this post was submitted on 24 May 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)

World News

38548 readers
1965 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sqibkw@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

My guess is that in a climate like Germany's, solar isn't consistent enough to provide the steady baseline power that coal plants can.

One of the complexities of power infrastructure is that demand must be met instantaneously and exactly. Coal and solar typically occupy different roles in a grid's power sources. Coal plants are slow to start, but very consistent, so they provide baseline power. Solar is virtually instantaneous, but inconsistent, so it's better suited to handle the daily fluctuations.

So, in a place like Germany, even in abundance, solar can't realistically replace coal until we have a good way of storing power to act as a buffer. Of course, nuclear is a fantastic replacement for coal, but we all know how Germany's politicians feel about it...

[–] yetAnotherUser@feddit.de 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

We also know building nuclear takes 20 years and costs more than building thrice the capacity in renewables + Germany has no long-term nuclear storage, only temporary one's a la Simpsons.

[–] Zorcron@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Germany had 17 active nuclear plants in 2011 and decommissioned them all by 2023.

[–] Beinofenstrot@feddit.de 0 points 3 months ago

They were already past their expiry date. Germany would face the same shit France is facing with their old reactors.

[–] Danquebec@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Coulnd't we use solar to pump water into reservoirs, and then let the water flow through hydroelectrical dams when we need the electricity?

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

[yes](> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity)

Taking into account conversion losses and evaporation losses from the exposed water surface, energy recovery of 70–80% or more can be achieved. This technique is currently the most cost-effective means of storing large amounts of electrical energy, but capital costs and the necessity of appropriate geography are critical decision factors in selecting pumped-storage plant sites.

[–] Danquebec@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Oh wow, I had no idea this existed. Awesome!

[–] Sternout@feddit.de 0 points 3 months ago

Wait Are these not common where you are?