kravietz 🦇 @kravietz@social.privacytools.io

@strypey

And this is an actual advertisement from Australian Mining company presenting themselves (in this case honestly) as key supplier for RE industry. Tell me more about "fossil and nuclear plants require an efficient supply chain of mined fuels" that RE does not.

@strypey

> Renewables can use local sources

Sorry, again ignorance and wishful thinking. This is resources flow diagram for typical renewable energy technologies. Tell me more about "local sources".

@strypey

So your "a few points to consider" are just a way to convince *yourself* that 100% RE is practically possible but in reality are a mix of wishful thinking and denial.

This is no different from climate deniers ("oh we can just use geoengineering when it becomes too hot") and has exactly the same effect as climate deniers.

This denial has consequences in both cases: thanks to this denial by Greens, Germany right now emits 5x more CO2 from energy sector than France.

@strypey

> Most high energy manufacturing is (or could be) done during the day

No, it cannot be because most of the industrial processes are long-term and continuous. You cannot just switch a huge installation on and off at will, if it requires 3 days to power up.

@strypey

> Baseline can be provided by geothermal, hydro (both lakes and micro), or tidal

Sorry, but you doing what all RE proponents are doing and I find it quite arrogant: you are just throwing some random prospective ideas without really doing any maths.

No, you cannot get any reasonable amount of energy if you're not in Iceland. In most of Europe you'll drill 1 km down and get lukewarm water which is useless. No, you cannot build more hydro dams anywhere in Europe.

@strypey

> Offshore wind is pretty constant

And I'm not sure if you fully comprehend the scale of wind farms required to replace any non-intermittent plants.

This picture gives you and idea about the amount of wind turbines you need for UK. It's based on old data, but using the latest turbines does change only as much as the "belt" would be thinner by around 30%.

@strypey

> Offshore wind is pretty constant

Yes, which gives it 40% annual efficiency at best.

Which means a 400 MW off-shore wind farm at best location will on average produce 40% of the energy it would produce if it worked at 400 MW all the time.

Which means to replace one 400 MW non-intermittent plant (coal, gas, nuclear) you need to build 2.5x larger off-shore wind farm.

@strypey

Most of your talking points are based on the "for nuclear pick the oldest tech and worst-case scenarios, for RE pick the latest & best-case" fallacy.

This "hey we love nuclear but we just won't make it in time" is a perfect example.

Mmost nuclear plants are built in or under 5 years. This is the data. The two projects that anti-nuclear activists uses as flagship examples of delays - HPC and Flamanville - were delayed specifically by anti-nuclear activists by all means possible.