Germany Gets 85% of Its Electricity from Renewables in Record-Breaking Weekend

[Megalith]

Deutschland has set a very impressive renewable energy record: during the last week of April, 85 percent of all energy consumed was produced solely via wind, solar, biomass, and hydroelectric power. Germany has already proven to be a winner at this sort of thing, boasting 40 percent of energy consumption coming from renewable sources in March, but it is particularly impressive when you compare their stats with places like the US, where we barely manage close to 20%.

According to recently released figures, for the last weekend of April, the country established a jaw-dropping new national record in this department — with 85 percent of all electricity consumed in Germany being produced through wind, solar, biomass, and hydroelectric power. Aided by a seasonal combination of windy but sunny weather, during that weekend the majority of Germany’s coal-fired power stations weren’t even operating, while nuclear power stations (which the country plans to phase out by the year 2022) were massively reduced in output.

 

[sleepeeg3]

Never mentioned... at what cost? Wind power costs 3x as much as the next best alternative and solar 6x. That raises the price of everything. They basically banned far more affordable nuclear power.

Germany is also ruining their views with 40 story windmills all over the countryside. Their famous black forest looks like War of the Worlds in some areas. Only going to get worse as they phase out nuclear power.

 

[SvenBent]

Record for germany maybe
Denmark has been doing 50% avg for same time and peaking at 130%


Byt still US believes its impossible to do....

 

[gxp500]

Byt still US believes its impossible to do....

Yes it is impossible... impossible to profit from it.

 

[CacaSapo]

I'll just leave this here.
http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/28/...e-by-2020-to-over-40-cents-per-kilowatt-hour/

 

[Deleted member 184142]

Record for germany maybe
Denmark has been doing 50% avg for same time and peaking at 130%


Byt still US believes its impossible to do....

US does not believe it is impossible to do, we understand it's not the right thing to do right now with the cost of tech and ROI.

Yes it is impossible... impossible to profit from it.

They will profit from it, it will hurt the normal working person however. Being that most of this is government regulated to happen, that means its expensive, and as the link above shows, prices of energy has sky rocketed and will continue to do so. What does this mean for the normal working class? It means they can't use energy like before, so it means cutting back on quality of living or giving up on significant uses of power. It also taxes all other users of power as cost of operation have now gone way up. The energy companies however don't care, as they are still making money, as well as getting subsidy from the government for expanding.

Other facts people don't consider when looking at this, Germany already had half the energy consumption of the US per capita. The US also has 4 times the population, with far less density, Germany has a population density of 240 sq mi, while the US is 85, makes supplying that sort of power much easier for Germany.

So yes, lets hate on the US for not forcing us to give even MORE massive subsidy to energy companies and driving up power costs by 4-500%, probably even more in the US given the reasons listed above.

 

[Domingow]

But still US believes its impossible to do....

I'm not going to pay $0.45 per KWH.
FUCK
THAT
NOISE

*Edit: For anyone wondering....that's the avg cost / KWH projected in 2020. Currently it's somewhere around 0.30.
Info in link posted above, some good reading and something to consider.

 

[GotNoRice]

I'm not seeing how this is "impressive". It's not like Solar, Wind, Hydro, etc are new or special in any way. And they really aren't particularly good technologies when it comes to power generation either...

It would be "impressive" to see a country increase it's Nuclear power generation, as Nuclear power is one of the safest, cleanest, cheapest, and most reliable forms of power known to man. Using nuclear would indicate a population that actually cares about science and fact as opposed to a population that is spoon-fed drama by the press about Nuclear being dangerous and bad.

 

[Ducman69]

I'm not going to pay $0.45 per KWH.
FUCK
THAT
NOISE

That's nothing compared to the sacrifices people make with regard to waste management. I have a recycle bin and I use it all the time, no problem. But in Germany we were given a comically small trashcan for the entire household, and the recycling was intensively laborious in the man hours required to sort your trash.

