RT @gretathunberg
Germany is opening a new coal power plant this summer. It’s run by Finnish state-owned Fortum.
Swedish state-owned Vattenfall is already operating new coal plants in Germany.
Everyone involved claims to be “climate leaders” but this is the opposite of leadership.
This is failure. https://twitter.com/fridayforfuture/status/1262314065843695617
@gretathunberg This is because Germany dismantled its nuclear power plan.
I'm sorry, but this is just reality hitting home. If you are anti-nuclear, you're pro-coal.
cc @kravietz
@drq
That's a false binary.
Germany also dismantled its solar power plan, and significantly dampened the wind power development. If it had not, one coal plant would be easy-peasy to replace. And that's not even taking into account all the gas plants which exist but are rarely used.
Building coal plants today is in direct contradiction to any plans to protect the climate.
@Mr_Teatime Solar is never going to replace nuclear. Nor is wind. Thy are not as reliable, not as controllable, and nowhere even near its energy density.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gg9_zTlg4M
See this? This is the insides of the Electric Arc Furnace. This is the technology that lets us melt steel without using coal or gas. It is used to recycle scrap metal into useful material. Waste into new things. Every given moment the temperature inside this giant arc welder must exceed 1800 degrees centigrade when in operation.
I can see households be powered by solar or wind, probably. I want to power mine with solar and wind myself when I get a suitable one someday. I can't see solar or wind powering heavy industries like this anytime soon, save for maybe a Dyson sphere. And the stuff people use must come from somewhere, it has to be made by someone, and powered by something. I'd rather it be powered by electricity, than by coal or gas.
And we already have a way to do it.
To be honest, I don't know. But we're getting into more details here than necessary.
Any coal plant built today signals intention to dig up and burn coal for the next x decades, therefore it's not compatible with sensible climate policy. Nuclear power has its own issues, and I don't think any amount of nuclear energy is going to save us, either. Because no single measure is enough, and because it creates other problems for which we have no solution.
@gretathunberg @kravietz @drq
@Mr_Teatime @loonycyborg @gretathunberg @drq
You're absolutely right here. We should be adding more wind and solar, as much as possible, but since 100% is not possible, for baseline we should use nuclear which is zero emissions, rather than gas and coal.
Decarbonization is the priority now. In 30 years we might have nuclear fusion which is zero emissions and does not produce any waste, or some other completely new technology.
@kravietz
Gah, I think I misread your comment.
Nuclear fission might (might!) be a very helpful piece of the puzzle. If it works, and works safely, and there's no catch of the kind that anyone with a sense for good stories would expect if life was a book, or a movie.
my conclusion: we should totally try to work that out, but we should not rely on it, at least yet.
@Mr_Teatime @loonycyborg @gretathunberg @drq
> Nuclear fission
FUsion! FIssion is what we do now :)
> we should totally try to work that out but we should not rely on it, at least yet
Exactly! And now it's the moment you should realize that the very same argument that is pulled to dismiss fusion also applies to power-to-gas, smart grid, hydrogen and other prospective technologies on which theoretical 100% renewable depends.
