Growth in german wind capacity is slowing. Soo… then the plan is to keep on with lignite and gas? Am I missing something?

Installed Wind Capacty - Germany

German Wind Capacity

  • WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Given this thread is about new nuclear, I’m not sure why you are making up beliefs about what someone else in the thread believes. Personally a fan of old nuclear plants since their biggest expense (financial and likely ecological) is making them, so keeping them running is good as long as we are relying on fossil fuels.

    is it possible they’re running into some limits on how much they can generate efficiently that way?

    Why just speculate on it while insinuation someone is wrong about something when you could look it up? From what I can gather, it looks like administration/licensing delays, court cases, and rules limiting how close they can be to residential buildings (apparently 10 times the height of the turbine) are the main contributors to the slowdown.

    Also, solar is still growing more quickly and 2023 is having quicker growth in wind than last year (which was itself an increase from the previous year), so the trend being shown may already be outdated. Granted, inflation apparently are an issue now (not when the slowdown happened, but now as the rate of wind installation is increasing). And the rate of increase isn’t enough imo, but building new nuclear instead of using the same resources to build solar or wind at this point means relying more on fossil fuels.

    • Ertebolle@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      He is, in fact, arguing against keeping existing plants running too. (I suspected he believed this and he did indeed)

      rules limiting how close they can be to residential buildings (apparently 10 times the height of the turbine)

      These… don’t seem like crazy rules; I don’t know how this works in other legal systems but in the US every little podunk wind installation in a residential area is going to be tied up in years of lawsuits over this sort of thing.

      building new nuclear instead of using the same resources to build solar or wind at this point means relying more on fossil fuels

      I don’t think it is the same resources, that’s part of my point. I don’t think there’s a finite pool of money here; the limitations on solar / wind have as much to do with raw materials and suitable locations as anything else, if nuclear provides an additional path to getting carbon-free energy on line (and with the added benefit of not needing to worry about storage, which is going to bring its own rat’s nest of location + raw material problems once we get to it) then we ought to be encouraging it as well.

      • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        At no point have I said that we should shut down nuclear power plants that are still running effectively, I must request that you redact your false claims, I do not appreciate these libellous remarks. I explained reasons behind why nuclear power plants are decommissioned. I’m sure you understand that no-one believes that nuclear power plants should be built once and run forever and ever.

      • WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nuclear has more location issues than renewable. Do you think people want a nuclear plant in their backyard?

        It’s the same issues of will, money, and location that limit both. Why waste all of those on nuclear in 20 years when the grid is unstable today?