So for example here I have two truly massive trashcans, one for recycling with a huge list of acceptable items, and another for trash, picked up weekly from the front of my house for a very reasonable fee, and every Monday they come by and pick up very large items including hedge/tree cuttings and the like.

In my town in Germany, you have a tiny trashcan which required us to use a trash compactor. Then, you have to load up your vehicle with sorted trash. You had your dumpster for biowaste like egg shells and banana peels that sort of thing. Then you had the paper one where you have to break apart and fold down your amazon boxes and the like and even things like microwave food and envelopes, well they have plastic parts on them so those have to be seperated out. So then you take those separated pieces and other plastic items and that goes into the plastic recycling bin. You had not just bottle recycling, but you were expected to rinse them and put each bottle into a dumpster sorted by color... but not all bottles, because some of the bottles have to go back to the local soda bottler in town or to the grocery store that you brought it from. Except the corks, the corks have to go to cork recycling.

And don't you dare try to do any of this on Sunday, because that's not allowed, so you're doing this right after work or on Saturday.

Blame the Green party, the same ones that say that Germany doesn't belong to Germans (their party leader quote). Its like the German government really hates Germans, and is doing everything it can to piss them off.

 

[Jamison Collins]

I'll just leave this here.
http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/28/...e-by-2020-to-over-40-cents-per-kilowatt-hour/

Drive by climate denial... so brave.

Actually, if you use google translate on the original german page they don't dispute that global warming exists (at least I didn't find such dispute) but were more concerned with the impact of higher electricity prices on employment. Google translate being what it is obviously we have to make some allowances for the translated text

Please consider the future of your children and grandchildren, and perhaps their children. When industry has left Germany, no one in Germany has to worry about the world rescue in 2117 or the end of the coal and gas era. Is there not the future of your direct descendants more important than those of the people in future centuries.
We do not want to talk about the resources of the planet Earth, but we also ask you to take the right perspective: If the electricity in Germany has become so expensive that automation is no longer economical because of the additional electricity costs, there is only One way - namely, the factory.

Of course, being a non-sociopath I find such an attitude repulsive since we'd be trading on a minor impact on the lives of my children for avoided potentially massive problems in the future affecting everyone.

Interestingly, if you look at the unemployment situation in Germany you can see it doing far better than France

https://www.google.com/search?q=une.....69i57j0l5.4230j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

and also better than the US

https://www.google.com/search?q=une...=UTF-8#newwindow=1&q=unemployment+rate+in+usa

So obviously there's more to the picture than just electricity prices (I'd say 'duh' but obviously someone was sufficiently 'intrigued' by the linked page).

They mention a fear that higher electricity prices making it more expensive to automate jobs, which is so absurdly laughable. German labor costs would have to drop I don't know how much for them to become competitive with automation at any price for electricity.

EDIT:
I just compared the results for the US in that graph to this link https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.php?t=ptb0810 and you can see that the price of electricity cited is *not* adjusted for inflation. So, at least 50% of the total increase they are citing comes from inflation and has nothing to do with their local energy policy. Also, there are some other tricks they're playing with how they display the data in that graph (why did they decide to only show data for every 5 years until 2010 and then suddenly switch to annual? Because it exaggerates the slope of the increase.)

These aren't minor points and even if they were they wouldn't need to misrepresent the data so grossly if they thought their argument would stand up to scrutiny. Find a better denial link and pass this one by.

 

[daglesj]

Never mentioned... at what cost? Wind power costs 3x as much as the next best alternative and solar 6x. That raises the price of everything. They basically banned far more affordable nuclear power.

Germany is also ruining their views with 40 story windmills all over the countryside. Their famous black forest looks like War of the Worlds in some areas. Only going to get worse as they phase out nuclear power.
View attachment 24817View attachment 24813 View attachment 24814 View attachment 24815 View attachment 24816

Yeah but the thing is those turbines can be taken away in a few weeks and you would never know they were there. Same for most of the solar plants.

Those mountains in Virginia etc. your coal industry blew up...they will never come back.

