Growth in german wind capacity is slowing. Soo… then the plan is to keep on with lignite and gas? Am I missing something?

Installed Wind Capacty - Germany

German Wind Capacity

  • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ah, by mentioning thorium, you activated my trap card. I know you guys can’t resist it. Everyone in the industry knows it’s a pipe dream. It’s not viable with current tech.

      • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You didn’t really make a point, you randomly mentioned that Thorium reactors were made in the 60s and stated something irrelevant to do with nuclear weapons. I don’t care whether Thorium was or was not researched, nor why that may or may not have been the case - Thorium-based nuclear reactors are not at present a viable source of electricity generation.

        A 2010 National Nuclear Laboratory report concluded the thorium fuel cycle ‘is likely to have only a limited role internationally for some years ahead’ and concluded claims for thorium were ‘overstated’.

        Even if thorium technology does progress to the point where it might be commercially viable, it will face the same problems as conventional nuclear: it is not renewable or sustainable. And that’s A LONG way off.

        • Ertebolle@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          “A 2010 National Nuclear Laboratory report” “for some years ahead”

          It’s 2023, “some years ahead” is, y’know, now. 13 is “some.” Quite a few, actually.

        • Ertebolle@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, it’s still commercial-scale, not a “pipe dream” or “not viable with current tech.”

          • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            “not viable” is different from “impossible”, it just means that it’s gonna be too expensive and not worth doing compared to, yknow, just spending the money on renewables instead.

      • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nobody is saying that a thorium reactor can’t be built, I’m saying it’s a waste of money, energy, time and resources that would be better spent on renewables, and that the energy produced would be both more expensive and more environmentally damaging than the same power generated by renewables.

        • Ertebolle@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Based on what? And how can you possibly make that claim with any confidence if nobody’s built one until now?

          • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            nobody’s built one until now

            They’ve been a technology that we’ve known about since the 1960s… we determined in the 60s it wasn’t as efficient as uranium.

            • escapesamsara@discuss.online
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              We also determined in the 1960s that solar power was a pipe dream and it would never be efficient enough on a large scale to be worth investing in.

              Maybe don’t use an Appeal to Antiquity.