and is the highest among comparable Western European countries.

1

EbonyOverIvory t1_j4y6jn4 wrote

Then advocate for nuclear power. The popular fear of nuclear energy is why we’re still so dependent on fossil fuels.

24

Yarasin t1_j4zitvy wrote

No. Sourcing nuclear fuels isn't clean and building NPPs is a behemoth undertaking. By the time you've approved and built a single plant (10+ years) you could've covered half the country in wind-turbines and hydro-plants, all of which are built and operated independently.

−4

EbonyOverIvory t1_j4zj8db wrote

Do. Fucking. Both.

0

Yarasin t1_j4zjazg wrote

Nuclear and renewables do not synergize. Wasting money on nuclear energy is a dead-end. The ship has sailed long ago.

−5

EbonyOverIvory t1_j4zjni6 wrote

Wind and solar are not baseload. Unless we replace fossil fuels with hydro, geothermal, or biomass, we’ll still need to burn coal. Nuclear is the only viable large scale alternative to coal for baseload power. Wind and solar should absolutely be built, but they are not a total solution.

1

mrspidey80 t1_j4znsys wrote

That's bullshit. Renewables supported by Power-To-X
storage will work just fine.

−3

EbonyOverIvory t1_j4zoyay wrote

Okay, so now you need to build not only vast quantities of wind and solar plants in your ten year plan, but also energy storage.

Bear in mind that in the past twenty years, in the US, renewables have gone from providing a negligible portion of the total grid power to providing 20%, and that includes hydro power, which provides about 8% of that total.

So you’re looking at building out 4 times (being generous) what was built in the last twenty years in the next ten, plus massive amounts of storage.

Now I don’t disagree with that as a goal, but it’s probably going to be quicker to divest coal power by building nuclear plants, which can actually be built in five years, not ten. Small modular reactors could potentially be built in an even shorter time frame.

The main barrier to building them is backlash from the public due to misinformation about risks and pollution. So like I said at the start of this, advocate for nuclear power. It needs people championing it if we’re going to get off coal before we all burn.

But by all means, advocate for renewables also.

1

mrspidey80 t1_j4zz1ko wrote

You're forgetting that this kind of storage is basically gas tanks and pipes. We already have plenty of those. They just need to be repurposed and extended.

Also, we would not get a single new NPP up an running in 20 years, even if we tried.

−2

SaltyMudpuppy t1_j51v7sl wrote

Yea, this is nonsensical. The type of storage needed would be batteries, or something like molten salt. You can't store electricity in a fucking tank.

1

Hexokinope t1_j4zomeb wrote

Excellent points. Germany (and Japan) are different though because they're sitting on many perfectly functional nuclear plants that used to supply much of their electricity until people freaked out about Fukushima and governments replaced it cheap coal and a mix of other fossil fuels which is obviously awful across the board for everything but cost. Germany and Japan could easily slash their emissions and gain more energy independence just by turning them back on. It hasn't been that long either, so they still have much of the needed expertise.

0

Yarasin t1_j4zq8mm wrote

The anti-nuclear sentiment is much older than Fukushima, going back to the 80s and earlier. An official exit was already ratified in the late 90s/early 00s, but then Merkel and the CDU unilaterally decided to stop it due to lobbying from energy producers. It was only picked up again when Fukushima lit a fire under her ass and she caved to public pressure.

0

Hexokinope t1_j4zr2wr wrote

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? Obviously there's a longer history behind the nuclear power opposition (the bit on the Sierra Club in Freakonomics ep 516 is quite interesting), but Fukushima was the trigger that caused the CDU to cave (and Japan's LDP to reverse course). More to the point, they can restart their reactors to both dramatically cut CO2 emissions and to reduce reliance on foreign fossil fuels with minimal lead time.

1

Tiny_Ad_638 t1_j4xfeye wrote

According to my electricity supplier, all my electricity comes from renewable clean sources, but I still pay the same as everyone else using non-renewable sources. So don't hold your breath on cheaper bills .

13

fabscav t1_j4xkkyb wrote

That's because your energy actually comes from unclean sources such as coal, but your supplier gets to sell it as clean energy to you, as long as they buy enough clean energy credits from other countries.

21

indica_please t1_j4y2kfj wrote

Even if their energy was 100% clean and renewable, that doesn't mean it's free.

3

Xaeryne t1_j4xs1x2 wrote

And of course the generating country still gets to claim that green energy source for themselves too, because they are the ones actually using it.

1

Tiny_Ad_638 t1_j4zf7sr wrote

They say they only purchase clean energy, but the way they worded it it was so ambiguous. I know they are not 100% truthful. Imagine that a big company not being entirely honest.

1

RedMoustache t1_j4ytvgc wrote

Energy companies are shady. My energy company tried to sell me on a "green energy" charge. They charge you an extra fee to "support green energy." Sounds nice until you ask a couple questions.

The extra money isn't being used to build or support green energy. It's just for me to show I support green energy their profits.

0

treadmarks t1_j4xmxxd wrote

> However, potential for a damaging trade row between the EU and the US over green subsidies remains.

> The US last year approved a massive $370bn (£299bn) in investments for climate-friendly technologies, including tax credits for electric cars that are made in America.

Oh heavens no, not subsidies for green energy. The world is in a climate emergency but GDP competition is clearly still the top issue for the elite.

−8

u_tamtam t1_j4xrk5p wrote

It's more nuanced than that. For instance, Chinese dumping caused many renewable companies in Europe to go bankrupt, which possibly slowed down innovation. I won't pretend to know the details of either, but often it happens that consolidation yields undesired consequences.

11

qingqunta t1_j4yfiqg wrote

The issue is the made in America part, which is anticompetitive.

3