However, I agree that nuclear is the way forward for most of our energy. Just not fossil fuel. That needs to stay where it is.

 

[daglesj]

I'm not going to pay $0.45 per KWH.
FUCK
THAT
NOISE

*Edit: For anyone wondering....that's the avg cost / KWH projected in 2020. Currently it's somewhere around 0.30.
Info in link posted above, some good reading and something to consider.

It's okay you can do it. You just don't run Prime95 for 72 hours to test your new RAM OC.

 

[Iratus]

Irrespective of whether you believe in climate change or not, I ain't getting into that one, surely everyone can agree less pollution is a good thing. Our cities are bad now but before environmental protections...

Those turbine pictures are funny, I don't look at that and think oh my god it's ruined. It's not like cooling towers are pretty. I just worry a bit about the birds.

Yes electricity with renewables costs too much, but for countries without massive oil and gas reserves it does anyway. Energy prices are literally one of the biggest inhibitors to economic development for huge portions of the world. If it's cheap enough even food and water become much more easily solved. They grow bananas in Iceland ffs (definitely where I'd set up my MJ grow farm). Renewables also won't get cheaper without investing more into it and getting economies of scale.

Personally, I'd go for nuclear, solar and hydro, with geothermal where you can without fucking things up. Gas for peak capacity and battery for keeping the grid going.

Of course even countries with massive gas reserves can be expensive. Australia is one of the biggest gas producers on the planet and electricity is still horrifically expensive (because we export it, to countries that have cheaper electricity than we do lol). Boggles my mind that we don't lead the world in solar and battery technology, being the biggest lithium producer in the world, with a highly educated workforce and a massive empty country that is sunny as fuck we should be, but we take the economically lazy option and ship it to china because long term thinking seems to be beyond the capability of entirely too many western governments.

We also are the biggest uranium miner and don't have a nuclear industry, fucking idiots. And yes I know nuclear has problems, like not being renewable and having an horrific waste problem, but reengineering the grids for a renewable base load capacity will likely take a couple of generations.

 

[nightfly]

Never mentioned... at what cost? Wind power costs 3x as much as the next best alternative and solar 6x. That raises the price of everything. They basically banned far more affordable nuclear power. Germany is also ruining their views with 40 story windmills all over the countryside. Their famous black forest looks like War of the Worlds in some areas. Only going to get worse as they phase out nuclear power.

and

I'm not seeing how this is "impressive". It's not like Solar, Wind, Hydro, etc are new or special in any way. And they really aren't particularly good technologies when it comes to power generation either. It would be "impressive" to see a country increase it's Nuclear power generation, as Nuclear power is one of the safest, cleanest, cheapest, and most reliable forms of power known to man. Using nuclear would indicate a population that actually cares about science and fact as opposed to a population that is spoon-fed drama by the press about Nuclear being dangerous and bad.

And yet, the folks in Japan (Chernobyl, etc.) wouldn't have had the radiation situation they had if instead of nuclear, they had used renewables. The nuclear power industry is still build on the belief that large problems concerning containment will never happen (or at least, not until the executives who approve the thing are still available to be liable for the decision made to 'go cheaper' whenever possible). Then, of course, the problem with nuclear remains what to do with the waste. Of course, WE don't have to worry about it, as we'll be long dead by then. Screw the next generation. Let them worry about it. After all, that's been our motto so far, right?

 

[daglesj]

I've said for a long time the Greens should ditch the term 'climate change' and go back to pushing for cleaning up 'pollution'. Most people find pollution such as a poisoned lake, trash floating in the sea, animals choking very hard to deny, not to mention the affect it has on humans directly. So if they concentrated on cleaning up the planet, chances are as a side benefit we'll also deal with the stuff affecting climate change.

Climate Change only 'exists' as a means for a lot of people make a lot of money out of effectively doing nothing but shoving paper and made up targets around.

Go for something far more tangible.

 

[c3k]

Edited because it's not even worth trying to engage the climate changers.

