Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
lol https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1647325445379989506
17 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
timdaub
@timdaub.eth
https://i.imgur.com/4mwqqGg.jpg
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
"generation from lignite increased by 5.4% and generation from hard coal increased by 21.4%." https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/germanys-power-consumption-falls-2022-generation-renewables-rises.html
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
timdaub
@timdaub.eth
yeah but Nuclear is base load, and for renewables, we need dynamic sources like coal, gas, hydro
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
https://twitter.com/_HannahRitchie/status/1632730993781030915
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
timdaub
@timdaub.eth
yeah but that‘s expected, isn‘t it? What‘s the point of producing a +x% base load when the only capacity crunch is producing within the solar and wind generation-valleys?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
The critique is nuclear is completely safe and the only viable path to 100% carbon free energy in the near term. Shutting down existing nuclear plants to only turn on coal is antithetical to decarbonizing the energy mix.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
eunika🍒
@eunika.eth
I don’t understand shutting down existing plants for sure. But nuclear energy is not scalable at all there simply isn’t enough Uranium in the world for it to be a viable long term solution.
3 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
timdaub
@timdaub.eth
Coal is mined here and plugs the hole when the renewables aren‘t producing. It‘s obviously bad for the environment and the plan was use natural gas (which emits less). That didn‘t work bc war. But suggesting to up base load through nuclear now, how does that make sense? It doesn‘t solve the problem.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction