
toastmeister
You’re also burning lignite coal now, which you take from Africa who is now having blackouts. But it went pretty poorly overall phasing out nuclear for renewables.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany
Key to Germany’s energy policies and politics is the Energiewende, meaning “energy turnaround” or “energy transformation”. The policy includes nuclear phaseout (completed in 2023) and progressive replacement of fossil fuels by renewables. However, contrary to plan, the nuclear electricity production lost in Germany’s phase-out was primarily replaced with coal electricity production and electricity importing. One study found that the nuclear phase-out caused $12 billion in social costs per year, primarily due to increases in mortality due to exposure to pollution from fossil fuels.
This study disagrees after taking into account storage.
https://advisoranalyst.com/2023/05/11/bofa-the-nuclear-necessity.html/
Storage and production of renewables is also done by shipping in Chinese products created burning coal and ignoring environmental concerns. This all hinges on exporting emissions and labor to areas that don’t care about pollution.
I’d also argue that nuclear tech can likely proceed faster than storage, given the dangerous nature of energy storage. Even something as basic as storing water can cause deaths given what happens when dams break, stored energy is volatile by nature.
Well wind farms won’t help, if you need 100% reliability. Storage I figured was more expensive than nuclear after adding all the costs together, creating enough hydro for backup is extremely expensive as well.
You’re essentially building a hydro power plant, water storage, pumps, and wind turbine at that point.
Daylight savings time please. Call it the sleep an extra hour referendum so there’s no ambiguity.