 

[potency]

Edited because it's not even worth trying to engage the climate changers.

...because education and political corruption have no effect on either of those countries, electricity is the only factor. Sigh.

 

[SvenBent]

its funny seeing people argue about cost and then only mention price. Price is not the only cost of the energy being provided.

However though price does hit the US harder than 1st world countries due to the massive amount of energy inefficiency. Seem like we are just caught in a downward spiral here

- No need to gain better efficiency because electricity is cheap.
- not worth it to go "green" energy because the cost is to much with this huge in inefficiency...

 

[753951]

It's interesting how they say: "wind, solar, biomass, and hydroelectric power". I'm willing to bet that energy produced from each source is exactly inverse. Most by hydro, and far, far, FAR less by wind/solar. But then, there wouldn't be any news.

 

[Iratus]

It's a shame you removed the point about the link between energy and poverty c3k. I entirely agree, as I alluded to, energy is one of the biggest obstacles to development. As has been true since the industrial revolution.

That is actually one of the big problems I have with the climate accords, poorer countries need energy and it needs to be cheap. Saying they can't use the cheap stuff because we fucked up and polluted the planet is ridiculous and puts huge amounts of people in poverty.

I did economics and it's an issue I'm enormously torn on, because I hate market distortions and think they need to be largely removed on both sides (tax breaks for traditional and incentives for new) we do need more energy, we need it everywhere, we need it cheap and we need to reduce our pollution in doing it.

i'd be a lot richer than I am now if I could solve that one.

 

[sleepeeg3]

And yet, the folks in Japan (Chernobyl, etc.) wouldn't have had the radiation situation they had if instead of nuclear, they had used renewables. The nuclear power industry is still build on the belief that large problems concerning containment will never happen (or at least, not until the executives who approve the thing are still available to be liable for the decision made to 'go cheaper' whenever possible). Then, of course, the problem with nuclear remains what to do with the waste. Of course, WE don't have to worry about it, as we'll be long dead by then. Screw the next generation. Let them worry about it. After all, that's been our motto so far, right?

More people die from air pollution from coal/oil every year (110k) than all major nuclear power accidents ever recorded (Chernobyl = 4000, Fukushima = 0-573, 3 Mile Island = 0). If there is no nuclear, wind/solar require coal/oil as a baseline energy generator or expensive batteries. Renewables come at great cost (excluding hydro, geothermal).

On top of that, there are several Gen IV reactors that are meltdown proof. Unfortunately, the green lobbyists have prevented them from ever being built, because it would destroy their industry. Wind/solar are potentially great options, but not until efficiencies improve dramatically.

 

[GotNoRice]

And yet, the folks in Japan (Chernobyl, etc.) wouldn't have had the radiation situation they had if instead of nuclear, they had used renewables. The nuclear power industry is still build on the belief that large problems concerning containment will never happen (or at least, not until the executives who approve the thing are still available to be liable for the decision made to 'go cheaper' whenever possible). Then, of course, the problem with nuclear remains what to do with the waste. Of course, WE don't have to worry about it, as we'll be long dead by then. Screw the next generation. Let them worry about it. After all, that's been our motto so far, right?

Modern nuclear power is very safe. Anyone who freaks out at the word "nuclear" is never going to be convinced of that of course. The few "safety" issues that remain are largely a result of old plants having to stay online because "nuclear is scary" and no one wants to authorize construction of newer (and safer) plants - as counter-intuitive as that is. It's clearly a complex industry where safety needs to be taken very seriously, but if we get to the point where we can't take advantage of amazing technologies because of irrational fear and lack of understanding of how the technology actually works, it will be a very dark day for the US.

Nuclear waste safely stored in a containment facility doesn't harm the environment. Far more than can be said for most types of power generation (much of the 90% of our power generation that is NOT renewable) where the waste is just pumped right into the atmosphere and ultimately right into our lungs.

