kravietz 🦇 @kravietz@social.privacytools.io

@sheogorath @pro Then, check Sweden population density...

@sheogorath @pro Please go to electricitymap.org now and check what energy mix Sweden *actually* is using :)

@sheogorath @pro You're singling out *one* technology and applying "worst case" scenario just to it, that is in addition completely exaggerated in the context of today's technology.

But you ignore climate change which will be more destructive than any nuclear incident, ignore coal waste, gas leaks, rare earth mining, physical constraints of renewables etc - but to nuclear you apply a battery of unjustified fears - so yes, this *is* irrational :)

@sheogorath @pro No, we cannot. There's no single nuclear plant in the EU built in an active seismic zone with risk of tsunami.

@sheogorath

Blocking building of new nuclear plants in Germany is "denial" and "against science" too, yet it's effective.

It's funny how you complain about irrational arguments being raised against renewables, while raising the same irrational arguments against nuclear. Clearly, karma works :)

@pro

@sheogorath

Number of people killed and permanently injured as result of nuclear power in Europe and "in countries with comparable safety regulations" is zero.

Sorry, but your argument only demonstrated the absurdity of "worst case scenario" *and* bias towards nuclear.

@pro

@sheogorath

And obviously nobody is looking into *these* "worst case scenarios" because Greens simply *want* nuclear out and *anything* else in. But this is not how engineering works, which is precisely why it's "nuclear out, fossil gas in".

@pro

@sheogorath

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Germany is *already* hitting its limits of land available for wind farms, and to move further with renewables it would need to occupy further thousands of km2.

And if you are indeed considering "the worst scenario" indeed, then you need to also look into possibility of mass gas explosion at power-to-gas and hydrogen processing installations that can destroy whole cities, hydro dam collapses and house fires caused by roof solars.

@pro

@sheogorath @pro

Looking at real world examples: Rampion off-shore wind farm in UK has 116 towers that occupy 70 km2 (!) and has nominal output of 700MW. In case of off-shore wind, that can be utilised up to 40% due to intermittency.

Nearby Dungeness nuclear power plant has just one block of 600MW that can be utilised up to 95% and occupies maybe 1 km2.

This, in my opinion, is a huge difference...

@sheogorath @pro That's why I was asking - because I've seen this chart before:

@pro

Can you provide references for wind & solar power consumption at - I guess - manufacturing phase and EROEI? Obviously, in discussions about German energy policy these are rarely raised...

@sheogorath