I think you replied to the wrong comment by accident lol
Iceblade02
joined 2 years ago
Oh wow, that's awesome!
and this is a short intro to why a (60%/40%) split between renewables and nuclear may be the most accessible fossil free solution, and why the value of adding more variable renewables to a grid falls sharply the closer you get to 100%.
Also, the last article you posted is paywalled.
The criticism is extraordinarily simple and justified.
Which is better, Renewables and Nuclear or Renewables and Fossil Fuels?
Germany could have had an almost entirely fossil free grid by now, but instead they chose renewables & fossil fuels.
New archetypes of NP can run on depleted fuel. There's enough of that around for more than 50yrs of power.
Does manual license allow driving automatics? Where I live there are auto licences, which can only drive autos, and "regular" onees
Yes I can, Sweden, born in the 00's and my car is a 90s manual.
Wow, this is awful. Huge cudos to y'all for holding on through this. It's obviously a deliberate attack on the fediverse by malicious actors.
Looks kinda cute, I like it
I did not claim that, I suspect that you misunderstood something.
I'll clarify what I meant for your benefit. Germany has constructed a lot of new renewable power in the past two decades, which is great, but they prioritized shutting down nuclear power plants instead of fossil fuelled power. Because of this, they still get ~50% of their electricity from fossil fuels, which is not so great.
If they instead had prioritized phasing out fossil fuelled power plants, that number would've been more like 20-30%, and more crucially, they could've phased out their entire fleet of coal power plants. Ergo, criticism of German energy policy is entirely justified.