Renewable power is great but it is too expensive and simply cannot realistically ever account for more than a small fraction of our power generation, given how much power we actually use. Focusing on renewables and shunning Nuclear means that the majority of power generation ends up coming from things like coal... I get that people love to think that they are an environmental hero, patting themselves on the back because they are saving the world when they support renewable power - but that other 90% of our power still has to come from somewhere, and Nuclear is by far the cleanest choice that could potentially ever actually fill that gap.

And thanks for letting me know that Chernobyl is in Japan.

 

[Jamison Collins]

Renewable power ... simply cannot realistically ever account for more than a small fraction of our power generation, given how much power we actually use.

What are you basing this on?

Edit: If you were saying this based on the cost argument then no need to clarify. I thought you were saying it was outright impractical.

 

[SpeedyVV]

What are you basing this on?

Edit: If you were saying this based on the cost argument then no need to clarify. I thought you were saying it was outright impractical.

AMD GPUs

 

[Iratus]

Yeah that's not true, one of the Australian states is 44% renewable as a matter of course. First world country, incredibly high power use (40 degrees plus most of the summer, yay air con) That's a reasonable percentage in anyone's book.

Of course they also had blackouts because the grid had been underinvested and couldn't deal with peaks properly and prices are whack, but they're whack everywhere here.

America's problems aren't special or unique, it just has a unique benefit of natural resources and economies of scale in purchasing power (plus the commodities currency) It's just like the petroleum argument, why have more fuel efficient cars, our petrol is cheap.

It's a nuanced arguement that needs a nuanced response. America saying fuck everyone else because we're alright is just as wrong as saying we should double energy prices in the US to make it equal with everyone else.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

Yes it is impossible... impossible to profit from it.

The only 'profitable' energy source is coal. All other energy sources require government investment/subsidies to function.

There's no reason you can't generate 100% of your energy from renewables, it's simply more expensive up front because you need lots of new infrastructure to do it.

 

[snowcrash]

Modern nuclear power is very safe. Anyone who freaks out at the word "nuclear" is never going to be convinced of that of course. The few "safety" issues that remain are largely a result of old plants having to stay online because "nuclear is scary" and no one wants to authorize construction of newer (and safer) plants - as counter-intuitive as that is. It's clearly a complex industry where safety needs to be taken very seriously, but if we get to the point where we can't take advantage of amazing technologies because of irrational fear and lack of understanding of how the technology actually works, it will be a very dark day for the US.

Nuclear waste safely stored in a containment facility doesn't harm the environment. Far more than can be said for most types of power generation (much of the 90% of our power generation that is NOT renewable) where the waste is just pumped right into the atmosphere and ultimately right into our lungs.

Renewable power is great but it is too expensive and simply cannot realistically ever account for more than a small fraction of our power generation, given how much power we actually use. Focusing on renewables and shunning Nuclear means that the majority of power generation ends up coming from things like coal... I get that people love to think that they are an environmental hero, patting themselves on the back because they are saving the world when they support renewable power - but that other 90% of our power still has to come from somewhere, and Nuclear is by far the cleanest choice that could potentially ever actually fill that gap.

And thanks for letting me know that Chernobyl is in Japan.

Of course. Everything is fine until something unexpected happens.

"Anyone who freaks out at the word "nuclear"... How about: "Trust me, nothing bad will happen. Everything we're doing here is state of the art." Famous last words.

 

[westrock2000]

Never mentioned... at what cost? Wind power costs 3x as much as the next best alternative and solar 6x. That raises the price of everything. They basically banned far more affordable nuclear power.

They didn't ban it.....they just decided to import it from France on the downlow, lol. That decision may now cost Germany billions in order to pay off the nuclear companies they put out of business in Germany.

 

[westrock2000]

And yet, the folks in Japan wouldn't have had the radiation situation they had if instead of nuclear, they had used renewables.

In Japan's defense, the nuclear reactor DID survive an earthquake. It was the resulting massive tsunami that killed 18,000 people and did $300 Billion dollars in damages that finally killed the reactor.

 

[chenw]

Also, bear in mind that Germany is close to getting surplus energy out of Nuclear Fusion, which is the next big step in clean energy.

 

[Uvaman2]

Never mentioned... at what cost? Wind power costs 3x as much as the next best alternative and solar 6x. That raises the price of everything. They basically banned far more affordable nuclear power.

Germany is also ruining their views with 40 story windmills all over the countryside. Their famous black forest looks like War of the Worlds in some areas. Only going to get worse as they phase out nuclear power.
View attachment 24817 View attachment 24813 View attachment 24814 View attachment 24815 View attachment 24816

GOD! rrrrggggh, GOD my eyes, I am so fucking pissed at humanity right now. Jeez think of the children!, God the horror! I am smashing my keyboard, right now!!!
DON'T THE KNOW!!! THIS IS THE RIGHT WAY TO DO THINGS!!
https://goo.gl/images/OXFO5e
Fucking German assholes.

 

[Iratus]

lol, I like this one. Right in the middle of one of the top wine regions.

'Clean coal', that PR person needs a punch in the face

 

[Tsumi]

Of course. Everything is fine until something unexpected happens.

"Anyone who freaks out at the word "nuclear"... How about: "Trust me, nothing bad will happen. Everything we're doing here is state of the art." Famous last words.

Chernobyl was the result of stupid people doing stupid things and pushing equipment beyond set safety limits. Fukushima was a perfect storm of a natural disaster and "green" politics preventing timely safety upgrades to an aging plant, hardly state of the art. 3 Mile Island was the result of poor training and not so state of the art design.

Care to try again?

 

[chenw]

Chernobyl was the result of stupid people doing stupid things and pushing equipment beyond set safety limits. Fukushima was a perfect storm of a natural disaster and "green" politics preventing timely safety upgrades to an aging plant, hardly state of the art. 3 Mile Island was the result of poor training and not so state of the art design.

Care to try again?

I think that's the main problem with fission: it's too sensitive to human error.

 

[snowcrash]

Chernobyl was the result of stupid people doing stupid things and pushing equipment beyond set safety limits. Fukushima was a perfect storm of a natural disaster and "green" politics preventing timely safety upgrades to an aging plant, hardly state of the art. 3 Mile Island was the result of poor training and not so state of the art design.

Care to try again?

Are you f*cking making excuses? Even using cliched descriptors such as "The Perfect Storm". Especially after what I just wrote and you even quoted. No wonder history always repeats itself. The stupidity we humans do to ourselves.

We should declare you as the greatest human being. You have the power of hindsight. Able to explain away anything. You're God.

What makes us human? We make mistakes.

 

[c3k]

Climate changers are classic liberal "feel-good addicts". They MUST shut off any information which directly disputes their "I feel good" stance. There is hard science that endorphin addiction is real. If it feels good, you do it again. That's why liberals think that "liking" something on facebook is somehow equated with "doing" something. It doesn't matter: they feel good.

In the same way, any science about climatology is violently and virulently shut down. Look at the cursing and purposeful changed quote attributed to me (wrongly) upstream. Typical liberal/socialist/controlist/statist tactics to shut down any intellectual debate.

Any factual content which conflicts with their pre-conceived notions creates a cognitive dissonance. They, literally, cannot stand that. The conflict between their "feel good" and the facts creates a real problem for them. The only acceptable result is to deny the facts and support their "feel good", by whatever means.

Until these "feel gooders" start basing decisions on intellectualism based on facts, it is not worthwhile to even attempt to have a rational discussion. They are, literally, irrational. "Climate change" is a faith. It is a religious cult and the cultists must be de-programmed before any progress can be made.

 

[Iratus]

Climate changers are classic liberal "feel-good addicts". They MUST shut off any information which directly disputes their "I feel good" stance. There is hard science that endorphin addiction is real. If it feels good, you do it again. That's why liberals think that "liking" something on facebook is somehow equated with "doing" something. It doesn't matter: they feel good.

In the same way, any science about climatology is violently and virulently shut down. Look at the cursing and purposeful changed quote attributed to me (wrongly) upstream. Typical liberal/socialist/controlist/statist tactics to shut down any intellectual debate.

Any factual content which conflicts with their pre-conceived notions creates a cognitive dissonance. They, literally, cannot stand that. The conflict between their "feel good" and the facts creates a real problem for them. The only acceptable result is to deny the facts and support their "feel good", by whatever means.

Until these "feel gooders" start basing decisions on intellectualism based on facts, it is not worthwhile to even attempt to have a rational discussion. They are, literally, irrational. "Climate change" is a faith. It is a religious cult and the cultists must be de-programmed before any progress can be made.

C3k You're referring to liberalism now and socialism previously but I'm not sure what they've got to do with it in the context of the various conversations in this thread. There's a minor point about governments providing tax incentives to cleaner energy but no one is really talking about that.

It's a bit disingenuous to moan about fact based debate but make what is in effect an ad hominem attack based on what you think someone's political bent is. Believing in one type of energy over another or climate change or not is nothing to do with someone's conservatism or liberalism, it's just an associative relationship that a social liberal is more likely to care.

I'm bringing it up because you've made good points, now and earlier and they get weakened by association. I'm actually interested in the facts on this stuff.

 

[MaZa]

I'm not seeing how this is "impressive". It's not like Solar, Wind, Hydro, etc are new or special in any way. And they really aren't particularly good technologies when it comes to power generation either...

It would be "impressive" to see a country increase it's Nuclear power generation, as Nuclear power is one of the safest, cleanest, cheapest, and most reliable forms of power known to man. Using nuclear would indicate a population that actually cares about science and fact as opposed to a population that is spoon-fed drama by the press about Nuclear being dangerous and bad.

But thats the thing. Once we run out of Uranium or any fuel suitable for nuclear power humanity and our modern way of living is fucked. I'd like to see majority of power generated by renewable sources (even if it is unstable) so we can save the nuclear for sciency stuff where renewables are simply not suitable. IE powering space ships in the future and so on. I'm not a hippie trying to save climate, I just like to think ahead of my time and not condemn the future generations so I can have easy and cheap living right now.

 

[Bahanime]

People who bring up Fukushima are absolutely ignorant of the fact those reactors were built during the cold war era, 60s, first generation reactors. And they held up against a Magnitude 9.3 to 9.5 earthquake and Tsunami without exploding leaking radiation everywhere killing everybody nearby (0 deaths from Fukushima).

Today's technology can enable safe nuclear reactors, ones that run clean and provide useful byproducts, on fuel that's abundant. If only we phased out fossil fuels long ago and went with Thorium, the world would be a much cleaner planet.

 

[Bahanime]

But thats the thing. Once we run out of Uranium or any fuel suitable for nuclear power humanity and our modern way of living is fucked. I'd like to see majority of power generated by renewable sources (even if it is unstable) so we can save the nuclear for sciency stuff where renewables are simply not suitable. IE powering space ships in the furure and so on. I'm not a hippie trying to save climate, I just like to think ahead of my time and not condemn the future generations so I can have easy and cheap living right now.

I want to present to you a fact that most people who think renewables are clean and everlasting. It is not. Wind & Solar rely on a abundance of rare earth minerals which are very toxic and environmentally destructive to mine. The purification and processing of these rare earths into voltaic cells and windmill coils consume great quantities of energy, which at their source (CHINA supplies most of the world's rare earth), is energy from fossil fuels...

All you are doing with wind or solar is transfer your guilt to the chinese, who pollute to make it possible for you to enjoy your "clean" renewables (it's not renewable btw, rare earths are finite & the more you extract them, the more expensive it becomes).

Read this to get a sense of what solar in particular is doing more harm than good: http://www.news.com.au/travel/world...h/news-story/371376b9893492cfc77d23744ca12bc5

ps. This applies to all of our lithium ion batteries and like technologies, all very reliant on rare earth minerals.